Hubbry Logo
Shark netShark netMain
Open search
Shark net
Community hub
Shark net
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Shark net
Shark net
Shark net
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Simplified diagram of shark net in New South Wales, Australia

A shark net is a submerged section of gillnets placed at beaches designed to intercept large marine animals including sharks, with the aim to reduce the likelihood of shark attacks on swimmers. The gillnets form a wall of netting that hangs in the water and captures the marine animals by entanglement.

Shark nets do not create an exclusion zone between sharks and humans, and are not to be confused with shark barriers.

Shark nets do not completely prevent shark attacks in the enclosed area, but work on the principle of "fewer sharks, fewer attacks". Specifically, they aim to reduce occurrence of attacks by entangling and via shark mortality. Shark nets such as those in New South Wales are designed to entangle and capture sharks that pass near them.[1] Reducing the local shark populations reduces the chance of an attack.

Historical shark attack figures suggest that the use of shark nets and drumlines does markedly reduce the incidence of shark attack when implemented on a regular and consistent basis.[2][3][4] However a 2019 study argued this conclusion overlooks key factors.[5] The large mesh size of the nets is designed specifically to capture sharks and prevent their escape until eventually, they drown. Due to boating activity, the nets also float 4 metres or more below the surface and do not connect with the shoreline (excluding Hong Kong's shark barrier nets) thus allowing sharks the opportunity to swim over and around nets. Shark nets can cost A$1 million or A$20,000 per beach per year.[6]

Shark nets have been criticized by environmentalists, conservationists and animal rights activists — they say shark nets are unethical and harm the marine ecosystem.[7][8][1][9][10][11] They also argue there is no science showing that nets make the ocean safer for people.[1] Only around 10% of catch in shark nets is the intended target shark species.[12][13]

Shark nets vary in size. The nets in Queensland, Australia, are typically 186m long, set at a depth of 6m, have a mesh size of 500mm and are designed to catch sharks longer than 2m in length.[14] The nets in New South Wales, Australia, are typically 150m long, set on the sea floor, extending approximately 6m up the water column, are designed to catch sharks longer than 2m in length.[15]

History

[edit]

Shark net meshing was developed by the New South Wales Fisheries in 1937, after a decade and a half of repeated shark attacks off Sydney beaches. In March 1935, for example, two people — one at North Narrabeen and one at Maroubra — perished after great white shark attacks in a single week. The meshing was never designed to enclose a piece of water, as barrier nets couldn't survive a surf zone. Instead, it was designed to catch large sharks as they swam within range of the surf. At first, the catch was huge; over 600 sharks in the first year of operation, off just a few Sydney beaches. But over time, even without adjusting for the spread of the program across almost all Sydney beaches and into Wollongong and Newcastle, the catch declined. Today's New South Wales meshing annual average catch is 143 sharks, many of which are released alive.[16]

Nets were first deployed off certain beaches in KwaZulu-Natal (formerly Natal), South Africa, in 1952.[3]

Shark nets were also used off Dunedin, New Zealand for roughly 40 years, and were removed in 2011. The nets were found to be detrimental to the environment; 700 non-target species were killed.[17] No shark attacks have occurred since their removal.[18]

As of 2018, shark nets are used in New South Wales, Queensland and KwaZulu-Natal.[11][19][20] In August 2018, it was announced that the nets in northern New South Wales would be removed, but that the nets in Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong would stay.[8][21] The New South Wales Green party said they wanted all shark nets removed.[21]

Effectiveness

[edit]

Ongoing shark control programs have been very successful in reducing the incidence of shark attack at the protected beaches.[3][22][4] In the years from 1900 to 1937, 13 people died off New South Wales surf beaches after shark attacks; over the next 72 years, the death rate fell to eight, only one of which was at a meshed beach. This in a period when the New South Wales human population rose from 1.4 million to seven million — and when more people began going to the beach.[16]

In Queensland, there has been only one fatal attack on a controlled beach since 1962, compared to 27 fatal attacks between 1919 and 1961. Statistics from the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries indicate that before nets were introduced in New South Wales in 1936 there was an average of one fatal shark attack every year. There has been only one fatal attack on a protected beach since then and that was in 1951. Similarly, between 1943 and 1951 the South African city of Durban experienced seven fatal attacks but there have been none since nets were introduced in 1952. A more recent comparison shows that in South Africa there were three shark attacks, none fatal, at protected beaches in KwaZulu-Natal between 1990 and 2011, while there were 20 fatal attacks in the same period at unprotected beaches in the Eastern and Western Cape Provinces.[2]

However, the net program in New South Wales has been called "outdated and ineffective" by environmental groups;[8] they argue that shark nets do not protect swimmers.[1] 65% of shark attacks in New South Wales occurred at netted beaches.[9]

Environmental impact

[edit]

Shark nets result in incidence of bycatch, including threatened and endangered species like sea turtles, dugongs, dolphins and whales.[23] In Queensland in the 2011/12 summer season there were 700 sharks caught, 290 above 4 metres in shark nets and drum lines.[24]

In New South Wales, the meshing averages one humpback whale every two years; the whale is almost always released alive. In Queensland in 2015, the bycatch included one bottlenose and seven common dolphin (one released alive), 11 catfish, eight cow-nose rays, nine eagle rays, 13 loggerhead turtles, five manta rays (all but one survived), eight shovelnose rays, three toadfish, four tuna, and a white spotted eagle, which was safely released.[16]

New South Wales and Queensland also utilize acoustic pingers attached to the nets to reduce bycatch of dolphins, whales and other marine mammals.[25] Use of the pingers has been shown to significantly reduce marine mammal bycatch.[26]

The current net program in New South Wales has been described as being "extremely destructive" to marine life.[27] Between September 2017 and April 2018, more than 403 animals perished in the nets in New South Wales, including 10 critically endangered grey nurse sharks, 7 dolphins, 7 green sea turtles and 14 great white sharks.[8] Between 1950 and 2008, 352 tiger sharks and 577 great white sharks died in the nets in New South Wales — also during this period, a total of 15,135 marine animals perished in the nets.[11] More than 5,000 marine turtles have been caught on the nets.[9] The New South Wales government prohibits people from rescuing entangled animals — this prohibition has been called "heartless and cruel".[10]

In a 30-year period, more than 33,000 sharks have perished in KwaZulu-Natal's shark net program.[20] During the same 30-year period, 2,211 turtles, 8,448 rays, and 2,310 dolphins died in KwaZulu-Natal's shark net program.[20]

Controversy

[edit]

The continued use of shark nets has generated debate between those prioritising swimmer safety and those opposing the ecological toll of the programs.

Shark nets do not create a complete barrier, as they extend only a few metres below the surface and can be bypassed by sharks swimming over or around them.[28] Following a fatal shark attack at a netted Sydney beach in 2025, researcher Chris Pepin-Neff described the nets as “like throwing a napkin into the pool.”[28]

A 2025 review by the New South Wales Threatened Species Scientific Committee found no measurable evidence that the presence of nets significantly reduced shark-bite incidents compared with non-netted beaches.[29]

Political scientist Christopher Neff notes, "Internationally, shark nets have been labeled a 'key threatening process' for killing endangered species." He adds: " ... killing endangered species to boost public confidence or to show government action is not workable. It is a disservice to the public."[7] Jessica Morris of Humane Society International calls shark nets a "knee-jerk reaction" and says, "sharks are top order predators that play an important role in the functioning of marine ecosystems. We need them for healthy oceans."[9] Sea World Research & Rescue Foundation also oppose the use of shark nets to cull shark populations "In an ideal world we would like for there to be no culling of sharks in Australia and around the world however, this is not a reality. We understand the pressure on governments to protect swimmers through the use of shark control programs. We continue our stance against shark nets and maintain our rescue operations to save dolphins, whales, turtles that become entrapped within them, along with working with the authoritative agencies to research improved methods which will lessen the impact on our marine life".[30]

Animal welfare groups note the suffering and cruelty that nets inflict upon animals, such as lacerations, stress, pain, and disease.[9] They suggest alternatives such as surf lifesaving patrols, public education on shark behaviour, radio signals, sonar technology and electric nets.

While most environmental groups call for the nets’ removal, some commentators argue that their ecological harm is overstated. Australian surf journalist Nick Carroll wrote in The Telegraph that the impact of shark nets “is less than commonly thought” and that their safety benefits for swimmers and surfers outweigh the environmental cost.[31]

His arguments have been contested by marine scientists and conservation organisations, who cite government bycatch data and maintain that non-lethal deterrents can provide equivalent safety without the same ecological toll.[32]

Comparisons with commercial fishing are also cited in debate. On average 15 Great white sharks are caught by the NSW and Queensland shark control programme each year, compared to 186 caught in Australia from other activities.[33] Australia's commercial shark fishing industry is catching over 1200 tonne of shark each year,[16] of which 130 are Great white sharks.[33] The NSW prawn trawling industry alone results in 64 tonne of shark as bycatch each year,[16] with two thirds dying.[34] Tuna and swordfish longline fishing off the coast of South Africa reported 39,000 to 43,000 sharks died each year between 1995 and 2005.[34] Sharksavers estimates that in total 50 million sharks are caught unintentionally each year as bycatch by the commercial fishing industry.[35]

Plans by the New South Wales government to trial the removal of shark nets from selected beaches were paused in 2025 after a fatal attack, citing safety concerns while investigations continued.[36] Several local councils and conservation groups continue to advocate replacing nets with modern technologies such as SMART drumline systems, drones, and acoustic monitoring networks.[37]

Cost

[edit]

Total cost for the Shark netting program in NSW for the 2009/10 year was approximately AUD $1m, which included the cost of the nets, contractors, observers and shark technician, shark meshing equipment (dolphin pingers and whale alarms etc.), and compliance audit activities.[6] For the 51 beaches protected,[6] this represents a financial cost of approximately AUD$20,000 per beach per year.

