Minutes 15 September 2017

Queensland Shark Control Program Scientific Working Group Minutes

15 September 2017
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Office
2-68 Flinders Street East, Townsville

Attendees - Members

Name Position/ Organisation
Mark Doohan Chair / Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
Jeffrey Krause Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
Matthew Campbell Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
Rean Gilbert Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
Colin Simpfendorfer James Cook University
Russell Blanchard Surf Life Saving Queensland
Richard Fitzpatrick Biopixel TV; James Cook University
Maxwell Shephard Alliance for Sustainable Tourism (proxy for Angela Freeman)

Apologies

Name Position / Organisation
Wayne Sumpton Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
Angela Freeman Alliance for Sustainable Toursim

Secretariat

Name Position / Organisation
Tracey Scott-Holland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries

1. Introduction

Mark Doohan (the Chair) welcomed members to the first meeting of the Shark Control Program Scientific Working Group (the Group).

He explained that the group was formed for the purpose of informing management in relation to scientific matters of relevance to that part of the Queensland Shark Control Program (the Program) that operates within the Commonwealth Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Queensland Great Barrier Reef Coast Marine Park (the Marine Parks). It was also noted that Permit G17/3328.1, which enables the Program to operate within the Marine Parks, specifies a number of conditions relating to the formation of the group, its purpose and operation.

The Chair provided a brief explanation of other advisory groups that have historically been involved in informing the Program, including the Shark Marine Advisory Group (SMAG) on the Gold Coast that is still in operation.

2. Conflict of Interest Disclosures

The Chair discussed the process for declaring any conflicts of interest and advised the Group that an opportunity to make any declarations (via a Conflict of Interest form) would be provided at the start of each meeting. The importance of also declaring when there is no conflict of interest was emphasised.

3.   Terms of Reference

The Chair invited comments on the draft Terms of Reference that were distributed prior to the meeting. The following points were discussed:

  • Inclusion of relevant sections of GBRMP Permit G17/3328.1 in the Terms of Reference, particularly in relation to the background and role of the Group.
  • The membership of the Group was discussed and the Chair encouraged members to suggest additional people with relevant skills that the Group might consider inviting to be members.
    It was agreed that the following people would be invited to be members of the Group (Action Item 1.1).
    Local Marine Advisory Committee (Townsville) – possibly Adam Smith
    Matthew Broadhurst – New South Wales Department of Primary Industries
  • The Chair advised that for future meetings the aim would be for the agenda to be distributed at least two weeks in advance and members would be given the opportunity to submit additional agenda items.
  • The confidentiality and non-disclosure section of the Terms of Reference was discussed and it was agreed that any confidential information should be clearly identified.
  • Meetings will be held twice per year. The frequency of meetings may be reviewed from time to time depending on existing requirements. Reference to a quorum in the Terms of Reference is not required as the group will be able to negotiate meeting dates effectively to enable the majority of members to attend.
  • Meeting minutes and revised Terms of Reference will be distributed to Group members within one week of this meeting.

4.   Current Technologies

Jeff Krause presented a summary of the current equipment deployed in the Marine Parks. He noted that there are no nets remaining in the Marine Parks. The last remaining nets in the Marine Parks in the Mackay region were removed and replaced with drum lines. It was noted that there are two nets remaining in the Mackay harbour but they are located outside of the Marine Parks.

5. Current Trials / Research

Jeffrey Krause facilitated a discussion around some of the previous and current trials and formal research being conducted by or funded by the Program.

  • Assessment of different baits e.g. mullet, shark, stingray, manufactured baits, with a view to improving program efficiency and reducing non-target catch.
    Note: Shark and stingray bait is purchased from commercial sources. Suppliers of shark bait have been provided a list of species not to be supplied which includes hammerhead sharks. It was recommended that the stingray species being used for bait be assessed to ensure there are no sustainability concerns (Action Item 1.2).
  • Various hook guards and bait covers that have been trialled in the past were discussed.
  • A range of hook types have been trialled in the past and the effectiveness of these and others were discussed. Circle hooks similar to those currently used in the NSW shark program are to be trialled in Queensland soon. Large circle hooks may be effective at reducing catch of turtles. Colin Simpfendorfer may be able to provide some literature in relation to this (Action Item 1.3).
  • A trial of new dolphin dissuasive devices (acoustic alarm pingers) will commence outside of the Marine Parks soon. Factors influencing these trials were discussed by the Group.
  • Studies into movement and migration of large sharks using acoustic and satellite tagging technologies were discussed. Projects funded by the Program or conducted by Group members or other researchers were discussed. Colin Simpfendorfer advised that he will provide copies of published research on bull shark movements and interim reports on studies of hammerhead sharks (Action Item 1.4).
  • The Program is funding scalloped hammerhead shark research in South East Queensland. An update will be provided at the next meeting (Action Item 1.5).

