Queensland’s shark control plan facing court challenge and federal intervention, experts say

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Queensland's Shark Control Program Expansion Faces Legal and Federal Scrutiny"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 7.9
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

The Queensland government's recent announcement to invest $88 million over four years into an expansion of its shark control program has sparked concerns among marine scientists and policy experts. The plan includes the introduction of shark nets and baited drum lines at more beaches, alongside the use of non-lethal technologies like drone surveillance. Queensland's primary industries minister, Tony Perrett, defended the initiative by claiming it prioritizes beachgoers' safety, which he argues was compromised by previous administrations that favored environmental activism over public safety. However, experts such as marine biologist Lawrence Chlebeck from Humane World for Animals have criticized this approach, suggesting that the government is manipulating public sentiment around a sensitive issue to gain support from the fishing industry while risking legal challenges they are unlikely to win.

Chlebeck indicated that the expansion of the shark control program would likely face scrutiny under the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, which aims to protect threatened species. The program, which has been in operation since 1962, has historically captured a significant number of non-target species, raising ethical and environmental concerns. Last year alone, the program caught 1,639 animals, of which less than half were targeted sharks, including numerous protected species such as whales, dolphins, and turtles. Experts warn that if the Queensland government moves forward with its plans without addressing the potential impacts on these species, it could lead to federal intervention, complicating the state's shark management strategy further. This situation highlights the ongoing tension between public safety, environmental protection, and political maneuvering in the realm of wildlife management.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article examines the ongoing controversy surrounding Queensland’s shark control plan, focusing on the legal and political implications of the program's expansion. The proposed $88 million investment has drawn criticism from marine scientists and policy experts who express concerns about its environmental impact and effectiveness.

Political Motivations

The Queensland government claims that the program aims to enhance beachgoer safety, framing it as a necessary response to previous administrations' failures. However, critics argue that the current government is leveraging the emotional weight of shark attacks for political gain. This suggests a manipulation of public sentiment, where safety is pitted against environmental concerns.

Environmental Concerns

The article highlights the significant capture of non-target species, raising ethical questions about the program. The statistics provided indicate that a large number of animals, including whales and dolphins, were inadvertently harmed. This information aims to elicit concern from the public regarding the environmental costs of such control measures.

Legal Challenges and Federal Intervention

Experts suggest that a legal challenge to the shark control plan is imminent, especially if federal laws come into play. The mention of potential federal intervention indicates a complex interplay between state and federal regulations, which could affect the program's future. This aspect adds a layer of urgency to the discussion, framing it as not just a state issue but one with national implications.

Public Perception and Community Impact

The article seems to target communities concerned about both safety at beaches and the environmental implications of shark culling. By presenting the perspectives of both proponents and opponents of the program, it aims to foster a nuanced discussion among the public. The debate also has the potential to mobilize various community groups, particularly those advocating for animal rights and environmental conservation.

Economic Implications

There may be economic ramifications for local industries, particularly fishing, as calls for more shark culling grow. The article hints at a divide between commercial anglers who desire stricter measures and conservationists pushing back against such policies. This tension could influence local economies and fishing practices.

Potential Global Context

While the article is primarily focused on Queensland, it reflects broader global discussions about wildlife conservation, human safety, and environmental ethics. The issue resonates with ongoing debates in various countries about how to balance the needs of communities with the protection of biodiversity.

The tone and language of the article suggest that it is attempting to draw attention to the complexities of the issue rather than simply promoting one side. However, the framing of the government’s actions as politically motivated could lead some readers to question the integrity of the proposed measures.

In conclusion, the reliability of the article rests on its presentation of data and expert opinions, which are crucial for informed public discourse. While it raises important questions about safety, environmental ethics, and political motivations, it also reflects the nuances and divisive nature of the shark control debate in Queensland.

Unanalyzed Article Content

The expansion of Queensland’s lethal shark control program will be challenged in court should it escape a looming entanglement with federal laws, according to marine scientists and policy experts.

The Queensland government announced plans to pump $88m over four years into the state’s shark management plan, which would see shark nets and baited drum lines rolled out at more beaches, as well as the expanded use of non-lethal technology such as drone surveillance.

The Crissafuli government announced its plan was one that “prioritised beach goers’ safety”, which it said was “put at risk” by the previous government to “appease radical agendas”.

“It’s clear the program had lost its way under previous Labor governments who failed to act and put people after the demands of environmental activists,” the primary industries minister, Tony Perrett, said ina statement.

But Humane World for Animals marine biologist Lawrence Chlebeck said the LNP was “simply playing politics” with a highly emotive issue, describing their shark policy as a “thinly veiled ruse” to appear supportive of the fishing industry by picking a legal fight “they know they’ll lose”.

Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email

Many commercial anglers are clamouring for more sharks to be culled amidrising rates of depredation of their catch.

Chlebeck confirmed HWA was already looking into a legal challenge – but federal intervention could mean that it “may not even come to that”.

As well as catching and culling target sharks, Queensland’s shark nets and drum lineskill, injure and entangle non-target species. Chlebeck said public data showed that last year 1,639 animals were caught in the program – fewer than half of which were targeted sharks – including 22 whales and dolphins, 37 turtles and 46 rays. More than 980 animals were killed.

Queensland’s shark control program has been running since 1962 and is grandfathered into the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, designed to protect threatened species.

But Chlebeck said that exemption came with a clause that the shark control program be assessed if it was expanded and shown to have a significant impact on threatened species

“The catch of protected species like whales and dolphins, the catch of threatened species like marine turtles and a number of shark species, including the critically endangered grey nurse, that could and most likely will open it up to review under the EPBC Act,” he said.

“The Queensland state government, they know all of this, so if they really want to push forward with these plans, they’re going to come into conflict with the federal government and the new federal environment minister – which may or may not have been their plan all along.”

But Chlebeck said the state’s “bluster” would end up “opening up their own program to a scrutiny it has never before faced”.

And the marine biologist has form when it comes to lethal shark control in Queensland.

Sign up toBreaking News Australia

Get the most important news as it breaks

after newsletter promotion

In 2019 the then Humane Society International had the state’s plans for the lethal use of nets and drum lines in the Great Barrier Reefquashed by the federal court of Australia, with a judge ruling the scientific evidence presented was “overwhelming” that the program’s culling of sharks did “not reduce the risk of unprovoked shark interactions”.

A University of Sydney associate professor of public policy and expert in the politics of shark attacks, Chris Pepin-Neff, agreed the Queensland government’s announcement was more about taking culture wars to the open water than implementing evidence-backed policy.

“I think there’s no doubt that the Queensland government believes that this is kind of a war on woke,” Pepin-Neff said. “This is definitely a tough-on-sharks kind of policy decision and it includes killing sharks – and making sure everyone knows that they’re killing sharks – as a way to provide political cover.

“There’s no real way to interpret this other than that the politicians have decided that they are going to win elections by killing sharks.”

A spokesperson for the federal environment department confirmed the Queensland shark control program was exempt from the EPBC Act “in its current form … as it was in operation prior to commencement of the act”.

“It is the responsibility of the Queensland government to ensure any changes to its program are still covered by the exemption and refer any action that requires an approval under the EPBC Act.”

The state government was contacted for comment.

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian