ENVM1501 Essay 2

Shark culling and control in coastal

areas: a case study exploring values in
relation to a contemporary
environmental issue.

Callum Mulvey - 43920178

May, 2015

Introduction
Shark culling and control in coastal areas is a highly topical and widely debated issue. Methods of shark control
have been in use around the world since the early 20th century (Dudley & Gribble, 1999). In recent years particularly,
the use of these methods of control has become a highly contested issue. It is an important issue to debate as it has, and
continues to have effects on a multitude of people from many different areas of society. Introduced as a method of
improving human safety, the implication of these methods of control has also brought about potentially harmful, longterm changes to the ecosystem. It is considered such a difficult problem to resolve as it has so many different factors
that must be taken into account from many parties that are involved. From an environmental managers point of view, it
is paramount that a conclusion is attempted to be found, so that the most favourable outcome is provided. This case
study will explore some of the environmental and ethical values held by many parties involved and how they affect and
are affected by the issue. This will be done by firstly analysing journal articles surrounding the issue and then exploring
the differing values presented throughout, by the many different stakeholders in this issue. The material and evidence
provided will be then used to examine how the personal views of the stake holder effect what recommendations and
ideas are presented and how this effects the overall statements of each piece.

Review of Environmental Values

Values, in every respect, play a key role in the way an issue is presented and therefore perceived. To examine how
these values are presented, the term environmental values must firstly be examined. There are numerous definitions for
environmental values. For example, Tyler (2001) gives the definition of environmental values as basic principles and
goals related to ones self, the physical environment, and ones place in the physical environment, which help to guide
one's beliefs, attitudes, preferences and behaviour regarding environmental concerns (Tyler 2001). Another definition
is given by the Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC). Environmental values
are particular values or uses of the environment that are important for a healthy ecosystem or for public benefit, welfare,
safety or health and which require protection from the effects of pollution, waste discharges and deposits (Australia
and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council 2000). Yet another definition is given by Dietz, Fitzgerald &
Shwom (2005) who state that values are relatively stable principles that help us make decisions when our preferences
are in conflict and thus convey some sense of what we consider good (Dietz, Fitzgerald & Shwom 2005). Overall,
using these definitions as a guide, it can be determined that environmental values are relatively constant principles that
an individual or group may hold, brought about by their personal goals, attitudes and perceptions, that guide the
decisions related to the environmental issue at hand, and that are made by that particular individual or group. For the
sake of this case study, the latter definition will be used. Throughout the case study, the word environment will be
defined as referring to both the surrounding biotic and abiotic factors essential for the optimal survival of an organism
or group of organisms.
There is some debate on the origins and evolution of environmental values. Some (Rokeach 1973) believe that
values always remain the same for individuals. Tyler (2001) makes the distinction that while ones basic value system
may in fact endure, the relative importance, or valence, of individual value elements within this system may alter over

time (Tyler 2001). The argument has been presented that values are rooted in our biology (Hitlin & Piliavin 2004)
and that our social standing and nurture cause these values to evolve, that we are born with values that change shape
and meaning according to our societal goals. Hitlin and Piliavin (2004) site numerous different researchers (Xiao 2000,
Bond 1998, Halaby 2003) on their observations of peoples varying values from different genders, race and social
standing. The overall theme of these researchers works is that depending on occupation, education, social class, gender
or race, the things that an individual values most varies hugely - as a result of their upbringing, the environment that
they live and work in and their social standing (Hitlin and Piliavin 2004).
There are a large number of sociological typologies or models, that have been developed over the years in order to
examine and explain differing environmental values that people hold. A few of these typologies were written by
Merchant (1990), Schwartz (2012), Stem & Dietz (1994) and Hitlin & Piliavin (2004). Hitlin & Piliavin (2004) made
the important observation that there is a distinct difference between attitudes and values, with the former being more
linked with direct, short term actions and behaviours. Contrasting this, values are more likely to remain over time and
hold a higher place in one's internal evaluative hierarchy than attitudes (Hitlin and Piliavin 2004). The Stem & Dietz
(1994) model identified three main values that undermine the decisions that are made by an individual: biospheric
(concerning the natural environment specifically), social-altruistic (concerning the well being of others) and egoistic (of
self interest). This compares to Merchants (1990) typology that identifies three main ethical values: egocentric (only
regarding oneself), homocentric (based on the assumption that policies should benefit the most number of people) and
ecocentric (synonymous with biospheric) (Merchant, 1990). The Schwartz (2012) model of values is (of those analysed)
the broadest typology, listing ten different values: self direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, security,
conformity, tradition, benevolence and universalism.
Excluding the Schwartz model, the majority of these models presented by various sociologists, although all separate
and individual, agree on the claim that there are (when put simply) a few basic models of ethical values. They are based
around bettering existence for oneself, society, family based life and altruistically based around betterment of the
natural environment.

