• Why has the operation of the Queensland Shark Control Program within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park changed?
• A court ruling required changes to the operation of the Shark Control Program operated by the Queensland Government in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
• The Humane Society International (Australia) Inc. undertook action in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) in 2017 to appeal a decision by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to grant two Marine Park permissions to the Queensland Government to conduct a Shark Control Program and associated research program.
• The Tribunal handed down its decision on 2 April 2019 varying some of the permit conditions, including the non-lethal take of sharks, frequency of drum line attendance and tagging and relocation of sharks.
• An appeal by the State of Queensland against the Tribunal decision was dismissed by the Federal Court on 18 September 2019 — requiring the varied conditions of the Marine Park permit to come into immediate effect.

• Why did the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority re-issue the Marine Park permit for the Shark Control Program to operate in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?
• The Tribunal ruling varied the conditions of the Shark Control permit at the time of the decision. These amended conditions came into effect from the Federal Court decision on 18 September. For completeness and ease of reference, the Authority reissued permit G17/33288.1 to the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to reflect the decision and mandatory amendments imposed by the Tribunal.

• What steps have the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority been taking?
• The Reef Authority continues to work cooperatively with the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and is satisfied that Queensland Fisheries are making reasonable efforts to investigate appropriate options for non-lethal methods, including progressing the catch alert drumline trial and trialling the use of drones. 
• The Reef Authority understands the management of sharks in the marine environment is a sensitive issue. The Reef Authority considers, alongside ecological sustainability, that public safety is a priority and, though interactions between humans and sharks are rare, shark attacks can be extremely traumatic and pose a risk to human life.

• Does the Shark Control Program remove the risk from human-shark interactions?
• No program offers 100 per cent protection to all beachgoers. There will always be risk as we share the ocean with sharks.

Yes. The Shark Control Program operates at beaches in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in accordance with the Marine Park permit. Queensland are permitted to install up to 131 drumlines in the Marine Park. Locations of shark control equipment are shown on the Queensland Fisheries website.

• Is the Whitsundays included in the Shark Control Program?
• No. The Whitsundays is not included in the Queensland Shark Control Program and never has been.

• Did the Tribunal’s decision require the removal of drumlines from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?
• No. The Tribunal’s decision did not require the removal of drumlines. Queensland can conduct the Shark Control Program while endeavouring to release all sharks, where possible, as they have been doing with non-target species under the original program.

• Does the reissued permit require the replacement of all drumlines with SMART or catch alert drumlines?
• No. The permit requires a trial of SMART or catch alert drumlines, followed by the progressive implementation of SMART o catch alert drumlines in the Marine Park.

• Are shark nets allowed to be installed in the Marine Park?
• No. Nets are not permitted within the Marine Park as a shark control method. Funding from the Australian Government enables piloting other non-lethal control methods as recommended by the Shark Control Program Scientific Working Group. Progress updates on the trial on non-lethal shark control methods is published on the Queensland Fisheries website.

• Why did Queensland request a further variation to Shark Control Program permit?
• The Queensland Government requested the variation to the permit to clarify that the tag and release of sharks needed to be in line with workplace health and safety laws. It is the Reef Authority’s view that the variation does not change the intent of the permit. Queensland was already required in their permit to comply with all laws, including workplace health and safety laws. Given the variation request was merely clarifying the Reef Authority’s interpretation of the existing permit conditions, the Reef Authority granted the variation.

• Does the varied permit allow sharks to be killed within the Marine Park under the Queensland Shark Control Program?
• The permit re-issued on 20 December 2019 remains consistent with the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It does not change the obligations of Queensland with the respect to releasing sharks. Queensland must endeavour to release all sharks, where possible. To allow this, drumlines will be serviced regularly. The permit allows sharks to be euthanized only if the shark is unlikely to survive or it is unsafe for the contractor to release the shark.

• Would implementing the Tribunal decision mean there would be no lethal take of sharks by the Shark Control Program in the Marine Park in the future?
• No. The permit requires that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries carry out the Queensland Shark Control Program in a manner that avoids, to the greatest extent possible, the lethal take of shark species.

• Is the releasing of sharks new in the Queensland Shark Control Program?
• The Queensland Shark Control Program has been required to, where possible, release non-target species under previous permits for 15 years. Non-target species included a large number of sharks.
• Previous permits identified a small list of shark species considered target species. The current permit does not list any target species.

