Mr. Moore and by association and empowerment the state of Western Australia (and thus the Nation of Australia as a whole) is in violation of Section 3 Article 21 of the United Nations World Charter for Nature.
21. States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals,
groups and corporations shall:
(a) Co-operate in the task of conserving nature through common activities and other relevant actions,
including information exchange and consultations;
(b) Establish standards for products and manufacturing processes that may have adverse effects on nature,
as well as agreed methodologies for assessing these effects;
(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection
of the environment;
(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or control do not cause damage to the natural
systems located within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;
(e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
Further Norman Moore and affiliate Colin Barnett are in violation of the Convention of Migratory Species. By way of political representation the Nation of Australia as part of the Geographic region known as Oceana is also in violation and committing a major International Crime as executed by their representatives in Western Australia.
c) “Conservation status of migratory sharks” means the sum of all the influences acting on migratory sharks that may affect their long-term distribution and abundance;
d) The conservation status is considered "Favorable" when all the following conditions are met:
i) Population dynamics data relative to appropriate biological reference points indicate that migratory sharks are sustainable on a long term basis as a viable component of their ecosystems;
ii) The distributional range and habitats of migratory sharks are not currently being
reduced, nor are they likely to be reduced in the future to levels that affect the
viability of their populations in the long term; and
iii) The abundance and structure of populations of migratory sharks remains at levels adequate to maintain ecosystem integrity.
Section 3 Fundamental Principles
6. The Signatories recognize that successful shark conservation and management require the fullest possible cooperation among governments, intergovernmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations, stakeholders of the fishing industry and local communities, and engagement pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding with the fisheries industry, FAO, RFMOs, as appropriate, RSCs, CITES, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and other relevant international organizations.
7. The Signatories acknowledge the role as well as the scientific and political actions of States and RFMOs, as appropriate, which are responsible for the management of migratory shark fisheries, and the need to strengthen and improve their role in taking measures to improve or restore a favorable conservation status of sharks listed in Annex 1 of the Memorandum of Understanding.
Annex 1: Species covered by this Memorandum of Understanding and their ranges
Rhincodontidae Rhincodon typus
Cetorhinidae Cetorhinus maximus
Lamnidae Carcharodon carcharias (GREAT WHITE SHARK)
Isurus oxyrinchus
Isurus paucus
Lamna nasus
Squalidae Squalus acanthias (Northern Hemisphere populations)
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 - SECT 212
Certain actions are not offenses
(f) An action that is reasonably necessary to prevent a risk to human health; or
(g) An action by a Commonwealth agency, or an agency of a State or of a self-governing Territory, that is reasonably necessary for the purposes of law enforcement; or
(h) An action that is reasonably necessary to deal with an emergency involving a serious threat to human life or property;
Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks.
The Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks, also referred to as the Sharks MoU, was developed under the auspices of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS).
This Memorandum is the first of its kind regarding sharks. It’s a global Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), and it aims to conserve migratory sharks wherever they occur in the world. The Sharks MoU commenced on 1 March 2010, with the original signatory countries being the Congo, Costa Rica, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Palau, the Philippines, Senegal, Togo and the United States. Nauru and Tuvalu signed the Memorandum on 9 September 2010.
Australia became the 14th country to sign the Sharks MoU, signing on 4 February 2011.
There are currently seven shark species covered by the Sharks MoU: white shark, whale shark, basking shark, porbeagle, shortfin mako, longfin mako and the northern hemisphere populations of spiny dogfish.
Six out of these seven species occur in Australian waters – the white shark, whale shark, basking shark, porbeagle, shortfin mako and longfin mako.
Other Laws and Violations in conflict with the WA Cull order.
Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 – Western Australia
World Heritage Convention – 1975
Convention on Biological Diversity – 1992
Endangered Species Protection Act – 1993
Australian Wildlife Protection Act – 1998
In addition to environmental abuses, intentional misdirection of the public to facilitate profit, fraudulent actions toward tourists and Australian citizens in perpetuating a false sense of security, Norman Moore and Colin Barnett are both charged with public safety violations and public endangerment by attracting sharks to tourist beaches and regions through the use of drumlins, as well as setting up potentially lethal encounter situations especially with Bull sharks, Tiger sharks, and White sharks by triggering a feeding and scavenging response in these species and within proximity of the public as a whole. The laws of Australia are very clear on the matter of public endangerment and the state of Western Australia has SPECIFICALLY enacted General Endangerment Offenses Articles with a blatant and intentional disregard for public safety.
