Christopher Neff discusses the politics of sharks and shark ‘attacks’, and how this frames our understanding of these events.
The first question I am often asked is: is there politics to shark attacks?
After four years of research and finishing the first PhD of this kind, I can report soundly that ‘yes there is’. And moreover, the politics of shark ‘attacks’ is complicated. Not simply because there are tensions between public safety and shark conservation, nor because of the emotion-laden, media-attracting events, but because at a fundamental level these are ungovernable events in nature.
Shark bites are tragic and traumatic. They are also the result of an interaction in a wild marine ecosystem between one land animal and one aquatic animal. Simply put, these are events in the natural world where there is no blame, no intent, and no policy solution. There is no government decision that can shark-proof swimming at all times. The best we can hope for are half-measures on a small scale. Yet, shark bites are made governable by policies, politics, and rhetoric. Thus, the ‘politics of shark attacks’ relies heavily on moving these events out of the natural world and into the social world, where accidents are intentional, bites are ‘attacks’, and animal behaviour is criminal behaviour. There are four messages to four different audiences that emerge from my PhD, four things I take away as lessons and which I would like to tell these different audiences if I could:
Speaking to government
This first point is perhaps the most important and bears repeating. Shark bites on humans are not a governable event. However, there are two leading factors that influence its movement out of nature and into politics. Firstly, these events present political problems for politicians and it is to this that governments respond. The problem arises from four elements: the objective harm of the event, emotional response from the public, the frequency of the events and media attention.
Secondly, even if the events are not governable they are blamable. As a result, short-term responses are seen as a politically valuable idea. Here, the context and features of shark bites are unique and politically inviting because sharks are often maligned and unpopular and because the events are random. Political responses to shark bites can look like a successful response to a deviant ‘rogue’ animal because the events are so infrequent that the time frame between events makes a policy look like it is working. As a result, the message to governments is to reconsider these events and reengage with the public.
Speaking to scientists
Scientists do a lot of things very well. Shark science and shark conservation both rely on their research and innovation. They are also my friends, colleagues and most appreciated critics. However, talking to the public about the uncertainties of shark bites remains a challenge. The message to scientists is simple, the public wants to know if they are on the sharks’ menu?
This is particularly important because politicians use reasoned, measured, scientific uncertainty to gain leverage with the public and to undermine shark conservation and kill sharks. In short, science is taking a secondary role in shark bite response policy. The ideas of the ‘rogue’ shark, the Jaws shark and the man-eating shark have not gone away. Indeed, killing sharks is seen as a successful policy response for maintaining public confidence in beach-going. Government responses directed at shark hunts to kill sharks believed to pose a particular threat to the public occurred in 2013, 2012, 2011 and 2010.
The idea that people may be on the menu has been dispelled since the 1980s, more than 30 years ago. Yet, the lingering narrative that sharks know what we are and seek us out is damaging to global shark conservation education. Indeed, the phrase ‘attack’ connotes an intent that has not been scientifically validated. In this case, we see sensationalised media reports, movie scripts and scientists using a shared discourse to reflect different meanings and realities.
In addition, the evidence to support most ‘shark control’ methods has been disproven since the early 1990s, some 20 years ago. As an example, the data show that the shark culling in New South Wales (NSW) has not reduced the rate of shark bites. In addition, the data show that there does not appear to be a relationship between shark culling and shark bite prevention. While the negative impacts highlight that over the past three years, 57 percent of the wrong target species has been caught and killed, 54 white sharks have been culled on the east coast since 2008; and most of the white sharks culled happened during times when there has never been a fatality.
I was pleased to see the American Elasmobranch Society recently voted in favour of a resolution to address this rhetoric based on new proposed categories from Dr Robert Hueter and myself. These included shark sightings (where there is no contact between sharks and people), shark encounters (where there is contact but no injury), shark bites (where there is a non-fatal injury) and fatal shark bites (where the injury is fatal). This change in the discourse is a first step in a long-term approach to giving the public the best evidence-based information. Hueter and I argued that this research matters because current constructions criminalise shark bites; this discourse lowers policy thresholds (that lead to easy overreactions); and it misleads the public. A full application of the proposed classifications offers a new narrative to scientists, policymakers and the media. It provides new options for considering human-shark interactions without intent and focuses on multiple outcomes – particularly non-dangerous ones. It also may promote less overreactive public policies and encourage changes to media reporting by news outlets, such as the Associated Press.
