Groundbreaking new report: Drones proven more effective than Shark Nets and Drumlines in Queensland

The recently published Queensland SharkSmart drone trial report confirms what the science behind shark interaction mitigation has long asserted: non-lethal aerial surveillance (drones) are substantially more effective at spotting sharks than catch-and-kill equipment such as shark nets and drumlines.

During the trial, conducted under the Queensland Government’s Shark Control Program (SCP), drones recorded 676 shark-sighting events, compared to just 284 sharks caught in adjacent SCP gear (nets and drumlines) over the same period. This is despite drones being in the air just 2.9% as long as nets were deployed, and 5.1% of the time that drumlines were active.

At key locations the difference is dramatic. The North Stradbroke Island drone program recorded 314 sightings versus only 32 catches in SCP gear. At Burleigh Beach the numbers were 168 sightings versus 24 catches.

Although some beaches such as Rainbow Beach had a higher number of shark catches in SCP gear, with 58 shark catches versus 30 shark sightings with drones, this highlights not a failure of drones, but a shortfall in how they are deployed. Less shark sightings than shark catches can easily be rectified by increasing patrol flight hours per day, given drones were operating for less than 10% of the time that SCP catch-and-kill equipment was active. Further, of the 58 shark catches through SCP gear at Rainbow Beach, only 20 were of the Bull/Tiger/White target species, which are typically considered the main species of concern. Rainbow Beach SCP equipment also has one of the highest catch rates of harmless but critically endangered Grey Nurse sharks, owing to its close proximity to the world renowned Wolf Rock aggregation site.

Broadly speaking, drones are identifying many more sharks, including large ones, more quickly and with far less time in the air than what traditional lethal (culling) equipment catches. Despite the overwhelming data in favour of drones, the program’s rollout remains frustratingly slow.

Minimal Progress

Credit is certainly due to the current Government for finally transitioning the drone program from a trial, to an official component of the Shark Control Program, albeit after a prolonged four year trial. These delays were unnecessary, given the well-established success of NSW’s drone programme. A favourite soundbite of QLD politicians who support the status quo and opposite progress is that alternatives must be proven suitable in “Queensland conditions”. A convenient talking point, but when it comes to drones, this has also already been proven between September 2020 and October 2021 in phase one of the QLD drone trial. 

Endless trials aside, now that drones are an official and permanent part of the SCP, a key failing in policy should be noted, that this eventual rollout is very small in scale. This is the biggest question that must be asked of the Crisafulli Government: if human safety is genuinely the priority and not just a sound grab, why will the drone program extend to only 20 beaches by 2026-27?

Extensive evaluation conducted by Cardno (commissioned by the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries), suggests there are over twice as many drone suitable beaches at which the SCP operates. 

Subsequent to the Cardno report in 2019, together with other Organisations, we outlined a modernisation plan in 2020 which included all 20 beaches that have now been chosen for the drone rollout, however, our cost and efficacy analysis (as well as the Cardno report) concludes that over 40 beaches would be suitable for drone surveillance. Why are less than 50% of the suitable beaches being given drone surveillance?

The most comprehensive study of shark-bite mitigation to date showed that when non-lethal alternatives (such as drone surveillance & SMART drumlines) were active, zero human-shark interactions were observed. By contrast, during comparable periods when shark nets were deployed, 19 negative interactions occurred.

The science is clear: drones detect more sharks, more effectively, with no fatalities.

It’s time to reinvest the millions spent on lethal gear into a modern, non-lethal system, and build a stable workforce of trained drone operators.

If this technology demonstrably protects more people than its lethal counterparts ever have, why have such a hesitant rollout of drones? As an aside, but an important one, shark surveillance drones have the added benefit of avoiding drownings. Shark nets and drumlines do not, in fact, they have caused drownings and near misses.

Replacing nets with drones during whale-migration season

The Queensland drone trial results strongly support shifting the priority of shark-bite mitigation toward a non-lethal program. This sits squarely within the “perimeter” role of mitigation, which Huveneers et al. proposed a hierarchical approach to shark-bite mitigation for government agencies and the public, the so-called “three P’s”:

• Perimeter: detect/monitor sharks before they approach users (eg drones, aerial surveillance)

• Proximity: reduce shared space between sharks and users (eg enclosures, barriers, exclusion zones, deterrents)

• Prevent Bleeding: reduce severity of injury if a bite occurs (eg trauma kits, signage, bite resistant wetsuits)

In a region with high water clarity (Southern Queensland) the results show drones should be the top priority in an effective shark-mitigation strategy. If drones are spotting more sharks, faster, they should lead the protection framework rather than playing a secondary role to nets and drumlines, if human safety is the genuine priority of the program

Spotting Target Sharks Easily With Drones During Low Water Turbidity

The findings add further weight to recent recommendations, including those by consulting groups such as KPMG, that the SCP should more rapidly replace shark nets, particularly during the sensitive whale-migration season when entanglement risk is high, with stronger and more modern technologies. The KPMG review suggested trialling the removal of nets during the whale-migration period while maintaining protection via other methods (e.g. drones, catch‐alert drumlines). 

Given the drone trial’s impressive results, it is increasingly untenable to continue relying on nets as protection when drones can serve that role more effectively and humanely. If killing sharks is the priority, the antiquated 1960’s fishing approach, operated by the Fisheries Department, legislated under the Fisheries Act, is the correct approach. If human safety is the priority, the program must modernise and strengthen, by replacing antiquated approaches with modern ones. 

It’s time to move from “kill and hope” toward “watch, detect and respond”, prioritising non-lethal technologies like drones that deliver human safety, making Queensland a global leader in shark mitigation.

Exclusive: We’ve gone beyond the surface of the drone trial report. Using Queensland RTI laws (Right to Information), we accessed and analysed the GPS data of every shark sighting recorded during the trial, and what we found exposes serious flaws in the Shark Control Program. A second story is coming soon, and the implications are significant.

Stay connected with us on our socials and join our broadcasting channel for the latest updates!