Australia

[edit]
Graph of sharks caught in Queensland's Shark Control Program (by type) July 1997- June 2014

In New South Wales, Australia, 51 beaches are netted.[38] The nets are maintained by the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries. The nets are generally 150 metres long, 6 m wide and "bottom-set" on the seabed in depths of 10 m. The nets can be 500 metres from the beach. The mesh is sized 50–60 centimetres. Nets are lifted every 24 to 48 hours for servicing so as to prevent rotting, to clean out debris and to remove dead sharks and other marine life. It is said that 35–50% of the sharks are entangled from the beach side. Acoustic "pingers" have been fitted to the nets to warn off dolphins and whales and the nets are not in place in winter, the whale migration season. The department states that the nets have "never been regarded as a means of absolutely preventing any attacks", but help to deter sharks from establishing territories.[39] From 1950 to 2008, hundreds of great white sharks and tiger sharks perished in the nets in New South Wales.[11]

In Queensland, Australia, drum lines are used in combination with shark nets. Queensland's Shark Control Program has been in place since the early 1960s. In Queensland's 2011/12 summer season there were 714 sharks caught, 281 above 2 metres in shark nets and drum lines.[24] Since 1997, 500-900 sharks perished annually in the program, including several shark species of conservation concern. They include the following:

Common name Scientific name IUCN Redlist status EPBC conservation listing (AUS)
Great hammerhead Sphyrna mokarran Endangered[40]
Great white shark Carcharodon carcharias Vulnerable[41] Vulnerable[42]
Grey nurse shark Carcharias taurus Vulnerable[43] Critically Endangered (East Coast) Population[42]
Scalloped hammerhead Sphyrna lewini Endangered[44]

A fatal attack in Queensland occurred in January 2006 at Amity Point on North Stradbroke Island. The water at this location drops off to 30 metres depth, and bull sharks are known to frequent the area.[45] Drum lines were installed at beaches around the island at the time.[46] Another shark attack occurred at Greenmount Beach on the Gold Coast in 2020. Drumlines and shark nets were installed at the beach at this time.[47]

Following a fatal attack in 2025 on one of Sydney's northern beaches, the state government paused plans for removal of shark nets from three beaches.[48]

South Africa

[edit]

In South Africa, shark nets are installed at numerous beaches in KwaZulu-Natal by the KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board.[49] Shark nets have been installed in KwaZulu-Natal since the 1950s[20] and have greatly reduced the number of shark attacks along the beaches where they are installed.[4] However more than 33,000 sharks have perished in KwaZulu-Natal's nets in a 30-year period.[20] KwaZulu-Natal's shark net program has been called "archaic" and "disastrous to the ecosystem".[20]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Shark net

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Shark nets are submerged gillnets consisting of large mesh panels deployed parallel to beaches to entangle and capture large , with the aim of reducing local populations of species dangerous to humans and thereby mitigating the risk of shark bites. Typically measuring 150 to 400 meters in length and extending up to 6 meters in depth, these nets are anchored to the and buoyed at the surface but do not form a continuous physical barrier, allowing to potentially circumvent them by swimming around the ends or over the top. Introduced in Australia during the 1930s in New South Wales and expanded in Queensland from the 1960s as part of government-led shark control programs, shark nets operate year-round at select beaches to cull target species such as tiger, bull, and great white sharks. The Queensland Shark Control Program, for instance, deploys nets alongside baited drumlines at over 80 sites, having captured substantial numbers of sharks over decades, though program evaluations indicate that while shark abundance in controlled areas may be influenced, the direct preventive effect on bites remains uncertain due to factors like migratory shark behavior and shifts in human water use patterns toward surfing. A major controversy surrounding shark nets centers on their ecological footprint, with empirical data revealing high rates of bycatch: in New South Wales, approximately 90-92% of marine animals entangled between 2012 and 2024 were non-target species, including dolphins, turtles, and rays, many of which suffer injury or death despite release efforts. Peer-reviewed analyses further document significant adverse effects on targeted shark populations and broader marine communities, prompting debates over the trade-offs between human safety benefits—which official reviews attribute to lower attack rates in netted zones—and the programs' inefficiency and environmental costs, including contributions to declines in threatened species. Despite these concerns, proponents argue the nets provide a measurable reduction in fatal incidents compared to unmeshed beaches, sustaining public confidence in coastal recreation.

Design and Functionality

Materials and Construction

Shark nets are typically engineered as gillnet-style barriers using UV-resistant to endure marine conditions including saltwater , abrasion, and solar degradation. The mesh is constructed in a multifilament or braided configuration with stretched openings of approximately 50 cm, calibrated to entangle sharks exceeding 2 meters in length by gilling or snagging their gills, fins, or bodies. Dimensions are standardized within programs but vary regionally for site-specific deployment. In Queensland's Shark Control Program, nets measure 186 m in length and 6 m in drop depth, with a mesh size of 500 mm. In KwaZulu-Natal's bather protection system, nets are 213.5 m long and 6.3 m deep, utilizing black flat braid with a 51 cm stretched mesh. Construction includes reinforced selvedges and integrated components for structural integrity, such as weighted footropes and buoyed headlines, to facilitate controlled positioning amid currents and wave action while minimizing drift. Regional adaptations may incorporate larger mesh trials, like 70 cm variants tested in since 1991, to reduce incidental capture of smaller marine life without compromising entanglement efficacy for target sharks.

Deployment and Maintenance

Shark nets in Australian programs, such as those operated by , are deployed seasonally from early to late or to correspond with heightened beach attendance and shark presence during warmer months. Nets are positioned parallel to the shoreline, anchored to the with weights at each end, typically 400 to 500 meters offshore in water depths of 10 to 12 meters to intercept approaching swimming areas without fully enclosing es. Installation requires specialized vessels to lay the nets, which span approximately 150 meters in length and 6 meters in depth, ensuring they hang vertically while allowing passage over or under for non-target species. Deployment logistics account for local and currents, with anchors adjusted to maintain position amid tidal fluctuations that can exceed 2 meters in some regions. Ongoing maintenance entails daily or near-daily patrols by contractor-operated boats for drumlines in complementary programs, but net inspections occur every 72 hours under standard conditions, escalating to every 48 hours in high-risk periods like February and March to release bycatch promptly and assess structural integrity. Crews remove entangled debris, such as seaweed or fishing line, which can compromise net efficacy, and repair tears from marine fouling or abrasion, with full retrieval and storage during off-seasons to prevent degradation. Fuel consumption for patrols, labor for manual checks, and periodic replacement of frayed mesh sections represent key operational inputs, as nets endure constant submersion and biofouling. Adaptations for environmental variability include reinforced anchoring systems to withstand storm surges, which have historically delayed reinstallation by days or weeks, as seen in September 2025 at Sydney's Shark Beach following severe weather. In areas with strong tidal ranges, nets may incorporate additional buoys or tension lines to prevent sagging or displacement, ensuring consistent deployment despite wave action up to 3 meters. These measures address site-specific challenges, such as coral proximity in Queensland, where nets avoid sensitive reefs by precise seabed mapping prior to setting.

Mechanism of Operation

Shark nets function as gillnets, vertical panels of mesh suspended in the to capture sharks primarily through entanglement rather than physical obstruction. Typically 150 meters long and 6 meters deep with mesh openings of 50-60 centimeters, the nets are anchored to the and buoyed at the surface, deployed parallel to shorelines in 10-12 meter depths about 500 meters offshore. This configuration targets large predatory species over 2 meters in length, including tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier), great white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias), and bull sharks (Carcharhinus leucas), whose body girth exceeds the mesh size upon partial entry. Upon contact, a shark's head, gills, fins, or dermal denticles snag in the mesh as it attempts passage or investigation, with forward momentum and netting barbs hindering withdrawal. Struggling exacerbates entanglement, depleting energy reserves; large sharks, reliant on ram ventilation—swimming to pump water over gill slits for oxygen—succumb to asphyxiation when immobilized. The gillnet principle exploits the mismatch between mesh aperture and animal dimensions, leading to progressive constriction without requiring active pursuit by operators. These installations form partial barriers, vulnerable to bypass via submersion beneath the shallow depth or navigation around unsecured ends, particularly in currents or deeper zones. Operation hinges on passive interception, leveraging predatory sharks' investigatory behavior toward novel coastal structures rather than sensory repulsion, as the inert netting provides no chemical, visual, or electromagnetic deterrence.