6. Marine Parks Permit G33288.1 response to public consultation

During the application process which led to the granting of Marine Parks permit G33288.1, public consultation was undertaken. A number of submissions raised during the consultation were referred to the Group for consideration in the Supplementary Information – Public information package. The Group considered the following issues.

Table 1: Issues and comments raised in the submissions that were referred to the Scientific Working Group for consideration.

Issue Number

Issues raised, information requested, Queensland Government response

32.

Issues and comments raised in the submissions:

  1. "Let's   replace these drumlines and nets with other educational and non-lethal   alternatives"
  2. Replace the drumlines and nets with education   and new alternative non-lethal technologies currently available, such as   Shark Spotting programs, the Clever Buoy and the Eco Shark Barriers.

Additional information requested:

  1. How will DAF look to do this? Can DAF commit   to a reduction in drumlines and nets over time?
  2. Provide an explanation on why these non-lethal   technologies would not achieve the aim of the program. Provide justification   for each of the technologies mentioned (Shark Spotting program, Clever Buoy   and Eco Shark Barriers).

Queensland Government Response: The program has modified gear over time with a reduction in the number of nets in the GBRMP, most recently the recommendation to remove all nets at Mackay should this permit be granted and removal of nets in Cairns in 2013. The Scientific Working Group (see section 3) will be responsible for providing advice on non-lethal bather protection alternatives.See Section 4 for details of the current status of alternative methods for prevention of shark attack.

Scientific Working Group:

  1. The Group agreed that monitoring of non-lethal   alternatives is a high priority and is acknowledged as such in the Terms of   Reference. See section 8 of the minutes for further information.

    Current education tools used by DAF were discussed and acknowledged as being important tools in minimising shark interactions. The requirement for continuing education to accommodate the transient tourist population was acknowledged. It was noted that the ‘Swimmer Safety’ message is located on the DAF public webpage and media releases in relation to swimmer safety are published periodically. Safety campaigns by other agencies (including print material) could be considered by the group for potential application in the Program e.g. DEHP crocodile safety, various QPWS safety publications, SLSQ stinger awareness (Action Item 1.6). Availability of safety messages in a range of languages should be considered.

  2. The group agreed that it would be appropriate   to complete an assessment of all current non-lethal technologies and their   potential for trial in the Program. A process for conducting the assessment   is to be developed out of session. It should incorporate a matrix of current   technologies and the level of protection provided to various marine user   groups which should be defined (e.g swimmers, surfers, kite surfers, spear   fishers etc.). It should include a risk assessment component. The assessment   methodology along with the Cardno report are to be distributed to members   prior to the next meeting. Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd (2015). Shark   Deterrents and Detectors. Cardno Pty Ltd, 42 pp. (Action Item 1.7).

35.

Issues and comments raised in the submissions: A number of submissions raised the issue of having the drumlines and shark nets in place during the Northern stinger season in Cairns, Townsville and Mackay.

Additional information requested: Provide justification/explanation of why the drumlines/nets remain during the stinger season.

DAF to provide data of how many beaches in the Marine Parks have both stinger nets and shark control gear.

Queensland Government Response: Swimming enclosures do not protect all beach users and this must be considered when assessing appropriate control measures. Program beaches in Queensland that have stinger nets in use during summer include:

Cairns: Holloways Beach, Yorkeys Knob, Trinity Beach, Clifton Beach, Palm Cove, Ellis Beach, Townsville: The Strand and Pallarenda Beaches; Magnetic Island: Picnic Bay and Horseshoe Bay

The combination of the deployment of Shark Control Program gear at beaches where swimming enclosures are in place will be reviewed by the Scientific Working Group.

Scientific Working Group:

The group discussed that the Program aims to reduce local populations of large sharks. The effectiveness of the Program in achieving this if it was only in operation for part of the year is unknown. There may be some available data from South Africa. The level of fidelity of sharks to local areas and the size of the area are important considerations in determining how effective the Program is in achieving localised reduction of populations. Bull shark populations may be significantly reduced, tiger sharks are thought to be impacted to a lesser degree. A comparison of shark catch during and outside of the stinger season would be useful for the Group to consider (Action Item 1.8). It was noted that swimmers may still swim outside of the nets during stinger season (may wear stinger suits). SLSQ receive reports of stings from outside of the nets. SLSQ may be able to provide some statistics on the incidence of stings reported from outside of the stinger nets (Action Item 1.9). It was also noted that stinger nets are not guaranteed to exclude sharks or crocodiles. The panel will reconsider this issue at the next meeting with more information.

