In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements in
Introduction
In an article for 9 News, the columnist Usher discussed response from various sectors to the Western Australian government’s policy on shark culling. In 2013, the WA government announced its implementation of shark culling as a policy due to increasingly alarming safety issues. Shark culling involves the use of drum lines to bait and capture sharks. Since then, many tiger sharks were captured and killed. Various sectors, particularly environmental activists such as Sea Shepherd expressed opposition against the WA government’s shark culling policy citing issues about its legality. The issue was brought to the WA Supreme Court.
Considering the opposing views regarding shark culling, the following discussion focuses on the exploration of these views, particularly public opinion about the government’s policy. The following discussion also explores applicable models of public relations by Grunig that would support the WA government’s policy on shark culling.
Public Opinion against West Australian Government’s Shark Culling Policy
In the 9 News article, the columnist implicitly highlighted the importance of public attitudes towards shark culling in WA. Sea Shepherd expressed its opposition and to support their position regarding the matter, they enlisted the help of Sharon Burden, the mother of Kyle Burden, who died after being mauled by a shark. One would expect that Sharon Burden would support the government’s policy regarding shark culling considering her child was a victim of a shark attack. Nonetheless, Sharon argued that regardless of what happened to her child, she believes that shark culling is not the most efficient solution to address the issue. Sharon believes that there are other options that must be explored and that the government should involve the public in decision-making.
Public opinion about shark culling turned against the WA government primarily because the method or technique used to bait sharks is deemed cruel and illegal. According to Usher, activists including Sea Shepherd believe that shark culling harms the marine ecosystem. In shark culling, drum lines are placed in the water to attract, trap, and kill sharks. When this happens, the sharks attract other sharks, thus, serving as bait. The problem with shark culling is that it increases the number of sharks trapped in the drum lines because of the trapped sharks attracting other sharks.
Since the shark trapped in drum baits then draw other sharks to be baited. Hence, opposing parties argue that shark culling does not directly address the issue and even places people at higher risk because trapped sharks attract other sharks in the area. Furthermore, a study conducted by Sprivulis (2014) show that shark culling does not necessarily decrease the risk of shark bites or attacks because the safety of people depend on the season – considering the presence of sharks in the waters – the location of people in the water, and their choice of water activity.
In the 9 News article, another concern raised by the opposing group, particularly by Sharon Burden, is that the government failed to include the public in its decision-making and that it has failed to explore other options that would solve the problem. Aside from these concerns, Sea Shepherd also asserted that there is no existing proof that shows a decline in the number of shark attacks since shark culling was implemented as a policy. Environmental scientists in Australia backed up this claim and signed the petition disclosing the reasons why shark culling will not solve safety issues (Gibbs & Warren, 2014; Meeuwig & Bradshaw, 2014). Considering the nature of these public concerns, the government may be able to address them by facilitating two-way communication.
The Two-Way Communications Model
Since many people has supported protests and demonstrations against the government’s shark culling policy, it would be best to adopt a two-way communication model as a public relations strategy. Since the implementation of the policy, thousands of people supported the petition against it including Sea Shepherd and many environmental scientists, it is important that the government exert efforts to communicate with the public and directly address their concerns towards the goal of achieving mutual understanding.
The government may adopt a two-way communication model by holding a dialogue with Sea Shepherd and the people supporting the marine activist’s cause. One of the main goals of the dialogue must be to initially establish the importance of addressing the issue. Both parties must agree that the number of deaths following shark attacks is a cause for alarm. Consequently, upon agreeing about the severity of the problem, both parties must then engage in dialogue to talk about or explore various options to address the issue. In this way, the government would be able to involve the public in decision-making and reduce conflicts that may arise in the future. It is also important that the government draw recommendations from scientists and other experts in marine biology and related fields to ensure that its decision will address environmental concerns.
Public Relations in the New Era of Social Media
As formerly noted, the foregoing issue has gained ground not only because of the doggedness of Sea Shepherd but also because news and information about the issue reached a large population due to social media. Consequently, many people supported the cause by joining various online petitions in social media including the one initiated by Sea Shepherd. Sea Shepherd’s petition reached 17,000 votes and the organization submitted it to the EPA (Sea Shepherd, 2014). Due to the sheer number of supporters, the issue was even covered in international media (Sebag-Montefiore, 2014), thus, proving that social media is a powerful tool that may influence and sway public opinion
Initially, the EPA said that it is unnecessary to assess the WA government’s shark culling policy because on the onset, the process of placing drum lines in the waters do not harm the environment (ABC News, 2014). Nonetheless, subsequent petitions followed. In the end, the EPA advised the WA government to discontinue its shark culling policy (Sea Shepherd, 2014a). Through social media and global attention on the issue, EPA was motivated to look into the issue again.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Overall, the foregoing issue illustrates the significant impact of social media on public opinion. Due to social media, many people supported the cause against shark culling, which then reached the attention of international media. Reasons include the inefficiency of shark culling in addressing the problem, an increase in safety risks due to trapped sharks attracting other sharks, and the danger of shark deaths to the marine ecosystem. Eventually, the EPA advised the WA government to halt its shark culling operations after a series of petitions were submitted to the organisation. To address the issue, the WA government must adopt a two-way communication model and hold a dialogue with the opposing parties to arrive at an acceptable solution that supports the need to protect the safety of civilians but also protect sharks and the marine ecosystem.
Bibliography
[Accessed: 16 Dec 2014].
9 News. 2014. Legal fight over WA’s shark kill policy. Available at: http://www.9news.com.au/national/2014/02/26/14/00/wa-shark-policy-to-be-challenged-in-court.
[Accessed: 16 Dec 2014].
Gibbs, L. & Warren, A. 2014. Killing sharks: cultures and politics of encounter and the sea. Australian Geographer, 45:2, 101-107.
Meeuwig, J. & Bradshaw, C. 2014. Why we’re opposing Western Australia’s shark cull: scientists. Available at: http://theconversation.com/why-were-opposing-western-australias-shark-cull-scientists-28653.
[Accessed: 16 Dec 2014].
Sea Shepherd. 2014. Petition to stop the WA shark cull. Available at: http://www.seashepherd.org.au/petitions/.
[Accessed: 16 Dec 2014].
Sea Shepherd. 2014a. EPA assessment agrees shark cull is environmentally unacceptable. Available at: http://www.seashepherd.org.au/news-and-media/2014/09/11/epa-shuts-down-shark-cull-program-1620.
[Accessed: 16 Dec 2014].
Sebag-Montefiore, C. 2014. A shark cull divides a nation. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26937924
[Accessed: 16 Dec 2014].
Sprivulis, P. 2014. Western Australia coastal shark bites: A risk assessment. Australasian Medical Journal, 7(2), 137-142.