Historical Development

Origins in South Africa

Shark nets were introduced along the beaches of Durban in KwaZulu-Natal (then Natal Province), South Africa, in 1952 as a direct response to a cluster of fatal shark attacks that heightened public concern for bather safety in this popular tourist area. Between 1943 and 1951, Durban recorded 21 shark attacks, including seven fatalities, amid increasing beach usage that amplified risks in waters frequented by large sharks such as Carcharodon carcharias and Carcharhinus leucas. These incidents, verified through local records, underscored the empirical need for intervention in high-density swimming zones, where historical attack rates averaged several per year during peak periods, contrasting with rarer events elsewhere. The nets, adapted from gillnet fishing techniques to create protective barriers approximately 400 meters offshore and parallel to the beach, were initially deployed off 's by the Durban Beach Committee, marking the first systematic use of such gear for human protection in . This approach prioritized verifiable attack data over broader ecological speculation, targeting reduction of shark presence in nearshore areas through entanglement and selective . Early implementation focused on empirical outcomes, with nets set at depths of 5-10 meters to intercept drawn to the warm, bait-rich waters off the subtropical coast. In 1964, the Natal Provincial Administration established the Natal Anti-Shark Measures Board (later renamed the ) as a statutory body to oversee net deployment, maintenance, and monitoring across protected beaches. This formalized management responded to the program's initial success, with no fatal attacks recorded at netted Durban beaches since 1952, representing a stark decline from the pre-net average of 1-2 fatalities per decade in the region. The Board's establishment ensured sustained operations based on ongoing attack logs and bather volume , emphasizing causal links between net presence and reduced incidents in empirically high-risk locales.

Expansion to Australia

The shark meshing program in was initiated in by the state fisheries department in direct response to a series of fatal shark attacks on beaches during the preceding decade and a half, including incidents that heightened public demand for protective measures. Initial deployments consisted of 305-meter-long gill nets installed parallel to the shore at approximately 18 popular beaches starting in October 1937, marking 's adaptation of fixed-net technology to its temperate coastal environments and targeting large predatory species such as great white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias), which were more prevalent in local waters compared to tropical varieties. The program was government-funded through public beach safety allocations, reflecting policy prioritization of bather protection amid growing urban coastal recreation. Expansion within accelerated in the 1960s, driven by empirical assessments of shark risks and surging beach visitation rates post-World War II, with a steep rise in the number of protected beaches and total netting length to accommodate heightened human-shark encounter potential. By the 1970s, the program had scaled to encompass 51 key beaches along the coastline, stabilizing thereafter with minimal additions as coverage aligned with high-risk zones identified through incident data. Queensland's shark control program, incorporating mesh nets alongside baited drum lines, commenced in 1962 following multiple fatal attacks that underscored localized threats in subtropical waters, with initial focus on southeastern beaches near before broader rollout. Like its New South Wales counterpart, it was financed via state budgets dedicated to public safety, customized for Queensland's longer and migratory patterns, emphasizing capture of tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) and bull sharks (Carcharhinus leucas) common to the region's river mouths and bays. This development represented a parallel policy response to Australia-specific threat profiles, independent of contemporaneous South African efforts which postdated implementations.

Global Adoption and Early Trials

In the mid-2010s, Réunion Island conducted limited trials of shark nets at select beaches, including Boucan Canot and Roches Noires, in response to a spike of over 20 shark attacks since 2011, resulting in multiple fatalities primarily from tiger and bull sharks. These installations, deployed as submerged gillnets to entangle approaching predators, represented one of the few international adaptations of the technology amid heightened public safety concerns, but expansion was curtailed by persistent bycatch of protected marine species and incomplete attack prevention. Similarly, regions like , , experienced sharp increases in shark incidents starting in 1992—linked to coastal development altering prey distribution and drawing and sharks closer to shore—but opted against sustained shark net programs, favoring drum lines for targeted capture and relocation instead, which reportedly reduced attack rates by up to 97% before partial discontinuation due to logistical and ecological drawbacks. Global uptake of shark nets has remained minimal due to prohibitive deployment and maintenance expenses, often exceeding hundreds of thousands of dollars annually per site; regulatory barriers stemming from international protections, such as those under for threatened species; and a inclination toward alternatives like localized , as seen in Hawaii's 1969–1987 program that targeted sharks via baited hooks at a cost of over $300,000 with limited verifiable reductions in encounters. In , authorities have rejected nets and similar lethal interventions, prioritizing surveillance and behavioral advisories to avoid ecosystem disruption from non-selective gear. Early 20th-century efforts beyond foundational implementations, such as reactive netting or capture operations following the 1916 Jersey Shore attacks that killed five people, proved ineffective for enclosing dynamic open-water zones and were largely abandoned in favor of vigilance or of during high-risk periods. These pilots underscored inherent limitations in and reliability, contributing to the technology's confinement to a handful of high-incident locales rather than widespread endorsement.

Effectiveness for Human Safety

Empirical Data on Attack Reductions

In , , shark nets were deployed starting in 1952 following a series of fatal attacks, including seven documented fatalities off beaches in the preceding years. Prior to implementation, the region experienced elevated shark-human interactions, with the majority of 's recorded attacks in the early occurring along the KZN coast, contributing to disruptions in beach tourism. Since 1952, protected beaches have recorded 27 unprovoked attacks over 67 years through 2019, with none resulting in fatalities; the most recent two decades (1999–2019) saw only two non-injurious incidents at netted sites. In , , the shark meshing program commenced in 1937 amid prior fatalities, including nine deaths on Sydney ocean beaches in the preceding decade. Pre-meshing records indicate recurrent fatal incidents at targeted surf beaches, with historical data showing clusters such as multiple attacks prompting the program's initiation. Post-implementation, meshed beaches have experienced markedly fewer severe outcomes: only one fatal attack recorded at a netted site since 1937, compared to 28 fatalities at unmeshed coastal areas over the same period; early post-deployment data from the first 20 years averaged 0.25 fatalities and 1.1 attacks annually across protected zones. Shark attacks overall remain statistically rare, with global unprovoked incidents occurring at rates approximating 1 in 3.7 million beach visits, though historical lethality without intervention was high, often exceeding 20% fatality rates in documented cases. Adjusted historical baselines suggest shark nets have prevented hundreds of potential incidents in high-use areas, accounting for population and visitation growth; for instance, Queensland's analogous program (nets from 1962) saw one fatal attack at controlled beaches versus 27 pre-implementation from –1961. Official records from agencies like the KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board and NSW Department of Primary Industries cross-verify these trends against incident logs and eyewitness accounts, emphasizing localized reductions at protected sites.

Statistical Comparisons Pre- and Post-Implementation

In , , Sydney's ocean beaches experienced 9 fatal shark attacks between 1927 and 1937 prior to the deployment of shark nets under the Shark Meshing Program in 1937. From 1937 to 2024, no fatal shark attacks occurred at these netted beaches, representing a complete elimination of fatalities over 87 years despite substantial increases in beach visitation and ocean user numbers. In , , records indicate 36 shark attacks resulting in 19 fatalities at ocean beaches from 1916 to 1962, before the Shark Control Program—incorporating nets and drumlines—was implemented in 1962 to target high-risk areas. Since implementation, only 2 shark attacks have been documented across the program's monitored beaches over the subsequent 63 years, reflecting a marked decline in both frequency and severity at protected sites. In , , beaches recorded 7 fatal shark attacks between 1943 and 1951 prior to the introduction of shark nets in 1952. Post-implementation, zero fatal attacks have occurred at these netted beaches, while unnetted coastal areas continue to see periodic fatalities, highlighting a localized reduction in attack incidence.
RegionPre-Implementation PeriodAttacks/FatalitiesPost-Implementation PeriodAttacks/Fatalities
, NSW (Australia)1927–19379 fatal1937–20240 fatal
Queensland Beaches ()1916–196236 attacks, 19 fatal1962–20252 attacks
, KZN ()1943–19517 fatal1952–present0 fatal
These comparisons draw from historical records correlated with the , which tracks unprovoked incidents globally and shows pre-net clustering of attacks at unmanaged high-use beaches, contrasted with post-deployment trends of 80–90% lower incidence rates per estimated swimmer-hour at protected areas after adjusting for expanded ocean recreation since the mid-20th century—such as Australia's beach visits increasing approximately fivefold since the 1950s due to and popularity.

Critiques of Causation and Attribution

Critics contend that observational comparisons between netted and non-netted beaches fail to establish causation due to the inherently low incidence of shark bites, which limits statistical power for detecting meaningful differences. A 2023 analysis of Australian shark-bite data emphasized that even zero bites at protected beaches would not suffice to infer mitigation efficacy, as baseline event rarity precludes robust effect-size detection without large sample sizes or controlled experiments, which are infeasible given ethical and logistical constraints. This methodological hurdle underscores reliance on confounded pre-post implementations, where unmeasured variables like varying beach attendance or patrol visibility obscure attribution to nets alone. Alternative explanations for observed attack declines include natural shark migration patterns and heightened public education on avoidance behaviors, rather than net deterrence. In regions with long-standing programs, such as , shark distributions influenced by ocean currents and prey availability may align with seasonal low-risk periods independently of interventions. Moreover, increased swimmer awareness and zoning restrictions post-implementation could account for reductions, as no randomized allocation of nets exists to isolate their impact from these behavioral shifts. Recent surges in Australian shark attacks during the 2010s—rising from an average of 6.5 incidents annually in 1990–2000 to 15 per year thereafter—occur despite entrenched net deployments, challenging direct attribution of safety to the programs. These upticks are linked by researchers to rebounding shark populations following decades of commercial and subsequent protections, rather than operational shortcomings in nets. Nets typically span only portions of beaches, enabling circumvention via end-swimming or depth variations, with historical data showing 63% of ocean beach attacks occurring at meshed sites. Empirical assessments thus yield inconclusive evidence of deterrence, as null hypothesis testing reveals patterns consistent with baseline variability over net-specific causality.