Case study to explore the expression/application environmental values

This case study is focused on the use of shark control methods, such as culling and shark nets in Australian coastal
waters. Due to its controversy and high number of stakeholders, this is an issue that adequately illustrates the way that
differing environmental values can influence the way different groups, stakeholders and individuals manage and
perceive the issue. With regards to shark culling and methods of control in Australia, some of the key stakeholders are
the local, state and federal governments, their environmental sectors and associated individuals (such as contracted
workers), conservation groups, beach going members of the public, victims of shark attacks, their families and shark
encounter survivors and marine and shark biologists. These key players in the shark control debate have been selected
for analysis due to them being the most vocal and outspoken on the issue.
Sharks are highly valued species in the worlds marine ecosystems, globally they are utilised by human beings for
things ranging from ecotourism to biomimicry (e.g. replication of dermal denticles in wetsuits) to sources of food. It is
undeniable that sharks have a high economical benefit for many countries. However, they do pose a threat to the safety
of human beachgoers. There have been a large variety of responses to the implementation of the methods of control.

The responses of different groups and individuals are indicative of the values that they hold towards shark control. For
example, the Queensland Government Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (DPI&F) (2006) states that
[The shark safety program] relies on nets, drum lines or a combination of both to remove high risk sharks from a
particular location (Queensland Government DPI&F 2006). The statement fails to mention that the removal of high
risk sharks (which it deems as tiger, great white or bull sharks over three metres long) includes the shark being shot and
killed. The selectivity of information provided shows that the DPI&F supports the placement of the shark safety
programs in Queensland waters, showing highly anthropocentric values - consistent with the goals of the program. One
of the key stakeholders in this debate is Colin Barnett, the Premier of Western Australia. His decision to implement the
shark control program in southern Western Australia in January 2014 was met largely with outcry across the nation. He
is quoted by Heather Saul, in an article for The Independent, saying, I get no pleasure from seeing sharks killed, but I
have an overriding responsibility to protect the people of Western Australia, and that's what I'm doing (Barnett, 2014).
Again, he showed his anthropocentric take on the issue, in the same article claiming that I respect and acknowledge
that people have different points of view and there are protesters, but my responsibility as Premier is the safety of
beachgoers (Barnett 2014).

Environmental Values
Anthropocentric

Techno-Pessimist

Techno-Optimist

Ecocentric/Biocentric
This diagram can be used to visualise the basic environmental values
displayed by stakeholders, and their comparative position to others.

Contrasting to this point of view and presented value is Christopher Neff, a lecturer in public policy at the
University of Sydney who did his PhD on the politics of shark attacks. He, in an article that was posted on The
Conversation stated that:
WAs Jaws-style policy is designed to provide public catharsis through retribution, not public safety. The imminent
threat policy can be enacted to kill sharks regardless of whether there are any people in the water, or whether the shark