A reminder for those Parliament members who may not be familiar with this legal accord:
ARTICLES
General Endangerment Offences:
CMV
CLARKSON
Four Australian stated territories (including Western Australia) employ General Endangerment Offences while the remaining Australian jurisdictions and English law only criminalize specific dangerous activities.
The content of criminal law and the structure of its offences are widely accepted as being informed by JS Mill's harm principle.' Conduct should be criminalized if it causes harm to others. There has also been a wide acceptance that the definition of 'harm' for this purpose must include the risk of harm, and so, for example, no one seriously questions that a law of attempt is justifiable. Further, many offences criminalize conduct that has the potential to cause harm even if that harm was not intended. These are known as risk-taking or endangerment offences. Such offences are justified on the basis that they facilitate early intervention by the police or other enforcement authorities before harm materializes.
In terms of the well-established purposes of punishment, people need to be deterred from performing dangerous acts. Such persons have also demonstrated their dangerousness and need for incapacitation and rehabilitation.
Both officials have clearly demonstrated the propensity for endangering the public (regardless of intent) by creating a situation that not only threatens the safety and well being of protected shark species, but also induces predatory animals to linger near tourist beaches seeking food. This action is criminal, irresponsible, and illegal according to Australia’s own criminal codes and legal definitions of what constitutes public endangerment.
The International Community as well as citizens of the State of Western Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia ask that you convene to explore these allegations and take action to protect the common welfare of marine life and people alike by bringing legal weight to bear against Mr. Moore and Mr. Barnett for their clearly demonstrated crimes.
In Closing.
To summarize several the worlds leading White shark experts (people who work with sharks for a living) disagree with Minister Moore on all counts. They do not support his rebounding and recovered population assertion. They do not support drum lines as a control measure and in fact report the opposite, drum lines attract sharks to bathing local coastal areas and beaches. They have expressed a need to conduct further studies on White sharks to ascertain what factors within the animal’s ecosystems affect its migration and presence in waters near tourist beaches.
Several of the biologists and experts interviewed including the previously mentioned experts questioned Western Australia’s sheep carcass disposal practices at sea as a likely attractant to Sharks. It has also been stated that migrations of White sharks tend to be predominantly males while females often remain in local regions. This places reproductive females at greatest risk of elimination.
It has also been brought into question given the limited knowledge of the Minister of Fisheries for Western Australia that there is a strong likelihood that some of the animals involved in the mortalities of 2012 were from Bull and Tiger sharks rather than White sharks.
It is outrageous that the Government of Australia has authorized the killing of White sharks if they bite and kill a person. The reason why this is absurd is that in most cases unless an animal is spotted and kept in view or has a distinctive identifying mark that can be used to verify that this particular animal is the offending shark it is nearly impossible to catch the right animal. It is very rare that any shark involved in a fatal incident is ever caught after the incident with undeniable evidence that it is the offender. Due to the migratory nature of various species the offender seldom remains in the same region for a long time. Only an imbecile or a politician with no knowledge of sharks or shark behavior could propose such an ineffective and moronic measure. It is so transparent that most people know it is just a feel good measure. Vengeance to placate a distraught or fearful public. A sick joke in which sharks that have nothing to do with human bite incidents are killed so that everyone can say that justice was done.
None of you are qualified to make the assessment that an endangered species should be destroyed because of a bite incident even if you could verify which animal it was since repeat offenses by the same animal are rare. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that IF an offending shark bit someone and they died as a result and that shark then moved up or down the coast and did not bite anyone else that there was probably a unique circumstance such as mistaken identity with a prey item that induced the animal to bite in the first place. Perhaps you would do better to appoint qualified researchers and white shark behavioralists to the task of making assessments on the viability or need to destroy endangered sharks after an event rather than relying on your blanket feel good measures to try to placate the public.