Environmental and Ecological Impacts

Bycatch Rates and Non-Target Species

In , Australia's Shark Meshing Program deploys gillnets seasonally at 51 beaches, resulting in the entanglement of approximately 200-300 non-target marine animals per season based on recent monitoring. For the 2023/24 season, official records indicate 240 non-target entanglements, comprising 90 rays (including species such as southern eagle rays and cownose rays), 29 turtles (predominantly loggerhead and sea turtles), 7 marine mammals (such as dolphins), 5 finfish, and 109 sharks not classified as primary targets like white, tiger, or sharks. Of these, mortality rates varied, with tag-and-release protocols applied to viable specimens, though exact survival post-release remains unverified in field conditions. Target shark captures constitute less than 10% of total entanglements in the program, with rays and forming the majority of ; for instance, rays accounted for over 37% of non-target captures in 2023/24, many of which are protected under Australian laws. Loggerhead , listed as endangered, are recurrently entangled, with seasonal peaks during migration periods aligning with deployments from September to April. Government logs from tag-and-release efforts provide verifiable counts, though underreporting of smaller teleosts or post-release fatalities may occur due to observational limitations. In South Africa's province, the Sharks Board's gillnet program historically captured around 1,600 non-target animals annually alongside 120 target sharks in the 1990s across 40 beaches spanning 44 km of nets, including thousands of teleosts such as tunas and jewfish, as well as rays and cetaceans. Rays dominated numerical , comprising the largest group, followed by finfish; efforts since the early to replace nets with drumlines at select sites reduced non-target captures by 47.5%, though gillnets persist at key locations. Target-to-non-target ratios reached 1:8.7 in monitored areas like as of 2025, with over 90% of catches being incidental , verified through board-maintained catch statistics. Seasonal peaks coincide with bather protection deployments, and while monitoring has stabilized bycatch volumes, transitions to baited hooks have not eliminated gillnet use entirely.

Effects on Shark and Apex Predator Populations

Shark net programs in Australia, such as Queensland's Shark Control Program (SCP) and New South Wales' Shark Meshing Program, have historically removed targeted large-bodied sharks including tiger (Galeocerdo cuvier), bull (Carcharhinus leucas), and great white (Carcharodon carcharias) species, with annual catches of target sharks averaging dozens to low hundreds across regions prior to policy shifts in the 2010s. In Queensland, catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) data indicate localized declines in abundance for these species near netted beaches, reflecting selective removal of mature individuals, though total program captures include many non-target smaller sharks. Since the mid-2010s, operational changes emphasizing tagging and live release of non-aggressive or undersized sharks have reduced mortality rates, with New South Wales reporting only five target shark deaths out of 15 captures in the 2023-2024 season. Population modeling and genetic analyses reveal resilience in shark demographics, with no documented local extinctions attributable to nets despite cumulative removals exceeding thousands over decades. Eastern Australia's great white shark population, estimated at 2,909 to 12,802 individuals (median 5,460) via genetic mark-recapture methods on juveniles, has maintained stable effective breeder numbers over successive years from 2017 to 2021, buoyed by legal protections since 1999 that curtailed commercial fishing impacts. Sighting and tagging data further show population recovery trends, with aggregation site abundances increasing post-protection, suggesting immigration from broader oceanic ranges mitigates localized depletions from nets, which affect only a fraction of transient individuals. The selective pressure exerted by nets remains modest relative to historical overfishing, which depleted many apex shark stocks globally prior to protections; shark life history traits—long migrations, low natural mortality, and philopatry to non-netted breeding grounds—confer demographic buffering against sustained population crashes in managed areas. While CPUE reductions signal caution for nearshore cohorts, broader monitoring via acoustic arrays and genetics indicates no collapse, with apex predator roles persisting through regulatory prey dynamics rather than absolute abundance thresholds.

Long-Term Ecosystem Consequences

The hypothesis of mesopredator release posits that reductions in apex predators like could lead to expansions in mid-level predators, potentially disrupting lower trophic levels through overpredation. In the context of shark netting programs, such as Queensland's since 1962, empirical catch data indicate declines in certain target species like whaler sharks ( spp.), yet no corresponding surges in mesopredator abundances or explosive increases in their prey have been documented in long-term monitoring. ( cuvieri) catches, for example, have increased, potentially compensating for losses in other apex predators and stabilizing top-down pressure. Coastal marine food webs in netted regions appear buffered against pronounced trophic cascades by concurrent human pressures on mesopredators and species, which maintain elevated mortality rates independent of reductions. Over six decades of data from eastern Australian programs reveal community shifts toward increased functional richness in non-target sharks, but without evidence of systemic instability or verified prey population booms attributable to netting alone. Broader anthropogenic factors, including commercial , contribute more substantially to these dynamics than localized net effects. Sea turtle entanglement in nets contributes to annual mortality rates of approximately 25-30 individuals in New South Wales, primarily loggerheads and green turtles during nesting seasons, with potential localized impacts on recruitment. However, long-term population trajectories remain stable, as evidenced by sustained nesting surveys, owing to offsetting measures like immediate release protocols (with 14 of 19 captured turtles released alive in one assessed period, though post-release survival varies) and dedicated rehabilitation efforts. No empirical records indicate nesting collapses or broader reptilian trophic disruptions from these losses. Pre-netting baselines from the early featured higher apex shark densities without reported ecosystem imbalances beyond natural fluctuations, suggesting inherent resilience in these systems. Post-implementation assessments spanning over 50 years in and confirm no major observed trophic cascades or foundational habitat shifts, such as reef degradation directly linked to shark declines from nets, underscoring that while functional diversity has diminished, outright has not materialized.

Economic and Operational Analysis

Implementation and Maintenance Costs

The Shark Meshing (Bather Protection) Program in New South Wales, Australia, incurs annual costs of approximately AUD 21 million, covering net deployment and servicing at 51 beaches, vessel operations, contractor payments, and administrative oversight by the Department of Primary Industries. These expenditures have trended upward in recent years, influenced by net replacements due to environmental degradation and supplementary technologies such as drone surveillance trials. In , , the Shark Control Program, which incorporates nets alongside drum lines at key coastal sites, receives substantial government funding, including an additional AUD 88.228 million allocated over four years from 2025 to 2029 for expanded operations and equipment modernization. Base annual operating costs prior to this infusion were lower, with historical parliamentary estimates around AUD 3-5 million, though recent evaluations indicate escalation from program scaling and maintenance demands. The Sharks Board in reported ZAR 19.5 million in direct expenditure for shark net maintenance and implementation in the financial year ended 31 2024, supporting 13.5 km of netting across 37 beaches, including 1,012 net changes and 8,192 gear services via 3,070 boat launches. This figure excludes broader personnel costs (ZAR 47.88 million total, with ZAR 1.5 million net-specific) and repairs (ZAR 8.07 million), which encompass vessel upkeep and material replacements amid challenges like budget shortfalls and staffing vacancies. Overall program revenue, derived from grants (ZAR 71.27 million) and municipal fees (ZAR 38.04 million), sustains these operations at less than 1% of provincial tourism income.
Cost Component (KZN Sharks Board, 2023/24)Amount (ZAR)Description
Shark Net Maintenance & Implementation19,500,000Core netting operations and deployment.
Net-Related Personnel1,500,000Staff dedicated to net servicing.
Repairs & Maintenance (incl. nets/vessels)8,070,000Equipment upkeep and replacements.
Costs across programs rise with factors like net attrition from storms or biofouling, requiring frequent replacements, and integration of monitoring tools, though audits highlight efficiencies in scale compared to per-beach alternatives.

Cost-Benefit Evaluations

Economic evaluations of shark nets often employ the value of statistical life (VSL) to quantify human safety benefits, with Australian estimates placing VSL at approximately AUD 5.4 million per prevented fatality as of 2023. Programs like Queensland's Control Program, costing around AUD 14 million annually, demonstrate positive (NPV) under models assuming prevention of 3-4 statistical lives yearly, factoring in reduced fatality rates from pre-implementation averages of about 1 per year to under 0.37 post-1962 across protected areas. Historical records support this, with only 2 fatalities recorded at Queensland's protected beaches since program inception in 1962, implying 1-2 averted deaths annually when benchmarked against unprotected baseline risks. Critiques highlight uncertainties in causal attribution, as low baseline attack probabilities (e.g., 1-3 incidents yearly in pre-enhancements) inflate estimated costs per averted incident to tens of millions when discounting for confounding factors like increased beach usage. Non-lethal alternatives, such as drone , incur lower costs—e.g., AUD 600-1,240 per detected in trials—with total program expenses of AUD 2-4 million yearly, yet their preventive efficacy remains unproven at scale compared to nets' documented risk reductions. Broader justifications incorporate impacts, where shark control sustains Queensland's AUD 27 billion annual beach-related by mitigating incident-induced losses, as evidenced by post-attack dips like 550 lost hotel nights in comparable U.S. cases; approaches affirm public willingness to pay for such risk reductions to preserve revenue streams.

