My personal background
I have been surfing the Northern Rivers Region for forty years and have been involved in the surfing industry the whole time through my family’s surfboard making and related enterprises. Originally from Sydney, I have been living in Ballina for fifteen years. Over the past two years, I have had numerous close encounters with sharks, including two occasions of being in the surf at the time of an attack, one of which occurred just five metres away from me.
Summary
My submission is divided into three parts:
- Estimating the risk,
- Appreciating the dilemma, and
- Settling the debate.
The purpose of section one is to eliminate any doubt about the elevated risk of shark attack, so the reader appreciates that our fear is justified. The middle section invites the reader to focus on the problem in terms of its ethical implications, rather than being distracted by arguments that avoid responsibility. The last section presents a novel solution to the problem, by utilising the market’s ability to balance the wishes of two diametrically opposed interests.
Estimating the risk
On the 70km stretch of coast between Byron Bay and Evans Head, there have been 13 shark attacks since September 2014: an average rate of one shark attack every nine weeks. Eight of those attacks occurred within 12 kilometres of Ballina; four of which occurred within one kilometre of the river mouth.
Despite the high concentration of shark attacks, some people insist that the risk is still extremely low. You might hear, for example, that many more people die on the roads. But, it is not appropriate to compare the rate of shark attacks with the national road toll because practically everyone is at risk of being in a car accident, while very few people are exposed to the risk of shark attack.
Unfortunately, we do not have reliable figures of how many people surf in Australia. But, if we say that 1% of the population surfs, then the national average of two shark attack deaths per year would be equivalent to 200 deaths, relative to the entire population. While this compares favourably with the road toll, which was almost 1,300 last year, the risk of shark attack is not evenly distributed throughout the surfing population: it varies depending on which stretch of coastline is surfed and how long each surfer spends in the water.
As for time spent in the water, this obviously varies a lot from surfer to surfer, but if we apply the 80/20 rule to, say, 2% of Ballina’s total population of 40,000 (800 surfers), approx. 160 surfers (20%) would account for 80% of the total time spent surfing. On the basis of exposure, we can then match this subset of 160 surfers with 0.8 x 4 attacks per year, which elevates the risk of shark attack for these surfers to 3.2/160, or 2%. Since 3 of the area’s 14 shark attacks since 2008 were fatal, the risk of being killed by a shark would be almost 0.5%. There would still be variation within this group, so the risk to some could easily be double the average, approaching 1% for death and 3% for injury.
Another way to calculate the risk of shark attack is to consider the total number of hours spent in the water. I would estimate that over the past two years, about 200 days of the year produced surfable conditions at Ballina’s Lighthouse Beach and Shelly Beach, with a total average of about 200 hours spent in the water each day of surf. Since there have been four attacks in two years, the risk would be about 1:20,000 for every hour spent in the water (200 x 200 / 2). The longer you spend in the water, the greater the risk; so if you spend an average of one hour in the water each day, the risk of being attacked in the course of a year would be about 1% or 10% in ten years.
If you take the time to look at the statistics, you really can’t conclude that driving to Lighthouse Beach is more dangerous than surfing there. Sure, more people die on the nation’s roads. But, there are so many cars on the road, all day and every day, that the risk of dying in a car accident is a tiny fraction of the risk of shark attack in Ballina. Imagine if tens of thousands of people died on the roads each year. Ponder that for a moment and you will get a sense of how it feels to surf around Ballina.
Appreciating the dilemma
‘Ethics is about taking responsibility for a predicament. The problem with claiming that “more people die this way and that” is that it avoids responsibility. There are numerous arguments that take this approach, which basically ridicules the problem, e.g. “The sea is the shark’s domain”, “If you’re so afraid, don’t go in the water”, etc. Some people even blame the victim. But, we must not shift responsibility to the individual surfer, because the community is morally bound to take responsibility for younger surfers, who are notorious risk-takers. It is impossible to prevent teenagers from risking their lives for the joy of riding a few good waves.’Ethics is about taking responsibility for a predicament. The problem with claiming that more people die this way and that is that it avoids responsibility. There are numerous arguments that take this approach, which basically ridicules the problem, e.g. “The sea is the shark’s domain”, “If you’re so afraid, don’t go in the water”, etc. Some people even blame the victim. But, we must not shift responsibility to the individual surfer, because the community is morally bound to take responsibility for younger surfers, who are notorious risk-takers. It is impossible to prevent teenagers from risking their lives for the joy of riding a few good waves.
At the heart of this debate is the question of moral status. Is it morally permissible to kill sea creatures so that humans can enjoy the ocean without fear of attack? Or do sea creatures have a moral right to live, even if humans occasionally fall victim to shark attack? It is an ethical dilemma, which can be explained in terms of the doctrine (or principle) of double effect, according to which it may be morally permissible to protect sharks if the suffering caused by shark attacks is proportional to the benefit of protecting them.
Unfortunately, there is no definitive answer to this question. Having followed the debate intently for two years, I don’t believe either side will ever accept defeat. There are perfectly reasonable arguments presented on both sides. So, the problem will likely persist for many years to come. But, if we can agree that the debate is intractable, it might be worth exploring a different approach, which aims to settle the dispute in a way that could actually satisfy both sides. If this can be achieved, the benefit to the community could be profound.
Settling the debate
It might be possible to ‘solve’ the shark situation by auctioning the fate of sharks to the highest bidder. The government could hold regular auctions allowing the market to decide the fate of one shark per day. The money raised could then be used to compensate the losing side. Ideally, the funds would be invested in the needs of each community. Surfers would decide how best to protect themselves and the Greens would decide how best to protect the environment. This would relieve the government of the responsibility of having to make everyone happy, which is probably impossible in the shark debate.
Basically, the system works because people are challenged to put their money where their mouth is. I reckon the Greens would quickly lose interest in the shark debate if they had to back up their beliefs with hard cash. On the other hand, if the environmental movement is being supported by large corporations, as some have suggested, then this program could tap their wealth instead of the Australian Taxpayer. So, if the Greens actually want to liberate sharks, the money raised for that purpose could be used to buy Shark Shields, etc. without having to rely on public funds to support a costly program that only benefits a small minority of the population.
We are all hoping that the problem goes away by itself. But, as the shark population grows alongside our own expanding population, the tragedies will probably continue with increased regularity. So, let’s not wait for a child to be devoured in front of its siblings. Grown men struggle with the psychological trauma caused by shark attacks. It truly puzzles me that human lives are not universally valued more than creatures. But, I don’t believe we have anything to gain from debating the topic. So, in the interest of resolving our differences, I think we should be given the opportunity to participate in regular auctions that demonstrate our commitment to either saving or killing sharks.
Return to the shark debate.
Dan Webber 