Talk:Shark culling

97% figure (Brazil)

The 97% figure about Brazil appears to be referencing a mostly non-lethal program in which sharks were tagged and moved further from the shore; most of the sharks weren't killed. This is a quote from ABC.net.au (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-23/shark-attacks-smart-drum-lines-fact-check/7030538):

"Ms Kock tells Fact Check that there are mixed results from the deployment of similar smart drum lines in Recife, Brazil where sharks are transported out to sea rather than killed."

This is a quote from Sea Shepherd (https://www.seashepherd.org.au/apex-harmony/overview/alternatives.html):

"In Brazil, the government has partnered with scientists to catch sharks around 2 kms from shore, tag and tow them about 8 kms away from popular beaches, resulting in a reduction of shark incidents by 97%."

This is a quote from Wiley.com (https://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-111168.html):

"A simple and humane technique may be an effective strategy to reduce human encounters with sharks without harming populations of threatened shark species. Instead of using advanced (and relatively untested) technology to attempt to repel sharks or nondiscriminatory nets that kill other threatened sea life as bycatch, researchers have simply caught sharks and moved them to where they would not pose a threat to swimmers. The Shark Monitoring Program of Recife, Brazil, reported approximately 100% survival of protected species and a 97% decrease in shark attacks when the strategy was used over 8 years."

This is a quote from Researchgate.net ("A Green Strategy For Shark Mitigation Off Recife, Brazil") (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258999228_A_green_strategy_for_shark_attack_mitigation_off_Recife_Brazil):

"Unlike traditional shark control programs, the Shark Monitoring Program of Recife (SMPR) aims at removing dangerous sharks not from their populations but from the hazardous area instead, which is achieved by capturing, transporting and releasing sharks offshore. During 8 years, the SMPR caught fish and turtles only and showed high selectivity for sharks compared with shark meshing. Target species comprised carcharhinids and sphyrnids and accounted for 7% of total catch. The fishing mortality of abundant taxa was generally low except for Carcharhinus acronotus and Gymnothorax spp., and protected species had ∼100% survival. The shark attack rate diminished sabout 97% while fishing operations were being conducted."

So there was a 97% decrease in shark attacks in Recife, Brazil, but it was not entirely because of drum lines — it was because of a mostly non-lethal program in which sharks were caught and moved further offshore.

The question is whether Brazil's program counts as a cull (and thus whether to include the "97%" figure in the "support" section). The paper A Green Strategy For Shark Mitigation Off Recife, Brazil discusses how long-lines and drum lines were used to catch sharks. The paper says the intent of the program was to capture sharks and then move (living) sharks further from shore. However, about 23% of animals died on the drum lines, and about 28% of "potentially aggressive" sharks died. Does that mean the Brazil program was a cull? I'd argue it was a pseudo-cull, but not a full cull (because the intent of the program was to not kill sharks). Still, the mortality rate may mean the figure should be included.

Also, content within the first paragraph of the "support" section is written verbatim (exactly the same) as text in the source cited — because of this, the text should be within a quote or block-quote. LumaP15 (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LumaP15 can you please clarify what a "pseudo-cull" is and how this differs from a "cull"? I also note lots of references to the drum lines in Brazil when 92.6% of the catch was from longlines. Reunion Island also uses longlines and drumlines and the drumlines are also SMART where some sharks are released. Or is this another "pseudo-cull"? Ilenart626 (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the intent of each program. Does the program intend to deliberately kill sharks as its primary objective? If so, then it is a cull. In the case of Recife's program (a program in which some sharks were killed), the main objective of the program was to physically relocate living sharks. This is in contrast to programs such as the one in Western Australia in 2014 (i.e. Western Australia's main objective was to deliberately kill sharks). The Reunion program appears to be a cull because the authorities there deliberately kill about 100 sharks per year.

So depending on one's definition, Recife's program may count as a cull; but if one were to define "culling" as deliberately killing sharks (as its primary objective), then it probably wouldn't count as a cull. LumaP15 (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shark attacks

The focus of this article should be on shark culling, not on shark attacks. Information about shark attacks should go in the articles about shark attacks. Whether shark attacks have been reduced in a given area is not really relevant to this article. A brief mention may be used, but detailed information about shark attacks doesn't really belong in this article. LumaP15 (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

disagree, the reason why shark culling is occurring is to reduce the risk of shark attacks. This article needs to provide a balanced, neutral view on sharking culling. It should give equal weight to both the reasons for and reasons against culling. Reducing the risk of shark attacks is fundamental to analysing the reasons why culling is occuring. Note that I have serious concerns that this article does not comply with Wiki's policy on WP:NPOV.The above comments reinforces this view. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral POV

I have a concern about a non-neutral point of view in this article. The article mentions a lot of how bad the nets are for marine life. I agree that this should be addressed in the article, but not scattered throughout the article as it is. There is also a lack of counterbalancing evidence to support the other side of this. I would suggest making 2 new sections in the article; one for concerns, and one for benefits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:1500:1E09:3485:8D2D:F1A4:589C (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]