Funding and Policy Dependencies

Shark net programs are predominantly financed through taxpayer funds allocated by regional governments responsible for coastal safety, reflecting their classification as public health and bather protection initiatives rather than private ventures. In Queensland, Australia, the Shark Control Program, which includes shark nets, receives ongoing state government funding via the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, with a recent commitment of $88.228 million over four years for the 2025-2029 management plan to maintain and expand nets, drumlines, and related surveillance. Similarly, New South Wales funds its Shark Meshing Program, covering 51 beaches, through state budgets, including an $85 million allocation in 2022 for broader shark mitigation efforts encompassing nets, though with recent tripling of overall shark management funding amid debates over net efficacy. In , the Sharks Board manages nets using provincial government appropriations and local treasury supplements, with costs borne directly by provincial and municipal authorities; however, funding has faced constraints from reduced provincial GDP allocations and slower population growth, prompting investigations into alternative sources to sustain operations. These programs exhibit dependencies on political priorities, as evidenced by interstate variations in : maintains year-round nets with expansions tied to government safety mandates, while operates seasonally and has trialed reductions at select beaches, only to pause such moves following fatal attacks due to public and political pressure for retained protections. Sustainability is vulnerable to environmental , which has intensified calls for reallocations or phase-outs in both and , citing ecological harms, though governments have resisted outright cuts to prioritize human safety; for instance, Australian states have absorbed increased expenditures despite lobbying from conservation groups, while African provincial funding persists amid resource shortfalls without documented aid infusions or bonds. Policy frameworks link net maintenance to tourism-dependent economies, where verifiable patterns show shark incidents correlating with visitor declines—such as beach closures and cancellations following attacks in —prompting net installations historically to restore confidence and attendance; stakeholder analyses confirm nets' perceived role in bolstering by enhancing safety perceptions, with post-attack surveys indicating risen public support for such measures to sustain beach usage.

Regional Implementations

South Africa Programs

The Sharks Board (KZNSB) deploys shark nets, supplemented by drumlines at select sites, across 37 beaches spanning approximately 320 kilometers of coastline to mitigate shark encounters in high-use bather areas. These nets, typically 214 meters long and 6 meters deep with 51 cm stretched mesh, are anchored offshore and inspected daily via boat patrols, with over 3,070 launches recorded in the 2023/2024 operational year. The program integrates behavioral through extensive tagging efforts, with KZNSB personnel having tagged and released thousands of since the to track movements and refine net placements. Adaptive measures implemented since the late , including selective tagging and release protocols alongside net removals at low-risk sites, have collectively reduced targeted mortalities by 64% compared to baseline levels, while transitioning some areas to baited drumlines for lower . These efforts prioritize live releases for species like Carcharodon carcharias and Carcharias taurus, aligning with South Africa's national conservation framework that prohibits and supports protections for threatened elasmobranchs. Program data indicate sustained presence due to the region's nutrient-rich waters attracting high densities, yet fatal attacks at protected beaches have remained near zero since initial deployments in the , with only two non-fatal incidents recorded over decades at netted sites. Despite these outcomes, the program faces criticism for , including over 2,000 turtles and thousands of rays and dolphins entangled historically, prompting defenses centered on human safety imperatives at urban beaches serving millions of annual visitors where unmitigated risks would exceed acceptable levels. KZNSB maintains that empirical attack reductions justify continued operations, supplemented by research-driven refinements rather than wholesale abandonment, in a context where alternative non-lethal methods alone have not demonstrated equivalent protection in comparable high-density scenarios. This approach underscores a balanced emphasis on bather protection and data-informed conservation, distinct from finning-driven fisheries elsewhere.

Australian Deployments

Australia's shark net and drumline deployments are managed at the state level, reflecting federalist approaches to coastal risk mitigation, with New South Wales (NSW) and Queensland as primary implementers. NSW operates the Shark Meshing Program, deploying nets at 51 beaches from Newcastle to Wollongong, each net measuring 150 meters in length and set parallel to the shore at depths of 500 meters offshore. Queensland's Shark Control Program combines 27 fixed gill nets—primarily at southeast beaches including the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, and Rainbow Bay—with approximately 383 baited drumlines extending northward from the NSW border, targeting high-risk coastal areas. Policy evolution in both states has incorporated SMART (Shark-Management Alert-in-Real-Time) drumlines to reduce , featuring GPS-buoy alerts for rapid contractor response and tag-and-release of non-target species, contrasting traditional lethal methods. In , the 2025–2029 Shark Management Plan allocates $88.228 million for expanded operations, including additional nets and drumlines alongside drone surveillance and trials of integrated technologies, though full transition to SMART systems remains gradual amid logistical challenges like 24/7 monitoring requirements. NSW has trialed SMART drumlines since 2015, with post-2020 evaluations showing variable efficacy in capturing target sharks like great whites while enabling higher non-target release rates, though critics note limitations in open-water detection. Regional differences underscore state-specific priorities: emphasizes drumline density for broader coverage in tropical waters, while NSW relies predominantly on nets for temperate urban beaches. Following 2025 debates and a fatal near , NSW paused trials to remove nets from three beaches (reducing from 51 to 48), retaining the program based on empirical records of attacks—such as historical reductions in fatalities post-netting—over modeled risk assessments that question overall deterrence. 's plan similarly integrates attack incident data to justify expansions despite concerns, prioritizing verified human-shark encounters in policy decisions.

Other International Examples

In Réunion Island, a French overseas department in the Indian Ocean, shark nets were deployed as part of a comprehensive risk management strategy following a spike in attacks between 2011 and 2019, during which sharks injured 30 people and killed 11, representing about 18.5% of global shark fatalities in that period. These nets, including traditional gillnets and eco-barriers, were installed at select beaches alongside targeted fishing for bull and tiger sharks, video surveillance, and public awareness campaigns, but the program faced criticism for limited effectiveness in open waters and contributed to a de facto ban on surfing in many areas. Along Egypt's Red Sea coast, particularly in Hurghada, individual resorts have adopted shark nets at private hotel beaches since at least the early 2010s, prompted by clustered incidents such as the five attacks (one fatal) near Sharm El Sheikh in December 2010 and two fatalities in July 2022. Examples include installations at properties like Albatros White Beach Resort and Albatros Palace Resort, aimed at safeguarding tourists in high-traffic swimming zones, though these remain localized rather than part of a national initiative and are often paired with lifeguard patrols. New Zealand conducted short-lived trials with gill nets in Dunedin after three fatal attacks in 1964, 1967, and 1968, installing them in 1969; however, the nets captured few sharks, no further incidents occurred, and they were dismantled in 1974 due to high costs and negligible benefits. Such deployments are uncommon globally, typically confined to sites with elevated attack rates (e.g., multiple fatalities over short periods), and often augmented by non-lethal alternatives like spotting programs, reflecting broader challenges with net efficacy in expansive coastal environments.

Alternatives and Complementary Measures

Non-Lethal Technologies

SharkSpotter, an AI-driven system developed by the , employs drones to scan coastal waters and detect sharks via convolutional neural networks analyzing video feeds, achieving approximately 90% accuracy in identifying large sharks while distinguishing them from like dolphins, rays, and whales. Trials in Australian beaches, including and , have validated this detection rate under dynamic conditions, outperforming human visual monitoring in speed and precision for targeted species. However, the system's efficacy is constrained by operational limitations, such as drone battery life and favorable weather, providing coverage only during patrolled daylight hours rather than 24/7 protection equivalent to fixed nets. Individual drone units cost around AUD 180,000, with broader deployment programs, such as ' AUD 16 million initiative testing multiple technologies including SharkSpotter, indicating substantial annual operational expenses per monitored beach when factoring in maintenance, staffing, and integration with alert systems. These systems enable proactive warnings via sirens and apps, potentially averting encounters, but empirical data from monitored sites show persistent presence outside surveillance windows, with no long-term reduction in bite incidents comparable to lethal net programs' historical records. Electric deterrents, such as those emitting pulses to disrupt sharks' —electrosensory organs detecting prey fields—have been trialed in barrier formats for beach enclosures. Department of Primary Industries pilots in the 2020s tested environmentally friendly electric barriers on the North Coast, showing partial repulsion of test sharks but challenges including variable against species like white sharks and occasional false activations from non-target stimuli. Peer-reviewed assessments indicate long-range electric systems reduce approach risks by less than personal devices, which prevent up to 90% of encounters in controlled Western Australian trials, yet barrier-scale implementations lack proven scalability without gaps allowing shark ingress. Magnetic repellents, theorized to interfere with similar sensory pathways, remain unproven at population-control scales, with no large-field trials yielding data on sustained deterrence or attack prevention. Overall, while these technologies offer targeted detection and repulsion without bycatch, zones relying solely on them—such as drone-patrolled beaches in Queensland—exhibit ongoing shark bites, underscoring the absence of comprehensive, multi-year datasets demonstrating efficacy parity with nets in reducing unprovoked incidents. Independent evaluations highlight that detection-based methods alert but do not exclude sharks, and repellent fields diminish over distance, limiting area-wide protection.

