Australians respond to shark attacks, OK cull
A great white shark jumps out of the water as it hunts seals in 2010.
Photo by AFP/Getty Images
SYDNEY — Chris Boyd was surfing at a secluded break on Australia's western coast when he was attacked by a great white shark in November. The shark severed his left arm and ripped off part of his right leg. The 35-year-old died in its jaws.
The Australian plumber's gruesome death was part of an increase in shark attacks that has terrified swimmers and triggered a deeply emotional debate in a country where the ocean is considered the national playground.
In response to the panic over the attacks, the government of Western Australia state last month began a cull of great white, tiger and bull sharks more than 9 feet long.
“The public is demanding that sharks, where they stay around popular swimming or surfing areas, should be destroyed,” Gov. Colin Barnett said after Boyd's death. “I'm in that camp.”
Environmentalists and animal rights activists are outraged by the policy, and some scientists are concerned, too.
Great whites, which can weigh up to 5,000 pounds and are responsible for a third to half of shark attacks on humans, are a protected species in Australia, so a special exemption was required for the cull.
Just last year, the federal government updated a plan to increase the great white population.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.