The truth about shark nets in South Africa - worth a read!

[J_Bay]

Guys, this is a relevant topic that I think a lot of KZN fisherman weather shore or boat based feel strongly about. It's also a a very interesting topic to discuss. Can we please avoid name calling and personal attacks against people of opposing opinions?

If we keep up name calling and inappropriate posts, all that will happen is that they'll close the thread. Let's have well thought out, sensible debate on a topic that affects everyone that uses the ocean in KZN.

 

[DJP]

Have a look at the KZN Sharkboard website http://www.shark.co.za/Default.aspx it makes for interesting reading.

For me it’s pretty simple, I wouldn’t want to kill 40 Dolphins and 30 turtle’s est. each year to go swim, so I would vote for the nets to be removed. Isn't it time we took some personal responsibility for our actions, whether direct or indirect?

 

[Andre Laas]

How about this technology:

http://www.livescience.com/13456-hook-reduces-shark-catch-ria-110318.html
http://www.gizmag.com/smart-fishing-hook-repels-sharks/19406/

Or we should design something like the esca lure (Size wise, shark-pods are too big), but that repels sharks.


I also know that some work are being done on shark-repellent chemicals...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0729_040729_sharkrepellent.html

http://www.sharkskunker.net/

 

[FeedingFrenzy]

OK subsequent to my last post I tried to send a nice big one yesterday but PC died on me (left damn charger in office).  So here goes:

In response to jb2's "one-liners":

Ecosystem Based Management (EMB) is nothing new - it was devised as a response to the ever-increasing use of Environmental Management Sytems (EMS) to manage enterprises and operations that were utilising natural resources.

EMS is used in forestry (N. America) and agriculture (N. america, Europe and Australia).  In fact it used wherever there are potential impacts that are to be mitigated - usually pollution and stormwater/erosion.  (Having mentioned "mitigation" I must add I have no issue with mitigation measures - provided they are realistic, implementable, are measurable and actually do result in no nett loss of: biodiversity of conservation concern/critical ecosystems or ecosystem functioning).

EMS is therefore centered entirely on the operation and puts activities in place to keep the operation within the legal framework prescribed therein.  It does not consider the actual thresholds of an ecosystem.  So it is actually a site intervention and not holistic.

EMB looks at managing impacts to all components of an ecosystem and does not consider only a specific resource usage.  It considers what impacts/cascading events the reduction of a target resource would have in relation to the rest of the components and therefore the functioning of the ecosystem.

Ecosystems consist of two main components - abiotic or non-living (which includes water, soil, carbon etc) and biotic or living components.  Hence there is no such thing as "human welfare" being an ecosystem component!

Human welfare is dependent on ecosystem components (and therefore ecosystems) however.  Think water, oxygen, food etc.

And after all this let's get to the crux of the matter.  Shark nets are a negative impact to ecosystem functioning.  They impinge on the predator/prey dynamic that is a major driver of populations and behaviour.  They impact into the nutrient cycling by removing biomass that has locked up nutrients thereby no longer making it available to other consumers and detritivores. 

We also need to consider the cumulative impact of reducing already threatened species populations - a constant mortality of turtles for example coupled with illegal harvesting and loss of breeding sites is hastening their extinction.  Any one of the reduction mechanisms is bad enough on its own - however all three together? You get the picture.

OK this is enough of a thesis already.  I will rather post more constructive ways of dealing with the issue at a later stage.

Cheers

 

[jb2]

FeedingFrenzy wrote:

OK subsequent to my last post I tried to send a nice big one yesterday but PC died on me (left damn charger in office).  So here goes:

In response to jb2's "one-liners":

Ecosystem Based Management (EMB) is nothing new - it was devised as a response to the ever-increasing use of Environmental Management Sytems (EMS) to manage enterprises and operations that were utilising natural resources.

EMS is used in forestry (N. America) and agriculture (N. america, Europe and Australia).  In fact it used wherever there are potential impacts that are to be mitigated - usually pollution and stormwater/erosion.  (Having mentioned "mitigation" I must add I have no issue with mitigation measures - provided they are realistic, implementable, are measurable and actually do result in no nett loss of: biodiversity of conservation concern/critical ecosystems or ecosystem functioning).