36.

Issues and comments raised in the submissions: "It is recommended that the current shark control program continues, to ensure the current level of swimmer safety in the marine environment is not compromised, and investment is made into identifying and trialling non-invasive methods of control to replace the current capture program progressively over time"

Additional information requested: DAF to comment.

Queensland Government Response: See Section 4 for details of the current status of alternative methods for prevention of shark attack. The Scientific Working Group may consider researching and trialling alternative swimmer safety methods

Scientific Working Group:

See response to Issue Number 32. Part of this recommendation states ‘to ensure the current level of swimmer safety in the marine environment is not compromised’. The panel noted that the ability to statistically quantify the level of effectiveness of any given technology is very difficult.

38.

Issues and comments raised in the submissions: There was general concern in many of the submissions that centred on the impacts on biodiversity.

Additional information requested: How does DAF intend to mitigate or offset unintended impacts on non-target species?

Queensland Government Response: Minimising the impact on bycatch species has long been a priority of the Program. Over time, the refinements in apparatus configurations have meant the Program has been able to significantly reduce the number of non-target species taken. During the 10 year period of operation of the permit 8 dolphins, 6 turtles and 4 dugongs have been directly impacted in Program apparatus within the Marine Parks. This is considered to be a very low level of mortality in comparison to other factors affecting these populations. The Queensland Government continues to seek to improve outcomes for non-target species through current practices and research. Formal assessment of the risk to marine fauna may be considered by the Scientific Working Group.

Scientific Working Group:

The Chair reminded members that in considering this question the Group needs to consider non-target take in the Marine Parks. The working group discussed the potential impact on non-target species and in particular on protected species of dolphins e.g. snubfin dolphins, Australian humpback dolphins. It was decided that a more detailed breakdown of the catch data including non-target species caught and locations would allow a comparison with the locations of Program equipment (Action Item 1.10).

40.

Issues and comments raised in the submissions: "The effect of the program on species that are caught in the gear, and more broadly on the ecosystems in which it occurs."

Additional information requested: DAF to provide the impacts of the program on ecosystems in comparison to other sources of shark/bycatch mortality (i.e. ECIFF and stranding database should be analysed) for the period 2005-2014.

Queensland Government Response:

After peaking in 2003 the shark catch in the east coast inshore fishery within the GBRMP has declined in recent years due to the introduction of conservative management arrangements such as a maximum legal size, recreational bag limits, restricted access and a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for the commercial sector.  The QSCP shark catch (assuming average weight of 100kg per shark) has been under 50 tonne per annum.

Year

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Comm. Catch (Tonne)

719

665

733

729

403

220

201

161

151

137

QSCP Catch (Tonne)

36

31

35

35

37

39

45

52

44

40

The Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection have only maintained records of shark stranding in the “Standings Database” since 2007 with only 7 reported strandings within the GBRMP since that time. Only one of these was identified to species level; a dusky whaler at Mackay in 2011.

See section 3 for details of the Program’s Scientific Working Group. Information about the sustainability of Queensland’s commercial fisheries is available at: https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/fisheries/monitoring-our-fisheries/data-reports/sustainability-reporting

The SCP and East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery (ECIFFF) do take a number of similar species; however, tiger sharks and bull sharks are the main SCP target species caught in the Marine Parks whilst the main species taken in the ECIFFF are blacktip whalers and graceful sharks. More detailed comparison of the catch composition may be considered by the SWG.

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/e85f956a-763e-489c-9051-bb63deaf0138/files/ecifff-condition-7-report-2014.pdf

Scientific Working Group:

Further breakdown of the data to species level would be beneficial. DAF to investigate additional data for consideration by the group (Action Item 1.11).

41.

Issues and comments raised in the submissions: "There is a large body of work that is not mentioned. What would have been useful to see would have been a detailed assessment of the likelihood that QSCP catches have resulted in the decline of species caught (e.g. something along the lines of the work of: Dudley, S., and Simpfendorfer, C. 2006. Population status of 14 shark species caught in the protective gillnets off KwaZulu-Natal beaches, South Africa, 1978-2003. Marine and Freshwater Research 57(2): 225-240.) Information such as this is available for a range of species (both sharks and non-sharks) and a synthesis of these data would be helpful from a decision making perspective."