Behavioral and Educational Strategies

Behavioral strategies to mitigate shark encounters emphasize modifications in human activity patterns, such as or in groups to reduce the appeal of solitary targets, which may perceive as easier prey, and avoiding water entry during periods of reduced visibility like dawn, , or night when ' sensory advantages increase encounter probabilities. These recommendations stem from analyses of attack data showing higher incidences during low-light conditions and isolated activities, though empirical quantification of risk reduction remains challenging due to the rarity of unprovoked bites—typically fewer than 100 globally annually. Adherence to such practices forms the causal basis for efficacy, as non-compliance exposes individuals to unchanged baseline risks derived from shark behaviors and overlap. Educational campaigns disseminate these guidelines through public signage, school programs, and media outreach, aiming to foster habitual risk-averse behaviors among coastal users. For instance, initiatives by organizations like the promote awareness of environmental cues, such as avoiding areas with fishing activity or seal congregations that attract sharks, with post-incident surveys indicating temporary upticks in precautionary actions among affected communities. However, long-term compliance varies, with analogous marine tourism studies reporting average adherence rates around 44-82% to distance and interaction rules, suggesting education alone does not eliminate risks but can lower them through informed avoidance rather than guaranteed deterrence. Alert systems complement education by providing real-time warnings to prompt immediate behavioral responses, such as exiting the water. In South Africa's , the Shark Spotters program, operational since 2004, employs ground-based observers to detect white sharks and issue sirens or flags, reducing spatial overlap between users and predators during peak activity hours (08:00-19:00) when all historical attacks occurred. Similarly, Australia's SharkSmart app, launched by authorities, notifies users of tagged shark detections via acoustic stations and drone sightings, enabling proactive avoidance and integrating with broader safety messaging. These tools' success hinges on rapid user response, with evidence from program evaluations showing decreased beach usage post-alerts, though overall bite reductions are inferred from sustained low attack rates (e.g., one every two years pre- and post-program in ) rather than controlled trials, underscoring dependence on human vigilance over technological infallibility.

Comparative Efficacy of Alternatives

Empirical assessments of shark nets' efficacy often reference their long-term deployment in since 1962, where fatal attacks in controlled areas have averaged approximately 0.05 per year, compared to 0.41 pre-implementation (1916–1961). In , analysis of 196 shark-human interactions from 1900–2022 indicates that meshing programs correlate with reduced incidence at protected beaches, though attribution is complicated by and behavioral factors. Alternatives like drones, while enabling rapid alerts (e.g., detection-to-closure times under 1 minute in trials), exhibit detection probabilities of 20–78% for , heavily dependent on , shark depth, and surf conditions, frequently missing submerged individuals responsible for most attacks. A 2022 review highlighted drones' limitations in comprehensive fatal prevention relative to nets' physical interception, as drone patrols cover limited swaths and lack persistent barriers against undetected approaches. Targeted via drum lines or acoustic tagging programs demonstrates short-term removal , with Queensland's combined controls capturing over 80,000 since inception, but legal and ecological constraints limit scalability, and no standalone alternative replicates nets' multi-decade suppression of high-risk like tiger sharks in enclosed zones. Cost metrics remain sparse, but drone operations in Australian trials incur annual expenses of AUD 100,000–500,000 per beach for partial coverage, versus nets' established AUD 200,000–300,000 per site yielding broader deterrence without reliance on visibility or operator intervention. models from peer-reviewed simulations indicate hybrids—nets augmented by drone —optimize prevented attacks per dollar (e.g., 10–20% gains over nets alone), as pure alternatives falter in empirics from high-exposure sites where submerged predation persists. Standalone non-lethal tech, absent nets' cull component, underperforms in zones with recurrent fatal incidents, per longitudinal data from netted versus unmitigated Australian coasts.

Controversies and Debates

Ethical Prioritization of Human vs.

Proponents of shark nets assert that lives warrant prioritization over marine bycatch due to humans' superior cognitive faculties, including self-reflective , , and long-term planning, which elevate their moral status beyond that of , rays, or even . This anthropocentric stance, rooted in species-specific value hierarchies observed across ethical traditions, posits that safeguarding recreational swimmers—whose activities sustain coastal economies generating billions annually—morally supersedes the loss of non-human animals with limited relational and future-oriented capacities. For instance, stakeholders in bather programs emphasize as a core human right in shared environments, arguing that sharks' investigative bites on humans constitute active predation risks, justifying defensive measures despite bycatch. Critics, often from and conservation perspectives, counter that all possesses inherent rights, with as apex predators deserving to maintain ecological ; they decry nets for inflicting prolonged agony through suffocation and on non-target , viewing such practices as speciesist exploitation that undervalues . These arguments invoke sentience-based ethics, claiming —frequently exceeding 90% non- in some programs—equates to avoidable , and prioritize "sentience" over individual human utility in spaces where humans are interlopers. However, this framework is challenged for conflating ecological roles with , as lack of human-like reciprocity or societal contributions, and for ignoring that most bites stem from predatory rather than defensive . Balancing these views requires recognizing valid welfare issues, such as the hours-long drownings endured by entangled cetaceans or , against the visceral horrors of human encounters, including and community-wide fear that deters essential coastal access. Yet, hyperbolic rhetoric like "marine " lacks substantiation, as localized removals—numbering in the low annually per program—pale against overfishing's decimation of global stocks by over 50% since 1970, the primary driver of population declines. favors human prioritization in proximate threats: empirical precedents show nets averting fatalities in high-risk zones without , affirming that species undergirds realistic over abstract parity.

Scientific Disputes on Net Utility

A 2019 review published in People and Nature examined the Shark Meshing Program, finding correlational evidence of reduced fatal shark bites in netted areas since the program's inception, where pre-deployment records showed higher annual fatalities compared to post-deployment near-zero rates in protected zones, though it emphasized the absence of robust causal proof due to variables like rising beach attendance and advancements. Critics of this and similar analyses contend that they underweight baseline attack frequencies from the early , when unmitigated es experienced multiple severe incidents per year, arguing that dismissing correlations overlooks the preventive removal of large predatory sharks (e.g., over 15,000 sharks culled program-wide by 2019) from high-risk zones. Opposing studies highlight a lack of in net efficacy after adjusting for confounders. A 2023 analysis in Marine Policy of Australian shark bite data from 1900–2022 revealed that while overall bites rose 2–4-fold since the —driven by a shift from swimmers (historically more protected by nets) to surfers (less so)—comparisons between netted and non-netted beaches yielded only marginal effect sizes in bite rate differences, insufficient to confirm nets as the primary deterrent amid variables like increased human exposure (e.g., surfing hours up 300% in some regions) and environmental shifts. These findings align with broader critiques that the rarity of shark bites (fewer than 10 annually nationwide) inflates attribution errors, rendering traditional statistical tests underpowered without randomized controls, which are ethically and logistically infeasible. Disputes persist over study design rigor, with proponents of nets advocating for geospatial modeling of attack hotspots to validate localized reductions (e.g., Queensland's program correlating with 80% fewer incidents in controlled bays since 1962), while skeptics demand longitudinal baselines incorporating bather density metrics and non-target catch to isolate net-specific impacts. Empirical challenges underscore the need for enhanced monitoring, such as acoustic tagging integrated with bite registries, though consistently show attack clustering at unmanaged popular sites, implying value in targeted despite unresolved debates.

Public Policy and Advocacy Conflicts

Environmental advocacy organizations, including Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd, have lobbied aggressively for the phase-out of shark nets, launching campaigns and petitions that highlight bycatch mortality exceeding 90% non-target species in programs like New South Wales' nets, where over 200 marine animals were entangled in 2023-24 alone. These efforts, such as Sea Shepherd's Operation Apex Harmony targeting New South Wales and Queensland deployments, frame nets as outdated and ecologically destructive, amassing tens of thousands of signatures through platforms like the Australian Democrats' petition with over 32,000 supporters by 2025. In response, surf industry representatives and tourism stakeholders, reliant on beach economies valued at billions annually, advocate retention by emphasizing unmitigated attack risks, citing data from the International Shark Attack File showing persistent fatalities even in netted areas, and arguing that alternatives fail to deliver comparable deterrence. Policy decisions have oscillated amid these pressures, with electoral considerations amplifying clashes; in , ' 2025 trial to remove nets from three beaches was paused following a fatal shark attack near , reflecting voter prioritization of immediate safety post-incident, as shark mitigation emerged as a political flashpoint influencing coastal constituency support. Similarly, expanded lethal controls in June 2025 despite advisory reports questioning efficacy, driven by public backlash to rising encounters. In , authorities have withstood international NGO campaigns for full bans, maintaining nets at key beaches despite documented impacts on protected species in marine areas, prioritizing revenue from bather protection over global conservation appeals. Public opinion polls underscore the advocacy divide, with surveys framing the issue as human safety versus ecological costs revealing majority support for nets; a 2023 New South Wales community sentiment analysis showed over 60% confidence in existing mitigations among beach users, while a 2025 nationwide survey indicated broad agreement that full risk elimination is impossible but favored proven barriers when attack data is highlighted. This framing influences lobbying success, as tourism-dependent electorates resist removals that could erode perceived security, countering environmental narratives despite documented non-target catches.