EMS is therefore centered entirely on the operation and puts activities in place to keep the operation within the legal framework prescribed therein.  It does not consider the actual thresholds of an ecosystem.  So it is actually a site intervention and not holistic.

EMB looks at managing impacts to all components of an ecosystem and does not consider only a specific resource usage.  It considers what impacts/cascading events the reduction of a target resource would have in relation to the rest of the components and therefore the functioning of the ecosystem.

Ecosystems consist of two main components - abiotic or non-living (which includes water, soil, carbon etc) and biotic or living components.  Hence there is no such thing as "human welfare" being an ecosystem component!

Human welfare is dependent on ecosystem components (and therefore ecosystems) however.  Think water, oxygen, food etc.

And after all this let's get to the crux of the matter.  Shark nets are a negative impact to ecosystem functioning.  They impinge on the predator/prey dynamic that is a major driver of populations and behaviour.  They impact into the nutrient cycling by removing biomass that has locked up nutrients thereby no longer making it available to other consumers and detritivores. 

We also need to consider the cumulative impact of reducing already threatened species populations - a constant mortality of turtles for example coupled with illegal harvesting and loss of breeding sites is hastening their extinction.  Any one of the reduction mechanisms is bad enough on its own - however all three together? You get the picture.

OK this is enough of a thesis already.  I will rather post more constructive ways of dealing with the issue at a later stage.

Cheers

Hi Feeding Frenzy

I really don't make this stuff up.  Marine Management does consider humans as an ecosystem component.

Please have a look at the FAO guide.

 

 

[RusticRainman]

The ocean was created for sea animals. The bush was created for animals. Land was created for humans. Leave it like this.

Where ever humans interfere in nature it is always a balls up................

Humans always try to justify/defend our balls ups............. 

  

 

[jb2]

RusticRainman wrote:

The ocean was created for sea animals. The bush was created for animals. Land was created for humans. Leave it like this.

Where ever humans interfere in nature it is always a balls up................

Humans always try to justify/defend our balls ups............. 

  

Hi Rustic

I am not sure that I follow.

Are you saying that putse worm is entitled to burrow under your skin? Who are we to pull out the maggots?

We obviosly prioritise certain animals.

 

[FeedingFrenzy]

OK this is going sideways and downhill at the same time so lets round this up.

jb whilst I understand your rationale of viewing shark nets as a coastal fishery with benefits (although not hooked on the benefits part) you going round and round in circles here - first human welfare was an ecosystem component, now you have finally started touching on the correct facts but it would appear you don't understand them.  At all.  So let me enlighten you - so that you can see a bit clearly and understand the futility of your argument.

Biota in an ecosystem comprises producers, consumers and detritivores. People are consumers.  Humans are therefore as much part of the ecosystem as a shark etc.  This reality has not been factored into management programmes in the past - we saw ourselves as masters of the earth and all life on it.  We elevated ourselves into a position of a superior life form and everything was either a threat or a resource.

The truth is we have started to realise that everything we do affects something else in an ecosystem and ultimately ourselves.  Now if in this day and age with NEMA and NEMBA in plae we would actually have first put the placement of shark nets through a risk assessment process.  Enter the fray your classic statement that pops its head up whenever somebody wants to make a ton of cash at the expense of the environmet:

"...consider the welfare of the hotelier in the area and balance that against concerns for the shark"

In an EIA those would be weighed against the receiving environments thresholds.  No hotelier's welfare coming first. No. the environment first and they must prove that they are not going to have a residual negative impact.  That's it.  Not the other way around.

Now, given that sharks are consumers, and we are part of the ecosystem - when someone gets chowed its ajust an ugly reminder that we are as much part of the cycle of life as a banana.

Shark nets are indiscriminate.  There is definitely a residual negative impact.  No amount of FAO this and FAO that is going to change that.  Shark nets are not a fishery.  Just like baiting snails with poison pellets is not farming!  If it was a fishery the animals would be utilised (not just for research!) and there would be a target/quota that equates to an ecological reserve that is need for continued optimum ecosystem functioning.

Once again human wants (not needs!) have been put before the ecosystems that sustain us.  Your soapbox puppeteering is exactly that and might impress some dimwits but you are truly out of your league here.