But Mr. Moore and Mr. Barnett take this already ridiculous premise and bring it to the most irrational level imaginable. They are going to destroy sharks that are “loitering” around because they might attack? There is only one person that we know of who could possibly tell you (if he were given enough time to study the local conditions and population of individual White sharks in the region of Western Australia which ones might pose what Moore and Barnett call “imminent threat” and he lives in South Africa not Australia. This notion of imminent threat is absurd. It is tantamount to standing in a crowded city street and based on who is frequenting the area most often stating that these people pose an imminent threat of violence due to how they walked around or how frequently they were seen in that location. (In point of fact you might have an easier time judging the human public than sharks since you at least have some inkling of what a human being behaves like). Western Australia’s Fisheries Minister and Western Australia’s Premier are both highly unqualified to even believe that they could make this assessment.
Further Mr. Norman Moore and legislation draftsman Colin Barnett have knowingly, and fraudulently implemented a White shark extermination/cull program that is in violation of the UN World Charter for Nature, contrary to Australian White shark conservation policies, and creates a danger for both sharks and tourists. These men have threatened the shark tagging research programs of other nations and private organizations worldwide. They have deployed drum lines and been documented and photographed doing so in regions and at times when there was no need and in violation of their own drafted legislation. This is done in the name of tourism and profiteering. They excuse themselves through their assertion that local White sharks are responsible for the fatalities, and that this measure will protect tourists, and of course that White shark populations are rebounding. Additionally they are in Violation of the Convention of Migratory Species.
As far as legal affiliations ANY AND ALL representatives of a Nation who are duly elected by their constituency and serve in office on a local, state, or national level are representatives of their country of origin and when engaged in policies that affect International Treaties and Conventions are said to be acting on behalf of their nation of representation. Thus Mr. Moore and Mr. Barnett have drawn Australia into a legally compromised situation should this move into a situation whereby International entities NGOs, or private parties may wish to pursue the matter international courts of law.
This issue is swiftly becoming a hot button topic on the Internet and the story could easily go viral in a short period of time. This sort of negative publicity would impact Australia fiscally by creating a boycott toward Australia’s travel tourism industry. Losses could be substantial in the high millions or more as world sympathy for endangered species increases. Further the situation could easily be exacerbated by the influence of many prominent movie and sports celebrities willing to speak out against Australia should the need arise and affiliated conservation organizations and private parties choose to elicit their aid in this matter.
This report will be shared with new networks and media resources worldwide after the Australian national Government has been allowed to see and review its contents and to take discretionary measures toward repealing the current cull and taking appropriate corrective measures toward the offending parties including Minister of Fisheries for Western Australia Norman Moore, Legislative draftsman Colin Barnett, and all cabinet officials responsible for approval and implementation of said actions in violation of the prior mentioned Conventions.
In closing it is critical that Australia as a nation takes swift action to stop this destructive cull immediately. The International community and press and media are watching this situation closely and being made aware of the illegal actions of the state of Western Australia, as well as it’s incompetence in potentially bringing more tourists and local people in harms way by increasing shark congregation along the coastal beaches that they are charged with overseeing.
The government of the Commonwealth of Australia is urged to take action and corrective measures immediately before this issue becomes a United Nations legal conflict, and an International Mass Media event exposing Australia’s endorsement of this cull through inaction. Further it is asked that the parties involved be fined, and asked to resign or removed from office on the grounds of Public Endangerment, Violation of International Conventions and Treaties, Violation of National Policies, Ecological Crimes toward Vulnerable breeding stock for an Endangered species, and that they be replaced with persons better qualified for their respective offices, responsibilities, and positions, and willing to listen to the scientific community and local experts when they are forewarned as to the nature of the problems with their program and the potential for greater human casualties as well as further decline of a vulnerable species.
It must also be mentioned that while this report and our media campaign are focused on Sharks and Human safety, it can easily be escalated to pull in other conservation organizations and NGOs due to the fact that drum lines kill cetaceans (whales, porpoises, and dolphins), Sea Turtles (All seven species are Endangered or Critically Endangered), Seals and Sea Lions, etc.
Please consider this. If you think that the shark conservation community is difficult to handle, imagine what happens when the word leaks to the press that Australia is endorsing the killing of Dolphins? The impact to tourism will be huge! And we do not believe that Global or Australian Citizens will stand for this. Just some food for thought.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. We look forward to a positive resolution in this relatively easily fixed, or costly to ignore situation. The choice is yours.
Sincerely,
Erik Brush
Erik Brush
Founder and Director of Sharks for Life!
[email protected]
Author, Shark Advocate, and consulting biologist for WASC (Western Australians for Shark Conservation).