Additional information requested: Can DAF provide us with this level of analysis? If not immediately, how long would such an analysis take?

Queensland Government Response: The Queensland Government acknowledges that the Program has impacts on shark species, however, the safety of beach users is considered to be the highest priority. See section 3 for details of the Program’s Scientific Working Group.

Scientific Working Group:

The Group decided that George Leigh (Senior Fisheries Scientist, Fisheries Queensland) could be approached to give an account of existing information of relevance to this item (Action Item 1.12).

42.

Issues and comments raised in the submissions: All species of hammerhead except the great hammerhead are listed as non-target. The great hammerhead is equally unlikely to attack humans as the other species (although it does reach a larger size). The non-target species list includes the bronze whaler- a large species of whaler that has been implicated in attacks on humans, while it does not include whaler species such as the blacktip reef shark and spot tail shark that grow too much smaller sizes and have not been associated with attacks on humans.

Additional information requested: DAF to provide the analysis undertaken for the list of non-target shark species and address concerns re: great hammerhead and bronze whaler.

Queensland Government Response: An assessment of all shark species caught in the Program was undertaken in 2014 by shark experts from DAF, GBRMPA and James Cook University with additional input received from New South Wales Department of Primary Industries. The aim of the assessment was to categorise shark species found in Queensland as either dangerous or non-dangerous. During the assessment it was determined that the Great Hammerhead would remain on the target species list due to its large size and recorded fatalities in Australia linked to hammerhead sharks. The blacktip reef shark has been known to be aggressive towards humans and has been responsible for bites in the past so remains on the target species list (Last and Stevens, 2009). The Spot-tail shark is included on the list of non-dangerous sharks. The bronze whaler shark is not known to occur in Queensland (Last and Stevens, 2009). Historical attacks in Queensland associated with this species are likely to be a misidentification. The categorisation of this species is under review.

Scientific Working Group:

The group agreed that the list of non-dangerous sharks should be reviewed as a priority (out of session). In conducting this assessment, consideration must be given to which marine user groups we are protecting e.g. swimmers, surfers, spearfishers. Clarification of how shark size is included in this assessment is required. This needs to be clarified prior to the assessment (Action Item 1.13).

43.

Issues and comments raised in the submissions: "With over 200-400 tiger sharks killed per year- are we sure there is no long-term effect?"

Additional information requested: DAF to comment.

Queensland Government Response: Holmes et al. (2012) reported declining trends in annual catch rates of the tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) in Queensland, Australia. The report presented an analysis of the distribution of 4757 Galeocerdo cuvier caught in surface nets and on drumlines across 9 of the 10 locations of the Queensland Shark Control Program (QSCP) between 1993 and 2010. Standardised catch rates showed a significant decline (p < 0.0001) in southern Queensland locations for both gear types, which contrasts with studies at other locations where increases in tiger shark catch per unit effort (CPUE) have been reported. Significant temporal declines in the average size of tiger sharks occurred at four of the nine locations analysed (p < 0.05), which may be indicative of fishing reducing abundance in these areas. Given the long term nature of shark control programs along the Australian east coast, effects on local abundance should have been evident many years ago, which suggests that factors other than the effects of shark control programs have also contributed to the decline. While reductions in catch rate are consistent with a decline in tiger shark abundance, this interpretation should be made with caution, as the inter-annual CPUE varies considerably at most locations. Nevertheless, the overall downward trend, particularly in southern Queensland, indicates that current fishing pressures on the species may be unsustainable (Holmes et. al., 2012). This will be discussed and analysed by the SWG as a priority item.

Scientific Working Group:

The Group discussed options for analysing Program data relating to tiger shark catch in the Marine Parks. Factors impacting the analysis were discussed. See section 8 of these minutes for information about research priorities.

45.

Issues and comments raised in the submissions: A risk assessment conducted in one submission using the GBRMPA EAM Risk Management Framework 2009 assessed the QSCP in relation to marine life (consequence as minor to moderate, likelihood as possible to likely) an overall risk level of medium to high. In relation to human life (consequence as minor (in terms of number), likelihood as unlikely) an overall risk level of low.

Additional information requested: DAF to provide its own risk assessment using the GBRMPA EAM Risk Management Framework 2009 (as per number 7 in this table).

Queensland Government Response: This information is noted, however, the Queensland Government’s position is that protection of human life is the first priority. Formal assessment of the risk to marine fauna and human safety may be considered by the Scientific Working Group. A risk assessment was conducted in collaboration with GBRMPA in order to inform the permit assessment.