 

[jb2]

FeedingFrenzy wrote:

OK this is going sideways and downhill at the same time so lets round this up.

jb whilst I understand your rationale of viewing shark nets as a coastal fishery with benefits (although not hooked on the benefits part) you going round and round in circles here - first human welfare was an ecosystem component, now you have finally started touching on the correct facts but it would appear you don't understand them.  At all.  So let me enlighten you - so that you can see a bit clearly and understand the futility of your argument.

Biota in an ecosystem comprises producers, consumers and detritivores. People are consumers.  Humans are therefore as much part of the ecosystem as a shark etc.  This reality has not been factored into management programmes in the past - we saw ourselves as masters of the earth and all life on it.  We elevated ourselves into a position of a superior life form and everything was either a threat or a resource.

The truth is we have started to realise that everything we do affects something else in an ecosystem and ultimately ourselves.  Now if in this day and age with NEMA and NEMBA in plae we would actually have first put the placement of shark nets through a risk assessment process.  Enter the fray your classic statement that pops its head up whenever somebody wants to make a ton of cash at the expense of the environmet:

"...consider the welfare of the hotelier in the area and balance that against concerns for the shark"

In an EIA those would be weighed against the receiving environments thresholds.  No hotelier's welfare coming first. No. the environment first and they must prove that they are not going to have a residual negative impact.  That's it.  Not the other way around.

Now, given that sharks are consumers, and we are part of the ecosystem - when someone gets chowed its ajust an ugly reminder that we are as much part of the cycle of life as a banana.

Shark nets are indiscriminate.  There is definitely a residual negative impact.  No amount of FAO this and FAO that is going to change that.  Shark nets are not a fishery.  Just like baiting snails with poison pellets is not farming!  If it was a fishery the animals would be utilised (not just for research!) and there would be a target/quota that equates to an ecological reserve that is need for continued optimum ecosystem functioning.

Once again human wants (not needs!) have been put before the ecosystems that sustain us.  Your soapbox puppeteering is exactly that and might impress some dimwits but you are truly out of your league here.

Hi Feeding Frenzy

I am not so  sure that I am a "soap box puppeteer" or that I have managed to "impress any "dimwits".

You might find this strange but I don't have strong views either way. I can live with sharks being killed.

A shark is a fish and as pylstert had said they require special management but they are just fish.

Balancing of the interests of the hotelier (actually the whole coastal holiday town) and the sharks is a part of adopting an ecosystem based approach.

It is not fair to say "FAO this" and "FAO that" in rejecting the approach adopted by the FAO.

We apply much of the FAO stuff in marine management in South Africa.

Our seabird plan of action would be a good example.

 

[Marthin]

JB with current legislation in place, EPA's that need to be done before anything is granted....

Do you think if there were no nets prior, they would have succeeded in having them put in now?

 

[jb2]

Marthin wrote:

JB with current legislation in place, EPA's that need to be done before anything is granted....

Do you think if there were no nets prior, they would have succeeded in having them put in now?

Good question and the answer would come from the Sharks Board themselves. They are switching over to drum lines and they lift the nets during the sardine run.

My guess would be: not on the same scale.

Based on the hype surrounding sharks and anything to do with sharks. The public seem to go mad when a shark is killed. The earlier threads on Sealine showing some commercially caught sharks have yielded howls of disapproval.  

The question that you are leading to is "If they would struggle to get the nets in the water now, why are they allowed to continue to net. "

Much must turn on the economic consequences of the removal of the nets.

 

 

[Marthin]

I can not see why tho, the intire rest of SA's coastal towns make their living even more dependantly from ocean users with no nets around.

I dont for a moment believe it will have a major economic impact. Muizenberg would have been a ghost town already, yet the morning of the 2nd of January, you couldnt find space for a mouse on that beach.

Port St Johns will live on..... The most important thing people might learn if there were no nets and shark attacks continued at spots like Port st Johns, is what i was taught from a small age.... you don't swim near or in river mouths, you don't swim at dusk or dawn or any other low light conditions, you don't swim in murky water.

My brother who stays inland and maybe sees the sea once every 2 years, looked at the pictures i sent him of the previous lifegaurd that got taken at Port st Johns. He immediately mailed me back and said, "looking at the shadows of the people it looks either late or very early in the morning, and that water seems pretty dirty to me, and isnt there a river mouth near there?"

My point is, i can not see the economic impact outweighing the environmental impact in this instance. It's an archaic system. Effective yes, but so was apartheid. Neither is right tho.