Ross Weir
Founder and Director of Western Australians for Shark Conservation.
21. States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals,
groups and corporations shall:
(a) Co-operate in the task of conserving nature through common activities and other relevant actions,
including information exchange and consultations;
(b) Establish standards for products and manufacturing processes that may have adverse effects on nature,
as well as agreed methodologies for assessing these effects;
(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection
of the environment;
(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or control do not cause damage to the natural
systems located within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;
(e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
Further Norman Moore and affiliate Colin Barnett are in violation of the Convention of Migratory Species. By way of political representation the Nation of Australia as part of the Geographic region known as Oceana is also in violation and committing a major International Crime as executed by their representatives in Western Australia.
c) “Conservation status of migratory sharks” means the sum of all the influences acting on migratory sharks that may affect their long-term distribution and abundance;
d) The conservation status is considered "Favorable" when all the following conditions are met:
i) Population dynamics data relative to appropriate biological reference points indicate that migratory sharks are sustainable on a long term basis as a viable component of their ecosystems;
ii) The distributional range and habitats of migratory sharks are not currently being
reduced, nor are they likely to be reduced in the future to levels that affect the
viability of their populations in the long term; and
iii) The abundance and structure of populations of migratory sharks remains at levels adequate to maintain ecosystem integrity.
Section 3 Fundamental Principles
6. The Signatories recognize that successful shark conservation and management require the fullest possible cooperation among governments, intergovernmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations, stakeholders of the fishing industry and local communities, and engagement pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding with the fisheries industry, FAO, RFMOs, as appropriate, RSCs, CITES, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and other relevant international organizations.
7. The Signatories acknowledge the role as well as the scientific and political actions of States and RFMOs, as appropriate, which are responsible for the management of migratory shark fisheries, and the need to strengthen and improve their role in taking measures to improve or restore a favorable conservation status of sharks listed in Annex 1 of the Memorandum of Understanding.
Annex 1: Species covered by this Memorandum of Understanding and their ranges
Rhincodontidae Rhincodon typus
Cetorhinidae Cetorhinus maximus
Lamnidae Carcharodon carcharias (GREAT WHITE SHARK)
Isurus oxyrinchus
Isurus paucus
Lamna nasus
Squalidae Squalus acanthias (Northern Hemisphere populations)
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 - SECT 212
Certain actions are not offenses
(f) An action that is reasonably necessary to prevent a risk to human health; or
(g) An action by a Commonwealth agency, or an agency of a State or of a self-governing Territory, that is reasonably necessary for the purposes of law enforcement; or
(h) An action that is reasonably necessary to deal with an emergency involving a serious threat to human life or property;
Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks.
The Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks, also referred to as the Sharks MoU, was developed under the auspices of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS).
This Memorandum is the first of its kind regarding sharks. It’s a global Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), and it aims to conserve migratory sharks wherever they occur in the world. The Sharks MoU commenced on 1 March 2010, with the original signatory countries being the Congo, Costa Rica, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Palau, the Philippines, Senegal, Togo and the United States. Nauru and Tuvalu signed the Memorandum on 9 September 2010.
Australia became the 14th country to sign the Sharks MoU, signing on 4 February 2011.
There are currently seven shark species covered by the Sharks MoU: white shark, whale shark, basking shark, porbeagle, shortfin mako, longfin mako and the northern hemisphere populations of spiny dogfish.
Six out of these seven species occur in Australian waters – the white shark, whale shark, basking shark, porbeagle, shortfin mako and longfin mako.
Other Laws and Violations in conflict with the WA Cull order.
Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 – Western Australia
World Heritage Convention – 1975
Convention on Biological Diversity – 1992
Endangered Species Protection Act – 1993
Australian Wildlife Protection Act – 1998
In addition to environmental abuses, intentional misdirection of the public to facilitate profit, fraudulent actions toward tourists and Australian citizens in perpetuating a false sense of security, Norman Moore and Colin Barnett are both charged with public safety violations and public endangerment by attracting sharks to tourist beaches and regions through the use of drumlins, as well as setting up potentially lethal encounter situations especially with Bull sharks, Tiger sharks, and White sharks by triggering a feeding and scavenging response in these species and within proximity of the public as a whole. The laws of Australia are very clear on the matter of public endangerment and the state of Western Australia has SPECIFICALLY enacted General Endangerment Offenses Articles with a blatant and intentional disregard for public safety.
