Transcript
STEPHEN LYON: The fact is that Penrhyn is a lagoon that has a lot of shark activity in it. The reef sharks are quite prolific there. There's a number species; black-tip reef sharks, white-tip reef sharks, grey reef sharks mostly, and then a few other sharks there like tiger sharks that come in and out. They're common within the reef and then outside the reef there's all the other pelagic sharks you get in the area. So there's a lot of shark activity and the islanders are used, they interact with these sharks on a regular basis and the sharks can be problematic for fishermen. However, I've always understood that the community up there pretty much accepted the difficulty that sharks posed and had their own ways of managing it. But it seems to be that there's been an increase in the desire to export reef fish and, from what the article today in the newspaper said, maybe that the sharks are hampering the ability to catch as many reef fish via nets as what they used to, which isn't what they normally did; normally they would spear their fish or trawl for tuna. So it seems like this may actually be a reaction to a change in fishing method as much as anything else.
JAMIE TAHANA: OK so the sharks are getting in the way of a commercial opportunity for Penrhyn?
SL: You know that seems to be the gist of this. I can't confirm anything because I haven't really had a chance to speak to anyone up there to understand the problem fully, because it isn't a new problem - they've had sharks for a long time but it just seems to be that that may be one explanation as to why this has been proposed now.
JT: What would a shark cull do? Because don't they just get rid of sharks for the meantime and then they come back?
SL: Yeah well that's exactly right, and that's a point that I try to make. You know, sharks are an animal like anything else, and you can get rid of them temporarily, but they will shift. I mean, they're not locked to living in one place you know, if you take a whole bunch of sharks out of one area of the lagoon, for example, they will just be replaced by sharks from another area of the lagoon. Also, if you reduce a bunch of adult sharks, other sharks will breed quicker - there'll be less competition. Those sharks will be replaced just through natural processes. So it's never going to be a long-term solution to the issue and so I don't know exactly why they're proposing it at this stage. I think people sort of realise this, it just hasn't been thought through.
JT: What alternatives are there, then, if the locals are trying to move sharks from the lagoon?
SL: I think the key really is to understand some of the factors at play here. If the fact is that the people are having difficulty catching their dinner, which could be a real issue, you know we have to look at why that is. There is a huge amount of fishing pressure up in our nothern waters and that's only been increasing in the past four or five years. The proposed Marae Moana, the marine park in the Cook Islands, proposes to protect the southern group, but to allow the northern group to remain being fished. That means all the fishing pressure that would have existed down south will be shifted to the north, because the government isn't proposing to reduce the number of licences, they just want to shift them all up north. That, and a proposal to do more purse seining, plus the very real increase in fishing that's happened in the last few years, is probably contributing to a decline in the tuna up there which puts pressure on both people to catch them and also sharks, who actually survive on the same food that people do. You know a point there is that the ministry of marine resources here have actually been actively supporting the northern group by providing fuel subsidies to help them to be able to fish longer and go further in order to be able to catch their dinner. So that's an indication in itself that fishing isn't what it used to be for these people in these small communities.