 

[jb2]

Marthin wrote:

I can not see why tho, the intire rest of SA's coastal towns make their living even more dependantly from ocean users with no nets around.

I dont for a moment believe it will have a major economic impact. Muizenberg would have been a ghost town already, yet the morning of the 2nd of January, you couldnt find space for a mouse on that beach.

Port St Johns will live on..... The most important thing people might learn if there were no nets and shark attacks continued at spots like Port st Johns, is what i was taught from a small age.... you don't swim near or in river mouths, you don't swim at dusk or dawn or any other low light conditions, you don't swim in murky water.

My brother who stays inland and maybe sees the sea once every 2 years, looked at the pictures i sent him of the previous lifegaurd that got taken at Port st Johns. He immediately mailed me back and said, "looking at the shadows of the people it looks either late or very early in the morning, and that water seems pretty dirty to me, and isnt there a river mouth near there?"

My point is, i can not see the economic impact outweighing the environmental impact in this instance. It's an archaic system. Effective yes, but so was apartheid. Neither is right tho.

Hi Marthin

Ironically, I don't have strong feelings either way. I can see the concerns of coastal towns who are worried about losing tourists and I can see the argument that it is a bit of a waste.

I wouldn't swim anywhere in Port St Johns and I would feel a bit safer swimming at a beach with nets.

I stay in Muizenberg but I would never swim deep  in the sea here. In the 6 or so years that I have lived in Muizenberg I don't think that I have ever swum more than waste deep and I only swim when my family from JHB come down for the holidays.

You are more likely to be killed by your toaster but your toaster is not hovering on the backline.

I am also able to unplug my toaster.

 

[FeedingFrenzy]

Here we go again.  A shark is but one itty bitty little entity that comprises the consumer component of an ecosystem.  This is not about getting all fuzzy about a shark. Or a panda. Or any other consumer/detritivore.  And that includes people.

This is about negative impacts to ecosystems.  You seriously don't get it do you.  Your mindset is that of someone who claims that component management is the way to go ( and exactly the opposite of EBM).  That is exactly what you are advocating here - manage the sharks!  You cannot "manage" the sharks without affecting some other aspect of the ecosystem.  Secondly the nets are causing mortality of species of conservation concern.  Refer to one of my previous posts regarding cumulative impacts.

My "FAO this" and "FAO that" comment is directed at YOU.  Not the FAO.  You have no clue what that document is rationalising.  Nada. You use it as a crutch to prop up your misguided argument. 

You do not know what EBM is, have heard of it  but have no clue.  As I said what you are advocating is very far from EBM.  Just FYI - I compile Management Plans - Ecosystem Management Plans - for both private prioperties as well as Provincial and Parastatl agencies.  I am also a specialist appointed to compile specialist assessments for EIA's.  I know what I am talking about here - unlike you that has read a document and are not really sure what it all means - I actually work with this stuff on a daily basis.

So, I'll say it again.  Shark nets are not a fishery.  Just like baiting snails with poison pellets is not farming!  If it was a fishery the animals would be utilised (not just for research!) and there would be a target/quota that equates to an ecological reserve that is need for continued optimum ecosystem functioning.

The existing hotels and allied industry that is based on tourism (which is based on the assumption that a beach is safe because of shark nets) complicate the matter.  They are there and have become culturally entrenched.  It is unfortunate but the repercussions of starving that industry create a management issue that our present social and political systems could not deal with.  The unfortunate reality is that the Authorities will have to continue to be seen as "managing" the predators to keep the public safe.

My suggestions:

1) Create a fishery.  A real one.  Lift the nets and use drum lines or something similar - lets set quotas and lets see the shark being used as a resource instead of a by-product. 

OR (and this is preferable)

2) How about getting all those that benefit from the nets (hotel industry) to put some cash (lots of cash) towards employing shark spotters and some dudes to fly their micro-light airplanes - and look out for sharks.  Nets create the illusion of safety - "no shark gonna get past there" whereas we all know that is not true.  Shark spotters inform you - allowing you to take responsibility for your actions - "There is a predator capable of attacking and killing you that has been seen in the last hour or so - please avoid going in" if you want to well, then you're on the menu.  This will create loads of employment and also instills in people that they are part of the cycle of life.