A reminder for those Parliament members who may not be familiar with this legal accord:
ARTICLES
General Endangerment Offences:
CMV
CLARKSON
Four Australian stated territories (including Western Australia) employ General Endangerment Offences while the remaining Australian jurisdictions and English law only criminalize specific dangerous activities.
The content of criminal law and the structure of its offences are widely accepted as being informed by JS Mill's harm principle.' Conduct should be criminalized if it causes harm to others. There has also been a wide acceptance that the definition of 'harm' for this purpose must include the risk of harm, and so, for example, no one seriously questions that a law of attempt is justifiable. Further, many offences criminalize conduct that has the potential to cause harm even if that harm was not intended. These are known as risk-taking or endangerment offences. Such offences are justified on the basis that they facilitate early intervention by the police or other enforcement authorities before harm materializes.
In terms of the well-established purposes of punishment, people need to be deterred from performing dangerous acts. Such persons have also demonstrated their dangerousness and need for incapacitation and rehabilitation.
Both officials have clearly demonstrated the propensity for endangering the public (regardless of intent) by creating a situation that not only threatens the safety and well being of protected shark species, but also induces predatory animals to linger near tourist beaches seeking food. This action is criminal, irresponsible, and illegal according to Australia’s own criminal codes and legal definitions of what constitutes public endangerment.
The International Community as well as citizens of the State of Western Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia ask that you convene to explore these allegations and take action to protect the common welfare of marine life and people alike by bringing legal weight to bear against Mr. Moore and Mr. Barnett for their clearly demonstrated crimes.
In Closing.
To summarize several the worlds leading White shark experts (people who work with sharks for a living) disagree with Minister Moore on all counts. They do not support his rebounding and recovered population assertion. They do not support drum lines as a control measure and in fact report the opposite, drum lines attract sharks to bathing local coastal areas and beaches. They have expressed a need to conduct further studies on White sharks to ascertain what factors within the animal’s ecosystems affect its migration and presence in waters near tourist beaches.
Several of the biologists and experts interviewed including the previously mentioned experts questioned Western Australia’s sheep carcass disposal practices at sea as a likely attractant to Sharks. It has also been stated that migrations of White sharks tend to be predominantly males while females often remain in local regions. This places reproductive females at greatest risk of elimination.
It has also been brought into question given the limited knowledge of the Minister of Fisheries for Western Australia that there is a strong likelihood that some of the animals involved in the mortalities of 2012 were from Bull and Tiger sharks rather than White sharks.
It is outrageous that the Government of Australia has authorized the killing of White sharks if they bite and kill a person. The reason why this is absurd is that in most cases unless an animal is spotted and kept in view or has a distinctive identifying mark that can be used to verify that this particular animal is the offending shark it is nearly impossible to catch the right animal. It is very rare that any shark involved in a fatal incident is ever caught after the incident with undeniable evidence that it is the offender. Due to the migratory nature of various species the offender seldom remains in the same region for a long time. Only an imbecile or a politician with no knowledge of sharks or shark behavior could propose such an ineffective and moronic measure. It is so transparent that most people know it is just a feel good measure. Vengeance to placate a distraught or fearful public. A sick joke in which sharks that have nothing to do with human bite incidents are killed so that everyone can say that justice was done.
None of you are qualified to make the assessment that an endangered species should be destroyed because of a bite incident even if you could verify which animal it was since repeat offenses by the same animal are rare. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that IF an offending shark bit someone and they died as a result and that shark then moved up or down the coast and did not bite anyone else that there was probably a unique circumstance such as mistaken identity with a prey item that induced the animal to bite in the first place. Perhaps you would do better to appoint qualified researchers and white shark behavioralists to the task of making assessments on the viability or need to destroy endangered sharks after an event rather than relying on your blanket feel good measures to try to placate the public.
But Mr. Moore and Mr. Barnett take this already ridiculous premise and bring it to the most irrational level imaginable. They are going to destroy sharks that are “loitering” around because they might attack? There is only one person that we know of who could possibly tell you (if he were given enough time to study the local conditions and population of individual White sharks in the region of Western Australia which ones might pose what Moore and Barnett call “imminent threat” and he lives in South Africa not Australia. This notion of imminent threat is absurd. It is tantamount to standing in a crowded city street and based on who is frequenting the area most often stating that these people pose an imminent threat of violence due to how they walked around or how frequently they were seen in that location. (In point of fact you might have an easier time judging the human public than sharks since you at least have some inkling of what a human being behaves like). Western Australia’s Fisheries Minister and Western Australia’s Premier are both highly unqualified to even believe that they could make this assessment.
