Killing Sharks Cultures and Politics of Encounter

Question: Discuss about the Killing Sharks for Cultures and Politics of Encounter. Answer: Introduction Shark culling in Western Australia is a term for a policy of the state government to kill and capture large sharks that are in the vicinity of beaches which are used by the public for swimming and other recreational activities. The government of Australia implemented this policy in 2014 to protect swimmers from being attacked by sharks as a result of the death of seven people on the coastline of Western Australia in the years 2010 to 2013 (Shadbolt, 2014). The public protested against the policy of shark culling, and as a result, the issue gained international attention. The Western Australian government policy of shark culling has been heavily criticized by different groups of people in the society. Among the people who are against the shark cull policy are activists of human rights and marine scientists. The activists argue that shark culling is going against the rights of shark conservation measures while the marine scientists say that shark culling is unscientific, cruel and unnecessary and causes the marine ecosystem to be damaged (Neff, 2012). The people are opposing the shark culling policy claim that culling and baiting sharks especially the great white shark which is a species that is federally protected, to be environmentally irresponsible, inhumane and not effective at minimizing the cases of shark attacks (Mcphee, 2014). The other issue that has made the public to turn against the government is because shark culling has environmental implications which include drowning of undersized sharks that are caught on the hooks, bycatch of other marine species and the impact of shark populations that are declining tremendously. The government has put across measure to protect people from shark attacks. In January 2014, drum lines to hook and bait large sharks in waters of Western Australia was implemented. The policy was developed in response to seven serious attacks. The policy gives the authority and finances to deploy drum lines near the beaches used by the public. Drum lines mid-water baited hooks that are designed to trap and kill bull sharks, tiger sharks and great white sharks (Gibbs Warren, 2015). The sharks that are found hooked but not yet dead and measure 3 meters in length are supposed to be shot dead, and their bodies were thrown into the sea. The principle behind the policy of shark culling is to reduce the attacks caused by sharks at popular locations. The government aims to reduce shark attacks by lowering the number of sharks which are potentially life-threatening by making the baited hooks attract the sharks rather activities of human (Holden, 2016). The government efforts to manage the dangers associated with sharks have not been effective. Researchers have found out that the shark control activities that the government has put across have environmental impacts. The use of drum lines or shark nets is not recommended. The methods supported by the government for shark culling are not effective to reduce shark attacks since it has been recently established that the annual rate of shark attacks was similar before are after using drum lines and nets (Mccagh, Sneddon Blache, 2015). Shark culling methods used by the West Australian governments are indiscriminate on the type of species caught, and this has resulted in the killing of endangered species of fish such as the great white sharks. Sometimes non-target species are caught, and this causes marine life imbalance since species such as whales, turtles, dugongs and dolphins are accidentally killed. The alternative method that the government can use is to support researchers who are working tirelessly to identify ways of reducing shark bites and protect shark species (Sprivulis, 2014). Various governments can learn important lessons from the issue of shark culling by the Western Australian government. One lesson that can be learned is that governments should consider public opinion when formulating policies. This is because the public may be having alternative ways to handle different issues which are beneficial. Another lesson that the government can learn is that they need to carefully research on the information that concerns the general public (Neff Hueter, 2013). Releasing information that is not well researched makes the public lose confidence in them. It can be identified that the Western Australian government should review their methods of fish culling since there has been criticism from the public who suggests better methods on how shark attacks can be prevented. Grunigs Model of Public Relations In 1984, Grunig and Hunt developed four public relations models that explain various organizational and management practices. These public relations model act as guidelines to create strategies, programs, and tactics. The four models are press agent/ publicity, public information model, two-way asymmetrical model and two-way symmetrical model (Rice Atkin, 2012). The publicity or press agent model is a communication model that is one way. Persuasion is used by communication experts to shape the opinions and thoughts key audiences. Accuracy is not important in this model and organizations do not seek the feedback of audience or carry out audience analysis research. The public information model deviates from tactics that are manipulative as used in the publicity model and gives more accurate information. Nevertheless, the pattern of communication still flows one way. Audience analysis research is not conducted by practitioners to guide their tactics and strategies (Botan Hazleton, 2010). Some newsletters and press releases are designed based on this