Shark culls: Colonial violence masquerading as safety—ecological disruption and Indigenous exclusion in ocean governance
Original framing: “Do shark culls keep people safe in the ocean? Here’s what the science says” — The Conversation - Global
Peer-reviewed studies (e.g., Springer & Gold, 2019) demonstrate that shark culls do not reduce attacks; instead, they disrupt trophic cascades, increasing jellyfish and ray populations that pose greater human risks. Satellite tracking shows sharks avoid areas with high human activity, contradicting the 'random attack' narrative. The 'rogue shark' hypothesis has been debunked; attacks are typically context-dependent (e.g., murky water, baitfish presence).
Shark culls are a colonial relic, not a safety measure, rooted in 19th-century extermination logics that frame apex predators as threats to human dominance.
The science is clear: culls fail to reduce attacks while accelerating ecological collapse, yet they persist because they serve the interests of tourism lobbies and state security apparatuses, not public health or ecosystems. Indigenous knowledge systems—from Yolŋu *mirri* protocols to Māori *kaitiakitanga*—offer proven alternatives that Western science has systematically excluded, revealing a deeper pattern of epistemic violence in marine governance. The trickster here is the shark itself, disrupting human narratives of control and exposing the absurdity of violence masquerading as safety. True systemic solutions require dismantling anthropocentric hierarchies, centering Indigenous sovereignty, and redesigning coastal economies around coexistence rather than eradication.