Further Mr. Norman Moore and legislation draftsman Colin Barnett have knowingly, and fraudulently implemented a White shark extermination/cull program that is in violation of the UN World Charter for Nature, contrary to Australian White shark conservation policies, and creates a danger for both sharks and tourists. These men have threatened the shark tagging research programs of other nations and private organizations worldwide. They have deployed drum lines and been documented and photographed doing so in regions and at times when there was no need and in violation of their own drafted legislation. This is done in the name of tourism and profiteering. They excuse themselves through their assertion that local White sharks are responsible for the fatalities, and that this measure will protect tourists, and of course that White shark populations are rebounding. Additionally they are in Violation of the Convention of Migratory Species.
As far as legal affiliations ANY AND ALL representatives of a Nation who are duly elected by their constituency and serve in office on a local, state, or national level are representatives of their country of origin and when engaged in policies that affect International Treaties and Conventions are said to be acting on behalf of their nation of representation. Thus Mr. Moore and Mr. Barnett have drawn Australia into a legally compromised situation should this move into a situation whereby International entities NGOs, or private parties may wish to pursue the matter international courts of law.
This issue is swiftly becoming a hot button topic on the Internet and the story could easily go viral in a short period of time. This sort of negative publicity would impact Australia fiscally by creating a boycott toward Australia’s travel tourism industry. Losses could be substantial in the high millions or more as world sympathy for endangered species increases. Further the situation could easily be exacerbated by the influence of many prominent movie and sports celebrities willing to speak out against Australia should the need arise and affiliated conservation organizations and private parties choose to elicit their aid in this matter.
This report will be shared with new networks and media resources worldwide after the Australian national Government has been allowed to see and review its contents and to take discretionary measures toward repealing the current cull and taking appropriate corrective measures toward the offending parties including Minister of Fisheries for Western Australia Norman Moore, Legislative draftsman Colin Barnett, and all cabinet officials responsible for approval and implementation of said actions in violation of the prior mentioned Conventions.
In closing it is critical that Australia as a nation takes swift action to stop this destructive cull immediately. The International community and press and media are watching this situation closely and being made aware of the illegal actions of the state of Western Australia, as well as it’s incompetence in potentially bringing more tourists and local people in harms way by increasing shark congregation along the coastal beaches that they are charged with overseeing.
The government of the Commonwealth of Australia is urged to take action and corrective measures immediately before this issue becomes a United Nations legal conflict, and an International Mass Media event exposing Australia’s endorsement of this cull through inaction. Further it is asked that the parties involved be fined, and asked to resign or removed from office on the grounds of Public Endangerment, Violation of International Conventions and Treaties, Violation of National Policies, Ecological Crimes toward Vulnerable breeding stock for an Endangered species, and that they be replaced with persons better qualified for their respective offices, responsibilities, and positions, and willing to listen to the scientific community and local experts when they are forewarned as to the nature of the problems with their program and the potential for greater human casualties as well as further decline of a vulnerable species.
It must also be mentioned that while this report and our media campaign are focused on Sharks and Human safety, it can easily be escalated to pull in other conservation organizations and NGOs due to the fact that drum lines kill cetaceans (whales, porpoises, and dolphins), Sea Turtles (All seven species are Endangered or Critically Endangered), Seals and Sea Lions, etc.
Please consider this. If you think that the shark conservation community is difficult to handle, imagine what happens when the word leaks to the press that Australia is endorsing the killing of Dolphins? The impact to tourism will be huge! And we do not believe that Global or Australian Citizens will stand for this. Just some food for thought.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. We look forward to a positive resolution in this relatively easily fixed, or costly to ignore situation. The choice is yours.
Sincerely,
Erik Brush
Erik Brush
Founder and Director of Sharks for Life!
[email protected]
Author, Shark Advocate, and consulting biologist for WASC (Western Australians for Shark Conservation).
Ross Weir
Founder and Director of Western Australians for Shark Conservation.