Scientific Working Group:

A risk assessment was conducted in collaboration with GBRMPA in order to inform the permit assessment. The Group noted that the risk assessment should be reviewed periodically as new information becomes available.

47.

Issues and comments raised in the submissions: A number of recommendations are made throughout the submissions:
1. Immediate and permanent removal of the remaining shark nets in use in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
2. No increase in the number of drumlines
3. Placement of drumlines not allowed in areas protected at other times by stinger nets
4. Use of drumlines restricted to the stinger free swimming season
5. A phase out of drumlines over the next 5 years
6. Greater oversight of contractors to ensure adequate reporting and independent observers
7. Use of new electronic devices attached to drumlines to allow immediate notification to contractors that an animal has been hooked.
8. Captured turtles to be brought in for medical review
9. Drum line set-up should ensure that any hooked turtles do not become entangled in lines and unable to reach the surface to breath.
10. An expert panel should be established to implement the phase out of lethal shark culling program, to oversee the study and introduction of non-lethal monitoring and deterrence programs and to develop extensive community education about shark ecology and reducing risk when swimming and surfing in GBR waters.

Additional information requested:

How does DAF respond to these recommendations

Queensland Government Response:

  1. The   Shark Control Program at Mackay currently operates within the GBRMP 2 nets   and 6 drumlines servicing Bucasia Beach; Blacks is serviced by 6 drumlines   and Eimeo Beach is serviced by a net between April and September however is   replaced by 6 drumlines during the annual turtle season running from October   through to March.

Due to ongoing bycatch and fouling issues associated with program nets servicing Bucasia and Eimeo Beaches, it is intended the Eimeo Beach net is permanently removed with 6 drumlines to be deployed all year round, the nets at Bucasia Beach are permanently removed and replaced with 6 drumlines.

2. See 33. Regarding numbers of apparatus associated with the application.

3 & 4. Enclosures may not protect all beach users and this must be considered when assessing appropriate control measures.

5. See section 4 for information about the current status and monitoring of alternative technologies. Formal assessment of alternative technologies may be considered by the Scientific Working Group

6. Compliance with contract conditions is monitored by the QBFP via at sea inspections with or without the contractor and covert land-based inspections. The QBFP conducts investigations into allegations of interference with Program apparatus.

7. See section 4 for information about the current status and monitoring of alternative technologies.

8. Captured turtles are released alive if possible. Injured turtles are brought to shore for medical treatment where possible. Contractors have received training in turtle handling techniques and injury assessment by Sea World staff.

9. The current drum line configuration results in a low capture rate of turtles and a low mortality rate for incidentally captured turtles.

10. See section 3 for details of the Program’s Scientific Working Group. See section 4 for information about the current status and monitoring of alternative technologies.

Scientific Working Group:

  1. All nets have now been removed from the Marine   Parks.
  2. The number of drumlines in the Marine Parks   has not increased.
  3. The Group will give further consideration to   this issue (see also issue number 35).
  4. The Group will give further consideration to   this issue (see also issue number 35).
  5. The Group will monitor the development of   non-lethal technologies.
  6. In addition to the Queensland Government   response it was noted that Contractors now use iPads to record gear services   which provides additional verification.
  7. The Group discussed the requirement to monitor   NSW trials of SMART drumlines and the potential for trial in Queensland. The   group discussed the potential to trial hook timers to determine what time of   day sharks are being captured. See section 8 of these minutes regarding the   proposed assessment of non-lethal alternatives.

48.

Issues and comments raised in the submissions: “The trials and systematic removal of drumlines coupled with monitoring and replacement with non-lethal methods should be based on a thorough review of all drum line locations".

Additional information requested: Would DAF consider such a trial and review of the Program? If so, over what timeframe?

Queensland Government Response: See Section 4 for details of the current status of alternative methods for prevention of shark attack. Formal assessment of alternative technologies may be considered by the Scientific Working Group

Scientific Working Group:

See response to Issue Number 32.

SLSQ can provide beach user statistics. To be discussed at the next meeting in relation to current locations of apparatus (Action Item 1.14). See section 8 of these minutes regarding the proposed assessment of non-lethal alternatives.

