Notes obtained under freedom of information show Department of Fisheries among groups to criticise the drumline proposal

A local surf club was the only key stakeholder to support all aspects of the Western Australian shark cull before the policy was announced, according to documents shown to Guardian Australia.

The documents, which were obtained by lawyers for Sea Shepherd in December after a four-month freedom of information application process, show consultation notes relating to 23 stakeholders including government departments and Surf Life Saving WA.

Only one of the groups consulted, the Margaret River boardriders club, supported all aspects of the proposed cull.

According to government documents a total of 41 groups were consulted about the proposal in December 2013. Lawyers for Sea Shepherd originally requested all consultation notes but narrowed their request to 23 organisations they thought likely to support the policy after being told the original request was too broad. Those omitted from the request included academics and marine biologists who had spoken publicly against any proposed shark cull.

The premier, Colin Barnett, and the then fisheries minister, Troy Buswell, announced the drumline policy on 10 December 2013, just over two weeks after 35-year-old surfer Chris Boyd was killed by a great white shark at Gracetown, near Margaret River. It was intended to run for three years but was quashed by the Environmental Protection Authority in September.

The three-month drumline trial, which began on Australia Day 2014, snagged 172 sharks but no great whites.



Barnett has previously said Boyd’s death was the “catalyst” for the policy. He maintained the cull had the support of the “silent majority”, despite a poll finding 82% of Australians opposed killing sharks.

But the released consultation documents show that even those the government reached out to for comment on the proposal did not support it. Most of the released documents are presented as notes taken by government staff of stakeholder comments.

Among those opposed to the cull was the Department of Fisheries, which also criticised the imminent threat policy. Handwritten notes taken of a consultation with Fisheries staff show the department “would not support drumlines” and that they were a “possible attract (sic) of sharks”.

Surf Life Saving WA said the program could “increase anxiety” among beachgoers and recommended better communication and education about the level of risk. “Risk of shark attack v other threats is so low,” Surf Life Saving WA said. “But dealing with primal fear. Education needs to target the psychological primal fear of humans.”

The letter from Margaret River boardriders club, addressed to Buswell, said the proposal had been discussed at a meeting on 2 December 2013, a fortnight after Boyd died. Both Boyd and the break he was surfing were well known to the club, which now holds an annual surfing competition in his memory.

The club said it supported the drumline policy and the killing of sharks deemed to be an “imminent threat”, and said WA risked “a reputation worldwide as ‘the death coast’” if the government didn’t act. “The state has a duty of care to protect human life from imminent threat, which it is failing to act upon, at a terrible cost,” it said.

The club posited that great white shark numbers in south-western Australia had increased from 10,000 to 100,000 since the species was protected in the late 90s. “We note that most marine biologists are unwilling to speak in favour of targeted culling, however they are not living in the real world of daily shark sightings and regular attacks and human death,” it said.

Consultation notes attributed to Fisheries said there was no accurate population data for great white sharks but suggested environmental factors, such as a warming ocean, were pushing food sources south, resulting in an increase in sightings and fatal attacks. Notes from another conversation with Fisheries said: “Environmental tourist won’t come to WA if we go down this path.”

Commercial fisheries who were consulted said they had concerns about the tender process for monitoring the drumlines and the lack of government consultation. One commercial fisher said the policy had the potential to damage shark stocks by taking breeding females, which are more likely to be close to shore.

The city of Bunbury and the shire of Augusta-Margaret River also raised concerns about the consultation process.

Beach signs – similar to those used in Newcastle this week – were recommended by the majority of stakeholders. But as Newcastle shows, signs do not stop everyone from using the water.

A Sea Shepherd shark campaigner, Natalie Banks, said the documents scuttled Barnett’s oft-repeated claim that the “silent majority” supported the cull. “We have now got further information from the key stakeholders that shows that many of them said they had concerns about the policy, and only one fully supported it,” Banks said.

“That one submission seemed to outweigh all the others. Are they just trying to appease this one group of people who are clearly in the minority?”

In a statement to Guardian Australia, Barnett said the government had been “open and transparent” about the drivers of the drumline program. “While the government did consult before and during the trial, the driver of the program was the state’s ultimate responsibility to public safety,” he said.

Barnett said the government would “continue to address its duty of care” under its shark hazard mitigation strategy, which still allows the killing of a shark deemed to be a “serious threat”.