Recent Developments and Future Outlook

Policy Shifts 2020-2025

In , shark nets were removed one month earlier than usual on 31 March 2025—compared to the previous end date of 30 April—to mitigate increased bycatch of during their heightened activity in April, a measure building on similar adjustments trialed in 2024. On 26 February 2025, Randwick City Council voted unanimously to oppose the continued deployment of shark nets at its eight beaches, aligning with advocacy against bycatch of non-target like , dolphins, and rays, though the retained authority over the program. In July 2025, the NSW government proposed a trial removal of nets from three Sydney and Central Coast beaches for the 2025-26 patrol season, favoring non-lethal alternatives such as enhanced drone surveillance and SMART drumlines, with councils invited to nominate sites by 22 August. This initiative faced reversal following a fatal shark attack on 6 September 2025 at a Sydney beach, prompting suspension of the removal trial on 10 September and renewed defense of nets amid public safety concerns, as no fatal attacks had occurred at netted Sydney beaches prior despite ongoing bycatch. Queensland's Shark Management Plan 2025-2029, released on 25 May 2025, committed an additional $88.228 million over four years to expand the Shark Control Program, integrating , , and non-lethal technologies like drones while retaining and augmenting lethal measures including nets and drumlines, despite a review advising against broader lethal expansion due to limited efficacy evidence. These shifts reflected tensions between rising unprovoked shark bites—averaging 20 injurious incidents annually in with four fatalities by October 2025, concentrated in netted regions—and environmental lawsuits over , where empirical data post-removal trials indicated heightened attack risks without nets.

Emerging Research and Trials

A 2023 study in Marine Policy conducted effect-size analyses on bite incidences at netted versus non-netted beaches in , revealing that the rarity of attacks (often fewer than one per decade per site) limits statistical power to conclusively attribute zero bites to nets alone, though it estimates modest reductions in large encounters via catch . Complementary analyses of Queensland's program from 2023-2024 reported 255 entanglements, predominantly non-target , highlighting persistent gaps in disentangling deterrence from incidental removals but affirming nets' role in targeting like tiger sharks responsible for 70-80% of attacks. Trials of hybrid mitigation systems have advanced since 2023, integrating nets with non-lethal deterrents; for instance, initiated a 2025 experiment attaching LED lights to nets to reduce by exploiting phototactic avoidance, with preliminary monitoring via acoustic tags showing 20-30% fewer entanglements in test sections compared to controls. Methodological improvements include standardized tag recovery rates, where acoustic telemetry data from 2023-2025 trials indicate nets disrupt shark residency patterns by 15-25% near beaches, addressing prior gaps in behavioral response quantification. Emerging innovations emphasize AI-augmented monitoring as adjuncts to nets, with Queensland's 2024-2025 drone trials achieving 85-95% accuracy in real-time shark detection via algorithms trained on video feeds, enabling targeted net deployments and reducing operational costs by 40%. Climate impact research, including a 2024 analysis of migrations, documents delays of up to 10-15 days in juvenile arrivals due to warming waters, prompting modeling studies that prioritize human-safety interventions like nets amid projected 20-30% poleward shifts in shark ranges by 2050, as randomized longitudinal trials remain infeasible owing to ethical and logistical constraints.

Potential Innovations and Reassessments

Researchers are exploring selective net modifications, such as integrating electropositive alloys or larger mesh sizes to reduce non-target bycatch while maintaining efficacy against large predatory sharks, potentially drawing from SMART drumline designs that demonstrate higher selectivity for target species like tiger sharks over rays and hammerheads. Chemosensory repellents, targeting sharks' acute olfactory systems with semiochemicals or surfactants like pardaxin analogs, offer promise for localized deployment without physical barriers, though field trials indicate variable efficacy against species like great whites, necessitating integration with existing nets for high-risk zones. Magnetic and electrosensory barriers, such as those employing ceramic magnets to overload sharks' , represent non-lethal innovations scalable for enclosures, with prototypes like SharkSafe Barriers showing deterrence rates exceeding 90% in controlled tests while permitting passage of non-elasmobranch . These could evolve into hybrid systems combining nets with drone surveillance for proactive alerts, enhancing coverage in expansive coastal areas where traditional nets alone prove insufficient. Reassessments following 2025 trials are projected to prioritize interventions via updated value of statistical life (VSL) calculations—estimated at AUD 5.7 million per human life in Australia—against bycatch costs, favoring nets and drumlines where empirical data confirm net human lives saved outweigh marine impacts, particularly as tourism expands in developing coastal regions like parts of Indonesia and Brazil. Alternatives like unproven repellents may falter in cost-realism, with risk frameworks indicating detection technologies alone reduce bites by up to 50% in trials but require lethal backups for verifiable efficacy in high-density bather areas. Global adoption in rising-tourism economies will likely emphasize scalable, data-driven hybrids over speculative greens, reinforcing nets' role where alternatives empirically underperform.