Ek is nou moeg gepraat.

Cheers

 

[jb2]

FeedingFrenzy wrote:

Here we go again.  A shark is but one itty bitty little entity that comprises the consumer component of an ecosystem.  This is not about getting all fuzzy about a shark. Or a panda. Or any other consumer/detritivore.  And that includes people.

This is about negative impacts to ecosystems.  You seriously don't get it do you.  Your mindset is that of someone who claims that component management is the way to go ( and exactly the opposite of EBM).  That is exactly what you are advocating here - manage the sharks!  You cannot "manage" the sharks without affecting some other aspect of the ecosystem.  Secondly the nets are causing mortality of species of conservation concern.  Refer to one of my previous posts regarding cumulative impacts.

My "FAO this" and "FAO that" comment is directed at YOU.  Not the FAO.  You have no clue what that document is rationalising.  Nada. You use it as a crutch to prop up your misguided argument. 

You do not know what EBM is, have heard of it  but have no clue.  As I said what you are advocating is very far from EBM.  Just FYI - I compile Management Plans - Ecosystem Management Plans - for both private prioperties as well as Provincial and Parastatl agencies.  I am also a specialist appointed to compile specialist assessments for EIA's.  I know what I am talking about here - unlike you that has read a document and are not really sure what it all means - I actually work with this stuff on a daily basis.

So, I'll say it again.  Shark nets are not a fishery.  Just like baiting snails with poison pellets is not farming!  If it was a fishery the animals would be utilised (not just for research!) and there would be a target/quota that equates to an ecological reserve that is need for continued optimum ecosystem functioning.

The existing hotels and allied industry that is based on tourism (which is based on the assumption that a beach is safe because of shark nets) complicate the matter.  They are there and have become culturally entrenched.  It is unfortunate but the repercussions of starving that industry create a management issue that our present social and political systems could not deal with.  The unfortunate reality is that the Authorities will have to continue to be seen as "managing" the predators to keep the public safe.

My suggestions:

1) Create a fishery.  A real one.  Lift the nets and use drum lines or something similar - lets set quotas and lets see the shark being used as a resource instead of a by-product. 

OR (and this is preferable)

2) How about getting all those that benefit from the nets (hotel industry) to put some cash (lots of cash) towards employing shark spotters and some dudes to fly their micro-light airplanes - and look out for sharks.  Nets create the illusion of safety - "no shark gonna get past there" whereas we all know that is not true.  Shark spotters inform you - allowing you to take responsibility for your actions - "There is a predator capable of attacking and killing you that has been seen in the last hour or so - please avoid going in" if you want to well, then you're on the menu.  This will create loads of employment and also instills in people that they are part of the cycle of life.

Ek is nou moeg gepraat.

Cheers

Hi Feeding Frenzy

 

Your highlighted paragraph sums up the whole discussion.

I too dabble in policy work and I come more from a fisheries background.

I am aware of the scope of ecosystems and the need to manage the entire ecosystem. No one is trying to reduce the scope of what an ecosystem is.

A "fishery" includes extractive uses that are not for food. the catch and release fishery does not kill a lot of fish but it is still a fishery.

The purpose of the shark nets is to kill sharks and haul them out. Whether they are made into biltong or not is neither here nor there.

 

[juliet]

26000 sharks in 30 years

2600 sharks in 3 years

900 sharks a year

3 sharks per day

 

Longliners maybe kill more sharks than that....HUH!!!!!!!

Even SEALINERS kill more sharks than that.....

And we haul them round on rocks for the pics, or just cut the line and make them swim around a bit

So, lift the nets.... and stop sliding YT heads...cancell everything!

Charity starts at home

The South Coast is EVIL...but lots and lots of hungry people are being fed with the "hotelliers" revenue...otherwise they/we would all be next to the ocean eating from the sea...go sit near the low water mark from RSA to Tanzania  and observe...sommer start at the Wild Coast Casino and go south...because you can buy 50 opened oysters for 20 bucks, or crayfish the size of prawns... and the people buying them are reading this, creating/contributing to the anhilation

If  the KZN population had to subsist from the sea a lot of things could get worse! 

So... 3 sharks per day?

 

The personal attacks is what is causing people to leave this forum

 

 

[Marthin]

Juliet, except for the sharks, and you have probably the most valid argument around, what bothers me is...