Moving forward, a consensus among scientists on causal stories about shark behaviour that ‘stick’ with the public will assist conservation stakeholders in education efforts and also equip governments with more choice in how they talk to the public following shark bite incidents.
Speaking to the public
There is a difficult message to convey to the public about shark bites; however, it is not about sharks. It is about the ocean and marine environments. Simply put, the beach has been domesticated as a tourist location for bathers in ways that do not conform to the reality of what the ocean is: the wild. In many ways, going to the beach is like putting a picnic table in the Serengeti and pretending it is not the wilderness. Yet, entering the ocean is to submit to a foreign world that is dynamic and unsafe.
These are difficult points because most of us love the ocean and the beach. It is reasonable to want to have a safe, recreational experience at the beach. Indeed, many people do, most days of the year. But rip currents, jellyfish, stonefish and sharks represent just a fraction of the ecological totality that is the ‘swimming’ experience. Essentially, we are talking about a plan for ‘informed choice’ that considers personal risk based on personal behaviour. The focal decision is the one to stay on the beach or enter the dynamic marine ecosystem.
The good days provide a false sense of security to what the ocean is and commercial interests are invested in promoting the idealised and false narrative. The result is not to approach the beach as an enemy but to respect the mystery of what is going on beneath the surface, before we enter the water. The wild is not governable and sharks do not abide by regulation.
Speaking to conservationists
The message to conservationists is simple: ‘shark bite prevention is shark conservation’. The first piece of this argument is to note that there is currently a disconnect in most locations between shark bite prevention work and shark conservation science. This is changing, but it begins by avoiding discussions of the endangered status of sharks following a shark bite. Following these tragic events, the endangered nature of sharks looks like the solution to the problem, not a problem. In addition, articulating the value of sharks following a loss of human life is insensitive.
The change that is needed is for shark conservationists to be champions of shark bite prevention because when conservationists engage they include themselves in meaningful ways that show the need to protect both people and sharks. This reconciles many of the tensions between the two issues and offers them a seat at the table as stakeholders in solving the issue. The result is the promotion of better public education by adding voices of science and conservation to those of risk management. This encourages balanced solutions that reflect higher social values in animals and shifts away from the ‘precautionary principle’ where the burden of proof is on animals to prove ‘innocence’ to human behaviour. This approach also prioritises scientific evidence of ani-mal behaviour as a way to protect people, reduce human risk and offer the public useful tips.
Recap and final thoughts
There are a number of final points. Firstly, a thank you to the Save Our Seas Foundation. This research would not have been possible without the support of the SOSF, or put a different way, I would not have been able to complete this PhD without the friendships, professional support and financial assistance of the foundation. It simply could not have happened and I am grateful to all of the scientists who assisted me and to the Save Our Seas Shark Centre for hosting me during my fieldwork in Cape Town.
Secondly, how would I recap these points? It is critically important to locate shark bites in the natural world. However, this will happen only when policies, politics, the public and rhetoric change. Governments can play a leading role by prioritising science in their efforts to reduce shark bites. Scientists can help do this by highlighting the many different features of the human-shark relationship. Conservationists can engage by connecting their efforts to support local sharks with new assistance in shark bite prevention. Lastly, the public can do more to promote calculating beach risk by rethinking the beach and marine environments. A key starting point is in identifying the ocean as the wild and developing an ‘informed choice’ model of shark bite prevention. This focuses on the personal behaviour in which we put ourselves in marine ecosystems.
Thirdly, where does this research go from here? While I have completed my dissertation, further study is needed. Policy responses that reinforce fears of sharks limit public support and undermine shark conservation for all species. In addition, the disparate policy directions and the role of science in anti-finning and fishery campaigns, compared with shark-control beach policies, point to a problem in the different social values placed on shark conservation.
In closing, meaning-making matters. When beaches are closed because of whale migrations inshore the public is happy, and when they are closed because of white sharks they can get angry. If we were to replace the word ‘shark’ with the word ‘dolphin’ throughout this article it would fundamentally alter the conception of this story and public attitudes. In short, there is an existing shark bite profile in the minds of the public based on predicted perceived outcomes and emotions, images and causal stories in human-shark narrative. It is therefore the task of social scientists and natural scientists alike to challenge the power dynamics and stereotypes that value one meaning over another and one perception over another, not simply because conceptions of shark bites as governable events and ocean beaches as hospitable places to recreate are false, but because it is at this core argument that the future of shark conservation will sink or swim.
Chris loves sharks, but studies people. He has used his expertise in political science to understand how people perceive sharks and what this means for conservation.