Science of the Surf: Drones and Sharks
Last year three people were killed by sharks in Australia, but 30 drowned in rip currents. Where is the government funding for councils to extend their lifeguard services?
Just weeks after a woman recently suffered severe injuries from a shark bite at Sydney’s Coogee Beach, the NSW Government announced a $34 million investment to expand the shark drone surveillance program operated by Surf Life Saving NSW to 70 beaches, 365 days a year.
This includes every beach in Sydney and one in each local government area (North Wollongong for us). This brings the overall investment in shark mitigation following a spate of recent attacks up to $120 million over the next two years. This is a massive amount of funding that I’m not sure has been thought through.
The more drones you put up, the more sharks you will see. It’s as simple as that. It doesn’t mean there’s more sharks. They have always been there. We’ve already seen regular beach closures due to expanded drone surveillance. What’s going to happen when this new program fully kicks in, particularly in the summer?
Beach closures will become the new normal. Is that what we want? No doubt people will start to seek out unpatrolled beaches where there are no drones, no lifeguards and no closures, which is a potentially real and dangerous outcome. Meanwhile, with more announcements of beach closures, the perception that shark numbers are growing will continue to increase and so will shark fear.
The drones are operated by SLS NSW, but our beaches are patrolled by council lifeguards the vast majority of the time. If a drone spots a shark, what is the protocol in place for who decides to close the beach (or beaches) and for how long? And what does a beach closure mean? Will we be fined for swimming or surfing when a beach is closed? No one seems to know.
Anything that helps save a human life is worthwhile, but the stats just don’t back up this sudden drone investment.
Last year three people were killed by sharks in Australia, but 30 drowned in rip currents, all of which occurred outside of the flags, outside of lifeguard patrol times or on unpatrolled beaches.
Like a shark fatality, every rip current (or any beach drowning), comes with significant emotional cost and trauma to all involved. Yet when someone drowns on the beach after lifeguard patrol hours, where is the government funding made available to councils to extend their lifeguard services? There isn’t any. It just doesn’t happen.
There is no evidence that drones have been effective in reducing shark bites and fatalities. Like culling, they will not stop shark attacks and are a preventative safety measure only. But so are lifeguards. So if saving human lives is the real issue, why aren’t we investing more in expanding council lifeguard services? It all seems a bit fishy to me.