1. We don't or i hope dont kill great whites (a critically endangered species), especially not 5m females.
2. We don't indiscrimanately kill sea turtles
3. Dolphins

And again i see no reason why the hotels or any other would suffer with the lifting of the nets. None of them around the rest of our coast suffer without nets.

 

[FeedingFrenzy]

I will say it again - you can't claim to advocate Ecosystem Based Management when you are actually advocating managing the shark population as a component.  I have never seen a risk assessment that shows the cumulative impacts of shark nets.  And everytime I hear of questions being asked of the "by-catch" (read: cetaceans and turtles) it is downplayed by the "economic benefits" gained from having nets.

Every user of the ocean knows that predation by sharks is a reality.  People get chowed in Cape Town.  We have found a solution that does not have a residual negative impact.

Personally I don't like sharks.  That is my emotional response to them.  In fact it borders on phobia!  But I do understand their ecological role - and to dismiss that value purely based on an emotional response is stunted. 

When we look at cumulative impacts - we realise that sharks are being hauled out for fins etc - they are becoming species of conservation concern.  Shark nets are contributing to that downward slide - just because qwe have found a bigger killer than Charles Manson doesn't make Charles Manson a nice guy!

To justify environmental degradation with economics is also stunted and short-sighted.  The truth is here in cape Town no jobs have been lost to shark attacks - in fact there are more people here now that are interested in sharks - they are here because they can see and possibly interact with apex predators.  Not my cup of tea but it is theirs. 

The shark nets are archaic and a knee-jerk reaction to an event.  It does not justify their continued use. 

 

[thika]

 

Dis eintlik ek op Freda (Juliet) se laptop...in die Kaap

3 haaie n dag is zulch! 

Moeg vir mense wat hulle eie ego's blaas!

Dis al wat hierdie is!

Hou op hoender en bees eet want hulle kry baie seer as hulle doodgemaak word!

Kry die nuwe longlife globes in jou huis

Global warming en carbon footprint!

Vervlaks (aka v*k)....ek gaan vreet sommer sand in die duine!!!!

Wat van die arme plaasboere? Warra warra liewers daaroor!

En moenie die arme renoster vergeet nie!

Haaie het n beter kans om te oorleef as n plaasboer....haai vreet...plaasboer voer!

So, span nette vir die haaie wat die ou tannies en ooms met ysters stryk en hulle way het met die tannie

3 haaie op 3500 km kuslyn per dag?

Shame

Kyk om julle wat aangaan

En hou op mekaar fight

 

 

 

 

 

[thika]

FeedingFrenzy wrote:

I will say it again - you can't claim to advocate Ecosystem Based Management when you are actually advocating managing the shark population as a component.  I have never seen a risk assessment that shows the cumulative impacts of shark nets.  And everytime I hear of questions being asked of the "by-catch" (read: cetaceans and turtles) it is downplayed by the "economic benefits" gained from having nets.

Every user of the ocean knows that predation by sharks is a reality.  People get chowed in Cape Town.  We have found a solution that does not have a residual negative impact.

Personally I don't like sharks.  That is my emotional response to them.  In fact it borders on phobia!  But I do understand their ecological role - and to dismiss that value purely based on an emotional response is stunted. 

When we look at cumulative impacts - we realise that sharks are being hauled out for fins etc - they are becoming species of conservation concern.  Shark nets are contributing to that downward slide - just because qwe have found a bigger killer than Charles Manson doesn't make Charles Manson a nice guy!

To justify environmental degradation with economics is also stunted and short-sighted.  The truth is here in cape Town no jobs have been lost to shark attacks - in fact there are more people here now that are interested in sharks - they are here because they can see and possibly interact with apex predators.  Not my cup of tea but it is theirs. 

The shark nets are archaic and a knee-jerk reaction to an event.  It does not justify their continued use. 

FF,

For President!

Please for a second only...THINK!

If the whole KZN dies...what are you going to do when 300 000 or more people lose their jobs....and their dependants...say 1 500 000 people?

Church waffle braai?

Or 3 sharks spread around every day?

Do you drive a BM or Merc...and have a credit card...are you or your kids hungry?

Do you own a computer and are you on SEALINE and do you have the life experience to moralize other members?

3 sharks per day is NOTHING!

Go fish and stop being an academic