高清福利片

础听听has, in the words of committee member听, moved the 鈥渟hark cull debate into the 21st century鈥�.

The first recommendation of the inquiry is to 鈥渋mmediately replace lethal drum lines鈥� with so-called SMART drum lines and to phase out shark nets.

Yet if the news media are to be believed, these conclusions go against the grain of public opinion, with Western Australia鈥檚 spate of shark incidents having spawned previous headlines such as 鈥溾��. More recently, a series of incidents in Ballina in northern New South Wales prompted our surfing former prime minister Tony Abbott to weigh in,听.

The question of how much the public really supports policies that kill sharks has been surprisingly difficult to answer. The Senate inquiry noted that while it had been suggested 鈥渢hat lethal measures such as nets are no longer supported 鈥� reliably ascertaining community views on matters such as this could be quite difficult鈥�.

Difficult? Yes. But doable. We have surveyed public opinion in Western Australia and Ballina, following shark bite incidents in each place. In fact, over the past five years we have searched high and low for the type of widespread support for lethal policies that is suggested by the tabloid press. It simply is not there, as our findings in the peer-reviewed journals听听补苍诲听听蝉丑辞飞.

Public opinion in Perth and Ballina

滨苍听听including phone polling in both Perth and Ballina, as well as face-to-face surveys of local residents, beachgoers, and business owners in Ballina, we consistently found levels of support for lethal policies in the 20-25% range.

This is particularly remarkable in the case of Ballina. As the shire鈥檚 mayor David Wright听, between 8 February 2015 and July 2016, surfers there 鈥渨ere involved in 9% of the world鈥檚 shark attacks and interactions鈥�, with the media dubbing it the 鈥溾��.

A large majority of people in both Perth and Ballina viewed shark bites as accidental rather than intentional. While fear of sharks is linked to higher support for lethal policies, fear alone does not cause people to support killing sharks.

Support for lethal policies arises when fear of sharks is combined with the听. In our surveys, respondents who view shark bites to be intentional were more than 2.5 times as likely to support policies that kill sharks.

This is strongly related to the听听that the belief that 鈥渒illing 鈥榬ogue鈥� sharks will solve the problem鈥� remains widespread. This is despite a clear expert consensus that there is 鈥渘o evidence for anything called a rogue shark鈥�.

As the Department of the Environment and Energy听, 鈥淣o shark is thought to target humans as prey鈥�, and the vast majority of shark bite incidents 鈥渃an be attributed to the shark confusing us with its normal prey鈥�.

This view was apparent among the relatively few beachgoers in Ballina who reported supporting lethal policies, with several respondents suggesting that they would only support killing sharks that 鈥渉ad gotten a taste for human flesh鈥�.

Many respondents were also unaware that shark nets are lethal to sharks. Indeed, this is their primary purpose, as the Senate inquiry noted: 鈥淚t is not intended that the nets create an enclosed area: rather, they are a passive fishing device designed to cull sharks in the area.鈥�

Understanding overcomes fear

翱耻谤听听looked specifically at the interaction between fear of sharks and the perception that they bite humans intentionally.

We carried out an experiment in the Sydney SEA LIFE Aquarium鈥檚 鈥渟hark tunnel鈥� 鈥� a one-way, U-shaped exhibit that provides perfect conditions for our study. We divided participants into two groups and assigned one group to a treatment to 鈥減rime鈥� their emotions at the beginning of the exhibit.

We also surveyed all participants about their feelings about and perceptions of sharks, after viewing the exhibit. This also allowed us to capture both a before and after measurement of fear, from which we could determine whether people鈥檚 fear had subsided after seeing sharks鈥� behaviour at first hand.

We tested two 鈥減riming鈥� messages. One called attention to the low probability of being bitten by a shark 鈥� we call this our Probability Prime. A second priming message drew 鈥渁ttention to intentionality鈥�. This was our Intentionality Prime and it prompted aquarium visitors to consider sharks鈥� behaviours.

The Probability Prime, which reflects standard marine education attempts to reduce fear of sharks, failed to do so, consistent with research showing听. Crucially, considering our findings in Ballina and Perth, the Intentionality Prime successfully reduced the public鈥檚 fear of sharks.

There are five take-home messages from our research results:

1. There is little blame on the shark. The tide has turned and the public is sophisticated enough to understand that sharks are not intentionally hurting people.

2. There is little blame on the government. Governments that feel they need to continue using shark nets or else face the wrath of the public following a shark bite should rework their political calculations.

3. The public no longer supports policies that kill sharks. In WA, 75% supported non-lethal options, in Ballina the number was 83% and in the Sydney experiment it reached 85%.

4. A Save the Sharks movement has begun, with the public we have polled consistently voicing greater support for conservation approaches above killing sharks.

5. Survey respondents believe that governments choose lethal measures to ease public concern, not to make beaches safer. This is a problem for Australia鈥檚 democracy; the public believes that policies are being designed to protect governments, not people.

This last point is arguably the most serious flaw of all in these policies: the continued killing of sharks for political gain.

听

This article was written by Dr Chris Pepin-Neff and Dr Thomas Wynter from the Department of Government and International Relations. It was originally published on as