DPI’s ‘Territory’ Claim and the Illusion of ‘Protection’: Why Only 3 of 51 Shark Nets Are Being Removed

With the recent announcement of the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) trial removal of just three shark nets out of the 51 currently deployed along the NSW coastline, one can only assume, for a program that is supposedly moving toward non-lethal shark mitigation, this is barely a dent, a 6% change that feels more like a token gesture than real progress.

One possible reason for this minuscule step?

A long-running and unsubstantiated DPI claim that “shark nets deter sharks from establishing territories.” This statement is still plastered across their public communications, echoed in mainstream media, and repeated by the members of the public who have been misled to believe this claim. Yet, after repeated requests for clarification and evidence for this claim, the DPI has remained silent.

Drone Sightings at Maroubra Beach Scattered on Beach Side of Shark Net

After some deeper insight, however, we have discovered what may well be the origin of this fallacious claim. In 2009, during a heated exchange in Parliament, the then Fisheries Minister casually asserted that “the shark’s sensory system detects the net and this encourages the shark, rather rapidly, to leave the area.”

He went on to say that “essentially, the nets are there as a psychological barrier to the sharks.”

This was asserted without any scientific basis, in what appears to be a rather childish circular reasoning, with no supporting evidence provided. Subsequently, today, in the absence of correction from the DPI, it seems this off-the-cuff remark has since snowballed into departmental rhetoric that politicians and the media have continued to regurgitate every year in defence of a program that, in reality, has no evidence behind it.

Equally troubling is that the DPI still refuses to explain what area of water they consider ‘protected’ around a shark net. Without that definition, councils have no way of making informed decisions about which nets can 'safely' be removed (although all scientific evidence shows all of them could be safely removed). Any choice becomes guesswork, guided more by assumption than science.

This lack of transparency matters. When those making the decisions are fed an evidence-free claim about “territories” and have no clarity on what “protection” actually means, the default will almost always be caution, keeping more nets than necessary. 

That’s exactly what we’ve seen: 48 nets left untouched.

As a result, the narrative now emerging in the media that councils have “baulked” at the trial and avoided making decisions on which nets to remove. But this framing could itself be a calculated PR move from the DPI, setting the stage to revoke the trial altogether. Given their consistent lack of transparency, it’s difficult to dismiss this possibility. 

It is, after all, the DPI’s responsibility to provide viable non-lethal alternatives such as drone surveillance, which we know works effectively. Instead, they’ve failed to clearly outline these measures while the media points fingers at councils.

This misplaced blame distracts from the real issue: the DPI controlling the process, withholding critical information, and potentially shaping public perception to protect their own program rather than beach goers and marine life.

A perfect example of this flawed approach is Garie Beach in the Royal National Park. The beach has been closed to public access due to hazardous conditions and remains inaccessible, yet a shark net is still in place there. Maintaining a net at a closed beach is not just wasteful, it exposes how little critical thought, and site-specific review has gone into the DPI’s so-called “trial”.

Shark Net Proximity to Beach Holding a Deceased Turtle

To add, contradicting the DPI’s “territory” claim, and supporting fears that sharks may attract sharks to beaches, the James Cook University report “The Scientific Basis for Global Safety Guidelines to Reduce Shark Bite Risks” (p. 33) states:

Sharks are known to respond to and be attracted to the sounds of struggling prey. Shark nets are placed with the intention of capturing large “dangerous” sharks, but the catch of any marine animals may attract large sharks to these gears. Increased shark activity near nets has the potential to increase negative shark-human interactions, so avoiding waters close to the nets is recommended.

This evidence-based position, directly challenges the narrative that shark nets ‘deter’ shark presence. In fact, it warns they may have the opposite effect, potentially attracting sharks.

If the DPI truly had evidence to support their “territories” claim or a clear definition of “protected” waters, it would be in the public record by now. The fact that it isn’t raises serious questions about whether the claim is baseless, and whether that misinformation has influenced councils to opt for the smallest possible reduction in nets.

Until these questions are answered, the DPI’s claim remains an unverified talking point, one that could be keeping dozens of fishing gill nets in place unnecessarily, at the expense of marine life, a false sense of security, and honest public debate.