Queensland’s Shark Control Plan Faces Backlash from Experts, Legal Action & Conservation Advocates

Tiger Shark | Credit: Magnus Larsson

The Queensland government’s recently unveiled $88 million shark control expansion plan is drawing widespread criticism from scientists, conservationists, and legal experts alike. At Shark Guardian, we are deeply concerned by the proposed increase in lethal shark mitigation strategies—particularly the expanded use of shark nets and baited drum lines—which not only threaten vulnerable marine species but may also violate federal environmental laws.

A Controversial Plan with Deadly Impacts

Under the guise of prioritizing beachgoers' safety, the Queensland government intends to extend lethal shark control methods to more of the state's popular beaches. This includes an expansion of shark nets and drum lines—tools long criticized for their indiscriminate harm to marine wildlife. While the plan also incorporates non-lethal technologies like drone surveillance, the continued reliance on outdated and destructive methods undermines any claims of innovation or progress.

According to public data, Queensland's shark control program caught 1,639 marine animals last year alone. Alarmingly, fewer than half of these were the program’s target species. The bycatch included 22 whales and dolphins, 37 turtles, and 46 rays, with more than 980 animals killed overall. These statistics make it painfully clear: the environmental cost of these methods is far too high.

Legal and Federal Pushback

Marine biologist Lawrence Chlebeck of Humane World for Animals (HWA) has confirmed that the organization is exploring legal avenues to challenge the plan. Even more significantly, the expansion may trigger a federal review under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.

Queensland’s shark control program has operated since 1962 and is currently exempt from the EPBC Act due to its pre-existing status. However, this exemption includes a clause requiring reassessment if the program is expanded in ways that could harm protected species. Given the high number of non-target and endangered marine animals affected, experts argue the expansion qualifies for such a review.

Politics vs. Science

Critics, including University of Sydney public policy expert Chris Pepin-Neff, suggest the move is more political than practical—a bid to appear “tough on sharks” and rally voter support, rather than an evidence-based approach to marine safety. Pepin-Neff and others argue that the expansion is a response to political pressure from sectors like commercial fishing, where shark depredation is a growing concern.

Despite state government assurances that "traditional methods" remain the most effective, a 2019 Federal Court ruling cast serious doubt on the efficacy of lethal shark control. The ruling concluded there was "overwhelming" scientific evidence that culling sharks did not reduce the risk of unprovoked shark interactions.

Shark Guardian’s Response

As a UK charity dedicated to shark and marine conservation worldwide, Shark Guardian urges the Queensland government to reconsider its course of action. Modern, non-lethal technologies—such as drone monitoring, personal shark deterrents, and public education—are not only safer for wildlife but have proven to be effective in reducing shark incidents without harming marine ecosystems.

We stand in solidarity with fellow conservation organizations challenging this destructive plan. The future of our oceans depends on solutions grounded in science, not politics.

What Can You Do?

• Stay informed and follow legal developments on this issue.

• Support and share campaigns advocating for non-lethal shark management.

• Learn more about effective shark conservation strategies at www.sharkguardian.org.

• Sign the online petition here

Together, we can protect both people and marine life without resorting to harmful and outdated practices.