model when the audience is not particularly researched beforehand or targeted. The two-way- asymmetrical model is a more persuasive way of reaching target audiences. In this model, research is conducted to understand the behaviours and attitudes of the audience. However, the use of persuasive communication in this model benefits the organization more than the audiences. Therefore, the model is considered to be imbalanced or asymmetrical. The argument in the two-way symmetrical model is that practitioners in public relations should serve as a link between key publics and organizations instead of acting as persuaders. In this model, communication is used by practitioners who act as negotiators to make sure that all parties concerned benefit (Rice and Atkin, 2012). The model tries to create a situation that is mutually beneficial hence the term symmetrical.' The two-way symmetrical model is viewed as the model that is most ethical. The most appropriate model for the Australian government to use is the two-way symmetrical model. This is because this model gives a chance to both the government a chance to express their opinion. The use of this model is appropriate in solving the issue of shark culling since the public may give workable solutions to the government which is better than the methods that the government is taking to curb the dangers that result from shark attacks. For instance, marine researchers are studying shark habits and identifying measures that people can take to protect themselves from shark attacks (Gallagher, 2016). It can be identified that the other models are not appropriate for solving the issue of fish culling. This is because they do not give room for public opinion. How Government can protect their Reputation in the Digital Era. This story about shark culling shows that people are much more informed because of the of the world digitalization trend. Most people use social media platforms to access various types of information. The public is much more informed about all events taking place in different parts of the world. The information concerning different government policies are posted on different social media platforms, and people express their views on them. The public may give views which are either negative or positive depending on how beneficial they are to the majority of people (Gibbs Warren, 2014). Because of much public participation, various governments have to be careful on the kind of information they release to the public. It is becoming necessary for governments to protect their reputations. There are various measures that the government should take to protect their reputations to develop public confidence. The first measure is to make sure that the information released is credible and well researched. Such reliable information gives no room for criticism and helps boost the public confidence in the government. The measure that should be taken is to make sure that the information that the governments release benefits majority of the public (Holden, 2016). Information should not be one way. In a case where communication is two ways, the public feel recognized and supports the government in the implementation of the policies. The other measure is that the government should protect its confidential information. Only authorized people should be allowed to access such sensitive information. When non-public information starts circulating all over, people lose their confidence in the government (Gallagher, 2 016). Therefore, it is necessary for governments to make sure that confidential information is handled with care. This is because once information is released to the public, it cannot be reversed. Conclusion In the current world, public opinion is very key in every society. Gone are the days where governments made laws, and people complied without questioning. In this digital era, people are more informed, and nothing goes unnoticed. Social media is being used by people express their views about the policies the governments formulate. The reputation of governments is at stake and hence they need to be more careful with the kind of information it releases to the public. References. Botan, C. H., Hazleton, V. (Eds.). (2010). Public relations theory II. Routledge. Gallagher, A. J. (2016). Coexisting with sharks: a response to Carter and Linnell. Trends in Ecology Evolution, 31(11), 817-818. Gibbs, L., Warren, A. (2015). Transforming shark hazard policy: Learning from ocean- Users and shark encounter in Western Australia. Marine Policy, 58, 116-124. Gibbs, L., Warren, A. (2014). Killing Sharks: cultures and politics of encounter and the Sea. Australian Geographer, 45(2), 101-107. Holden, A. (2016). Environment and tourism. Routledge. McCagh, C., Sneddon, J., Blache, D. (2015). Killing sharks: The medias role in public and The political response to fatal humanshark interactions. Marine Policy, 62, 271-278. McPhee, D. (2014). Unprovoked Shark Bites: Are they becoming more prevalent? Coastal Management, 42(5), 478-492. Neff, C. (2012). Australian beach safety and the politics of shark attacks. Coastal Management, 40(1), 88-106. Neff, C., Hueter, R. (2013). Science, policy, and the public discourse of shark attack: a Proposal for reclassifying humanshark interactions. Journal of environmental studies and sciences, 3(1), 65-73. Rice, R. E., Atkin, C. K. (2012). Public communication campaigns. Sage Shadbolt, P. (2014, January 14). Shark culling begins in Western Australia, angering conservationists. Retrieved from CNN Sans: https://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/27/world/asia/australia-sharks/ Sprivulis, P. (2014). Western Australia coastal shark bites: a risk assessment. The Australasian medical journal, 7(2), 137.