References

  1. https://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/news-media/campaigns/sharksmart/equipment/shark-nets
  2. https://saferswimmingaustralia.com.au/the-difference-between-shark-nets-and-shark-barriers/
  3. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-23/what-are-shark-nets-and-are-there-better-options-/101233674
  4. https://www.uow.edu.au/media/2019/shark-nets-destructive-and-ineffective-study-finds.php
  5. https://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/news-media/campaigns/sharksmart/program/about/shark-management-plan
  6. https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/102611
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X23012900
  8. https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3223&context=isp_collection
  9. https://www.afd.org.au/shark-nets/
  10. https://hsi.org.au/blog/media-release-new-foi-data-for-nsw-confirms-scientists-condemnation-of-shark-nets/
  11. https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/shark-nets-destructive-ineffective-study-finds/
  12. https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Work-of-the-Assembly/Tabled-Papers/docs/5825T0547/5825t547.pdf
  13. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2989/18142320509504112
  14. https://connectsci.au/mf/article-lookup/doi/10.1071/mf05156
  15. https://mapru.mandela.ac.za/apex/media/Store/images/Arcticles/Dicken-et-al-2018.pdf
  16. https://shark.co.za/reducing/
  17. https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstream/11427/9269/1/thesis_sci_1996_dudley_sfj.pdf
  18. https://www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.au/current-program
  19. https://www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/1240814/nsw-shark-program-2020-21-map.pdf
  20. https://www.fao.org/4/x2098e/X2098E16.htm
  21. https://www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1634394/Shark-Meshing-Program-2024-25-Annual-Performance-Report.pdf
  22. https://www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.au/shark-nets
  23. https://vauclusetoday.com.au/shark-net-installation-delayed-at-shark-beach-in-vaucluse-after-storm-damage/
  24. http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/101327/NSW-shark-meshing-program.pdf
  25. https://www.fao.org/4/X2098E/X2098E15.htm
  26. https://www.afma.gov.au/methods-and-gear/gillnets
  27. http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/Investigatory_Behavior_toward_Surface_Objects_etc_White_Shark_Book.pdf
  28. https://shark.co.za/history-of-protection/
  29. https://shark.co.za/nets-and-drumlines/
  30. https://saveourseas.com/shark-risk-in-south-africa/
  31. https://dsae.co.za/entry/shark-net/e06417
  32. https://www.learntodivetoday.co.za/blog/2015/11/02/the-origins-of-the-kwazulu-natal-sharks-board/
  33. https://www.coastkzn.co.za/how-do-i/shark-attack/
  34. https://shark.co.za/beach-research/
  35. https://theconversation.com/the-untold-story-of-shark-nets-in-australia-3748
  36. https://www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/856165/Report-into-the-NSW-Shark-Meshing-Program.pdf
  37. https://www.publish.csiro.au/mf/Fulltext/mf10182
  38. https://npansw.org.au/2024/08/26/shark-nets-a-false-sense-of-security/
  39. https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Work-of-the-Assembly/Tabled-Papers/docs/5825T0546/5825t546.pdf
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969724031048
  41. https://tracksmag.com.au/the-sharks-of-reunion-485665
  42. https://www.science.org/content/article/how-string-deadly-shark-attacks-made-remote-island-hub-lifesaving-research
  43. https://www.npr.org/2015/07/13/422672969/shark-attacks-still-haunt-residents-of-reunion
  44. https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acv.12096
  45. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/5094527.pdf
  46. https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry/California-great-white-sharks-ignore-humans/
  47. https://www.amusingplanet.com/2025/04/the-1916-jersey-shore-shark-attacks.html
  48. https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-not-have-massive-nets-that-go-down-to-the-ocean-floor-around-beaches-to-prevent-shark-attacks-on-surfers-and-swimmers
  49. https://news.mongabay.com/2023/11/lethal-or-not-australias-beaches-are-a-crucible-for-shark-control-methods/
  50. https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/09/shark-nets-do-protect-human-life/
  51. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.10063
  52. https://www.publish.csiro.au/mf/mf10181
  53. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/04/fatal-shark-attacks-in-australia-are-rising-does-that-mean-the-seas-are-unsafe
  54. https://www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1633976/2023-24-Trigger-Point-Review-Report-for-the-Shark-Meshing-Program.pdf
  55. https://hsi.org.au/blog/134-non-target-animals-including-turtles-and-dolphins-killed-by-nsw-shark-nets-this-season/
  56. https://ecologyandsociety.org/vol30/iss3/art18/
  57. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393637787_Human-wildlife_conflict_regarding_shark_nets_in_Richards_Bay_South_Africa_Seeking_solutions
  58. https://www.data.qld.gov.au/dataset/shark-control-program-shark-catch-statistics
  59. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-024-06308-0
  60. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/30/more-than-90-of-marine-animals-caught-in-nsw-shark-nets-over-summer-were-non-target-species
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5805677/
  62. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.7007
  63. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-03/great-white-shark-breeding-mystery-google-maps-sites/103241566
  64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006320790901237
  65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(90)90123-7
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11109089/
  67. https://www.marineconservation.org.au/one-turtle-killed-every-twelve-days-on-nsw-coast-by-shark-nets-in-the-past-year-new-data-reveals/
  68. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/sep/07/nsw-shark-net-reduction-trial-explainer-after-dee-why-long-reef-beach-attack
  69. https://www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1570987/Shark-Meshing-Bather-Protection-Program-2023-24-Annual-Performance-Report.pdf
  70. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Sharkmitigation/Report/c04
  71. https://shark.co.za/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/KZN-SHARKS-BOARD-AR-2024-Final-WEB.pdf
  72. https://oia.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-10/value-of-statistical-life.pdf
  73. https://psnews.com.au/queensland-government-announces-88m-investment-in-shark-control-program/159709/
  74. https://hsi.org.au/blog/nsw-announces-shark-bite-mitigation-investment-but-holds-on-to-obsolete-nets/
  75. https://shark.co.za/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/KZNSB_Strat-Plan-2020-25_Final_signed-by-MEC.pdf
  76. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/28/trial-to-remove-shark-nets-from-three-sydney-and-central-coast-beaches-a-good-first-step-scientists-say
  77. https://www.envoy.foundation/projects/nets-out-now-coalition
  78. https://www.marineconservation.org.au/actions/nsw-shark-nets/
  79. https://www.africacdc.org/news/2025/vladimir-popov-shark-attack-4/
  80. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X23002956
  81. https://www.stir.ac.uk/research/hub/file/1908060
  82. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-12/conservation-group-says-shark-attacks-are-not-affecting-tourism/6846176
  83. https://provincialgovernment.co.za/entity_annual/951/2024-kwazulu-natal-kwazulu-natal-sharks-board-maritime-centre-of-excellence-annual-report.pdf
  84. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274433160_Reducing_the_environmental_impact_of_shark-control_programs_a_case_study_from_KwaZulu-Natal_South_Africa
  85. https://www.publish.csiro.au/mf/pdf/MF10182
  86. https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/species-protection/what-current/key-threatening-processes1/shark-meshing
  87. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-08/qld-shark-control-program-against-advice-of-kpmg-report/105387824
  88. https://hsi.org.au/marine-wildlife/sharks/end-queenslands-shark-control-program/
  89. https://www.sandybolton.com/shark-nets-and-control-measures-update-july-2025/
  90. https://www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.au/technology-trials-and-research/smart-drumlines
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9598327/
  92. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rv25qy78go
  93. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328318653_From_attacks_to_risk_management_How_does_Reunion_Island_deal_with_sharks
  94. https://www.rustourismnews.com/2023/06/10/hotels-with-shark-nets-in-hurghada/
  95. https://www.arabnews.com/node/2320451/middle-east
  96. https://saveourseas.com/update/the-rise-of-shark-nets/
  97. https://www.uts.edu.au/news/2020/01/sharkspotter-world-first-shark-detection
  98. https://littleripper.com/world-first-for-shark-spotting-algorithm/
  99. https://www.uts.edu.au/case-studies/life-saving-technology-australian-beaches
  100. https://nta.org/2018/07/05/autonomous-shark-detecting-drone-has-90-accuracy/
  101. https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2022/10/how-shoring-up-drones-with-artificial-intelligence-helps-surf-li
  102. https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/shark-spotting-drones-patrol-australias-beaches/
  103. https://www.kosu.org/2015-11-25/australia-testing-shark-detecting-drones-to-prevent-shark-attacks
  104. https://www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.au/technology-trials-and-research
  105. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6120439/
  106. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365127274_Long-range_electric_deterrents_not_as_effective_as_personal_deterrents_for_reducing_risk_of_shark_bite
  107. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/18/electronic-shark-deterrent-surfers-divers-prevents-90-of-encounters
  108. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261562759_Effects_of_the_Shark_Shield_electric_deterrent_on_the_behaviour_of_white_sharks_Carcharodon_carcharias
  109. https://phys.org/news/2019-03-shark-deterrents-dont.html
  110. https://www.forbes.com/sites/garystoller/2024/03/28/shark-deterrents-do-they-work/
  111. https://www.publications.qld.gov.au/ckan-publications-attachments-prod/resources/676ccd30-7eb5-4373-9ba3-e73d7a799a2f/hoel-k.-and-chin-a.-2020-the-scientific-basis-for-global-safety-guidelines-to-reduce-shark-bite-.pdf
  112. https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/shark-attacks/reduce-risk/swimmers/
  113. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1703&context=hwi
  114. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223280827_Tourist_compliance_to_a_Code_of_Conduct_and_the_resulting_effects_on_whale_shark_Rhincodon_typus_behavior_in_Donsol_Philippines
  115. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185335
  116. https://www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.au/staying-safe
  117. https://sharkspotters.org.za/safety/shark-safety-advice/shark-bite-stats/
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9687398/
  119. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0964569120303999
  120. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-25/qld-government-shark-management-nets-drumlines-drones/105333848
  121. https://research.bond.edu.au/files/54485743/AM_A_comparison_of_alternative_systems.pdf
  122. https://afa.net/the-stand/culture/2018/11/the-inherent-value-of-human-life/
  123. https://www.rspca.org.au/latest-news/blog/shark-nets-are-maiming-our-marine-life-its-time-to-end-the-harm/
  124. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982221011982
  125. https://research-management.mq.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/228344019/227788732.pdf
  126. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38043202/
  127. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10526001/
  128. https://www.greenpeace.org.au/news/greenpeace-horrified-at-random-killing-of-marine-life-and-call-for-non-lethal-alternatives-to-shark-nets-to-protect-swimmers/
  129. https://www.seashepherd.org.au/apex-harmony-our-approach/
  130. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/sep/13/are-shark-attacks-on-rise-australia-what-is-being-done-reduce-risk-fatal-incidents
  131. https://www.afd.org.au/petition/shark-nets/
  132. https://www.surfer.com/news/shark-nets-australia-ineffective-preventing-attacks
  133. https://thedailyaus.com.au/news/NSW-Govt-pauses-removal-of-shark-nets-trial%2520-07-09-2025
  134. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2025-02-05-the-paradox-of-kzns-killer-shark-nets-and-baited-hooks-in-marine-protected-areas/
  135. https://oceanramsey.org/africa-shark-nets
  136. https://www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1480126/2023-Community-Sentiment-Survey-for-web.pdf
  137. https://www.forbes.com/sites/melissacristinamarquez/2025/10/11/australians-agree-you-cant-shark-proof-the-ocean/
  138. https://www.kidsnews.com.au/environment/shark-nets-spark-public-safety-vs-marine-conservation-debate/news-story/319fbb7c10ee8b83ad4563386d499f3d
  139. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jul/31/nsw-shark-nets-removed-early-turtles-summer
  140. https://www.miragenews.com/randwick-approves-shark-net-removal-1414973/
  141. https://randwicktoday.com.au/shark-nets-to-be-phased-out-as-randwick-rejects-their-use/
  142. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/sep/09/after-a-deadly-shark-attack-in-sydney-some-are-wondering-do-shark-nets-even-work
  143. https://hsi.org.au/blog/nsw-governments-scrapping-of-shark-net-removal-trial-does-not-make-sense-for-public-safety-or-wildlife/
  144. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-09/fatal-sydney-shark-attack-reignites-shark-net-at-beaches-debate/105749626
  145. https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/marine-life/australia-a-hotspot-as-shark-attack-deaths-rise/
  146. https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-03/tssc-advice-2023-2024-smp-annual-performance-report.pdf
  147. https://www.publish.csiro.au/wr/fulltext/wr25019
  148. https://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/news-media/campaigns/sharksmart/equipment/drones
  149. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2656.14140
  150. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2024.1513232/full
  151. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233293007_Gear_selectivity_of_large-mesh_nets_and_drumlines_used_to_catch_sharks_in_the_Queensland_Shark_Control_Program
  152. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261213739_The_emerging_field_of_electrosensory_and_semiochemical_shark_repellents_Mechanisms_of_detection_overview_of_past_studies_and_future_directions
  153. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1007612002903
  154. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/ip-advantage/w/stories/sharksafe-barrier-an-eco-friendly-shark-deterrent-device
  155. https://www.elsight.com/blog/bvlos-empowered-drones-for-proactive-shark-detection-and-mitigation/
  156. https://oia.pmc.gov.au/resources/guidance-assessing-impacts/value-statistical-life
  157. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.70054
  158. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348579679_A_comparison_of_alternative_systems_to_catch_and_kill_for_mitigating_unprovoked_shark_bite_on_bathers_or_surfers_at_ocean_beaches
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.