7. Research Priorities / Strategy

The Group discussed the development of a set of research priorities. A comprehensive Research Strategy would be appropriate noting the following points:

  • The strategy should identify research priorities with consideration given to research that supports the immediate operational needs of the Program versus broader/more general research.
  • The strategy should acknowledge that research may be conducted by DAF or external bodies with opportunities for collaboration.
  • The strategy should clearly articulate the support that DAF may be able to provide e.g. funding, in-kind support such as access to boats, provision of samples. Agreements relating to funding and what DAF requires in return e.g. data, publications/reports need to be clearly articulated and formalised.
  • It was also noted that the strategy may be used to support research applications to external funding bodies in justifying the need for the research.
  • The group should investigate whether New South Wales and South Africa have research strategies and/or priorities (Action Item 1.15).
  • Research conducted must be appropriately permitted e.g. Marine Parks, General Fisheries Permits.
  • Consideration should be given to whether Program research can inform management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park e.g. species assessments.
  • Given the level of expertise within the Group a preliminary list of research priorities was discussed which included:
    • Non-lethal alternatives. The group agreed that monitoring the development of non-lethal alternatives and conducting trials of technologies that had been sufficiently developed beyond proof of concept should be a priority (refer also to permit condition number 37). Continued monitoring of research conducted by other jurisdictions involved in trials (e.g. SMART drumline trials in NSW) should also be a priority. Applicability in varying environmental conditions needs to be considered e.g. low energy versus high energy beaches;
    • Non-target species reduction strategies (refer permit condition number 37);
    • Monitoring the use of stingray as bait and particularly the effect on catch composition of target and non-target species;
    • Evaluating the catch of tiger sharks in the Marine Parks and the potential impact on the sustainability of tiger shark populations;
    • Monitoring the impact of removal of nets and replacement with drumlines;
    • Increasing the effectiveness of the Program and committing to continuous improvement e.g. circle hooks; and
    • Establishment of a DNA library of all sharks caught in the Program. It was noted that this could be achieved at a low cost. Genetic techniques are getting stronger and would potentially provide good information about stock structure and species identification.
  • The strategy should be published on the DAF webpage.

8. Arising Issues

Conservation Status of Hammerhead Sharks

The group discussed the current conservation status of hammerhead sharks. It was agreed that it would be useful to analyse and document the history of hammerhead sharks taken in the program, with consideration given to apparatus changes, and particularly the reduction of nets in the Program through time (Action Item 1.16).

9. General Discussion

No further issues were raised by the group.

10. Next meeting

Proposed date for the next meeting: Friday 23 February.

The Chair closed the meeting at 2:00pm.

Action Summary

Action No.

Action

Person responsible

Completed? Y/N

1.1

Invitation to join the Group be extended to LMAC Townsville (possibly Adam Smith) and Matthew Broadhurst (NSW Fisheries)

Mark Doohan

 

1.2

A list of stingray species used as bait in the program to be provided to the Group

Jeff Krause

 

1.3

Literature on take of turtles on circle hooks to be provided

Colin Simpfendorfer

 

1.4

Published scientific papers on Bull Shark migration to be provided

Colin Simpfendorfer

 

1.5

An update on the Program funded project on Scalloped Hammerhead Sharks to be presented at the next meeting

Jeff Krause

 

1.6

Safety publications by other agencies to be provided

Tracey Scott-Holland

 

1.7

Methodology for assessing non-lethal technologies to be developed and distributed along with Cardno report.

Jeff Krause

Tracey Scott-Holland

 

1.8

Prepare data analysis of shark catch during and outside of the stinger season

Jeff Krause

Wayne Sumpton

Matthew Campbell

 

1.9

SLSQ to provide data on incidence of marine stings reported outside of stinger nets during stinger season

Russell Blanchard

 

1.10

A list of non-target species taken and capture locations to be provided

Jeff Krause

 

1.11

DAF to investigate whether more detailed data is available in relation to ECIFF catch by species

Wayne Sumpton

Matthew Campbell

 

1.12

Invite George Leigh to provide an update of available data

Jeff Krause

 

1.13

Review the non-dangerous shark species list – out of session and prior to the next meeting. Jeff Krause to facilitate in association with Rean Gilbert, Colin Simpfendorfer, Richard Fitzpatrick, Matthew Campbell and Wayne Sumpton.

Jeff Krause

Tracey Scott-Holland

 

1.14

SLSQ to provide beach user statistics for the Marine Parks

Russell Blanchard

 

1.15

Investigate whether New South Wales and South Africa have a research strategy and/or priorities.

Jeff Krause

 

1.16

Analyse and document the history of hammerhead sharks taken in the program.

Wayne Sumpton

Matthew Campbell

Tracey Scott-Holland