was involved in an incident, or whether killing it improves beach safety, or whether the species is protected by law. In
short, this is closer to an old-fashioned witch hunt than to sound public policy (Neff 2014).
This standpoint that Neff has taken exemplifies the environmental values that he, as an individual member of the
general public, with some expertise in the science of shark attacks, holds true to. The statement shows that he is against
the shark control methods and their lack of sound backing evidence. He shows an ecocentric and techno-optimistic take
on the debate, further on in the article claiming that the methods of control used in Western Australia, which he claims
have no benefit in the long term, undermines a scientific program that does (acoustic tagging and monitoring) (Neff
2014).
This ecocentric view is supported by George Burgess, the director of the Florida Program for Shark Research and
curator of the International Shark Attack File. He, in another article posted on The Conversation listed a number of
things more likely to kill humans every year, such as drowning and encounters with insects (Burgess 2015). He presents
statistics that show the comparative unlikelihood of a shark encounter, in an attempt to belittle the danger that is posed
by sharks.
In an article for the Australian Geographer, Gibbs & Warren (2014) claim that Given the limited knowledge of
these species, the implications of removing large (i.e. mature) individuals are uncertain and that The WA catch and
kill strategy has not been preceded by an impact study to consider its possible effects. Nor is it supported by any
scientific study to suggest it will be effective in its aims of reducing human injury or fatality. The lethal approach taken
to shark management is a knee-jerk reaction rather than informed, effective environmental policy making. (Gibbs &
Warren 2014). The values that are presented in this article are very ecocentric and techno-optimistic, in the sense that
the authors disagree with the cull but believe that, with adequate research, there can be effective resolutions found. In
this journal article, the two authors completed a survey on beachgoers, asking (among other things) how the individual
felt about the presence of sharks and then their personal views on the shark control methods. They found that: 69% of
surveyed individuals had encountered sharks (a high percentage of which were the targeted, dangerous species) and that
the control methods in place were greatly opposed, instead suggesting education should be improved, and the risks of
ocean use should be accepted (Gibbs & Warren 2014).
Conclusions
The use of shark control methods in Australia, in particular Western Australia, has become a highly disputed issue
in recent years. Due to the many different arguments being presented from numerous parties, it is an important issue to
resolve. The categories into which values, most commonly presented by individuals or organisations fall, have been
analysed in this case study. The result of these differing values and an individual or organisations ultimate goals and
aims is varying priorities, opinions and beliefs on the same topics. In order to provide a suitable resolution for these
scenarios, the driving values must be identified so that the way an issue is being presented can be understood without
bias. Through the analysis of journal articles and individual opinions, the values and overall statements presented by
many of the stakeholders in the shark control debate have been observed.

References
- Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (2005) Australian and New Zealand
Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, National Water Quality Management Strategy, Vol. 1, no. 4.
- Saul H (2014) 'Australia: First shark killed as controversial culling policy begins, The Independent, 27 January,
2014 < http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-first-shark-killed-as-controversial-cullingpolicy-begins-9088067.html>
- Burgess G (2015) Shark attacks are so unlikely, but so fascinating, The Conversation, <https://
theconversation.com/shark-attacks-are-so-unlikely-but-so-fascinating-38471>.
- Dietz T, Fitzgerald A & Shwom R (2005) Environmental Values, Annual Reviews, Environmental Science and
Policy Program, Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, Michigan.
- Dudley SFJ and Gribble NA (1999) Management of Shark Control Programs, Australian Shark Assessment
Report, 1-885.
- Gibbs L & Warren A (2014) Killing Sharks: cultures and politics of encounter and the sea, Australian
Geographer, Vol. 45, Issue 2, pp.101-107.
- Hitlin S & Piliavin JA (2004) Values: Reviewing a Dormant Concept, Annual Review of Sociology, Annual
Reviews, Vol. 30, pp. 359-393.
- Merchant C (1990) Environmental Ethics and Political Conflict: A View from California, Environmental Ethics,
Vol. 12, Issue 1, pp.45-68.
- Neff C (2014) Response to the latest shark bite is fuelled by myth and retribution, The Conversation, <https://
theconversation.com/response-to-the-latest-shark-bite-is-fuelled-by-myth-and-retribution-32560>.
- Stern PC & Dietz T (1994) The Value Basis of Environmental Concern Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 50, Issue
3, pp.65-84.
- Schwartz SH (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values Online Readings in Psychology and
Culture, International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology < http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=orpc>.
- Tyler EH (2001) Development of an Environmental Values Typology, PhD Thesis, University of California,
Berkeley.