• Is tag and release of sharks new in Queensland waters?
• No. Tag and release of sharks is not a new activity in Queensland waters. The Shark Control program has been permitted to tag and release sharks for over a decade. Research conducted in Cid Harbour, on behalf of the Shark Control Program, involved the tag and release of sharks, including tiger sharks.

• What sharks are required to be tagged and released where possible?
• The Tribunal decision requires that, where possible, tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier), bull whalers (Carcharhinus leucas) and white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) are tagged using the best available technology for the purpose of monitoring and research.

• What is considered ‘best available technology’ for the purpose of tagging sharks?
• The intent of the term, ‘best available technology’ is the use of technology to best achieve the outcome of monitoring the movements of tagged sharks for the purpose of research to inform future shark management decisions. Examples include acoustic tagging and telemetry.

• Does the permit require all sharks to be towed long distances or into areas that are popular tourism locations?
• No. The permit requires tagged shark species to be relocated offshore, where possible, and not at the site of capture. Reports of releasing sharks in to areas of high tourism and recreational use like the Whitsundays are incorrect.

• What does the permit require with respect to having a vet on-board the vessels as they check drumlines?
• The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park permit does not require Queensland Shark Control Program contractors to have a veterinarian on-board.

• What recent research is available to inform the operation of the Shark Control Program?
• The Queensland Shark Control Program Scientific Working Group provides expert advice to the Queensland Government on alternative shark mitigation technologies; shark species; research and trials of new shark mitigation technologies; and program management. The Scientific Working Group communiques, Queensland Shark Management Plan 2021-25, and research reports are available on the Queensland Fisheries website.

• What is a SMART or catch alert drumline?
• In contrast to a standard drumline, SMART (Shark Management Alert in Real Time) or catch alert drumlines send out an alert when an animal is caught. This allows a more rapid response to improve the chance of survival of the animal captured.

• Does the Commonwealth reissued permit require the replacement of all drumlines with SMART or catch alert drumlines?
• The permit requires a trial of SMART or catch alert drumlines, followed by the progressive implementation of SMART or catch alert drumlines in the Marine Park. The permit only applies to drumlines within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Queensland are permitted to install up to 131 drumlines in the Marine Park.

• Does the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority support the trial of SMART or catch alert drumlines in the Marine Park?
• The Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision required the trial and progressive implementation of SMART or catch alert drumlines as part of a multi-pronged approach to shark control in the Marine Park. The Authority supports a trial of these drumlines along with other non-lethal shark mitigation methods to ensure the best arrangements are in place in the Marine Park for protecting human safety, while maintaining environmental standards.
• Progress on the trial of the Catch alert drumlines in the Marine Park is available on the Queensland Fisheries website.
• Commencing a trial within the Marine Park will provide a practical evidence-based assessment of the utility of SMART drumlines in the Marine Park. Current assessments of their utility are based primarily on desk-top analysis and comparisons with other jurisdictions.
• Exploring options for the Shark Control Program to reduce bycatch and investigate non-lethal alternatives within the Marine Park has been a key component of the Marine Park permit since it was granted in 2017. The Scientific Working Group established under this permit was intended to drive research into non-lethal alternatives for the future of the program.

• Did the Cardno report say trialing SMART drumlines in the Marine Park is not feasible or will not work in the Great Barrier Reef?
• The Cardno report found a trial of SMART drumlines would be feasible. Comments that suggest it is not feasible are misleading and do not reflect the Cardno Report findings.

• What did the Cardno Report say about relocating sharks from the site of capture?
• The Cardno report identified that in some instances there may be difficulty in identifying locations that captured sharks could be relocated to due to the large number of offshore islands and reefs that are also utilised by swimmers.  For example, the report suggests that in Mackay it would mean relocating sharks closer to the Whitsundays and in the Capricorn Coast closer to the Keppel Islands.
• Relocating sharks one kilometre offshore from the site of capture — which is the distance NSW relocates and releases tagged sharks — means there is still a distance of more than 60 kilometres from Mackay to the southern end of the Whitsundays.
• Shark Control Program beaches within the Capricorn Coast region are at least 10 kilometres from the Keppels islands.

• Do released sharks leave the site of capture?
• There is currently no Queensland data available about how sharks behave after being tagged, relocated offshore and released from drumlines.
• Monitoring tagged sharks released away from the drumline capture site — in accordance with the Tribunal decision — will improve understanding of how sharks behave after drumline capture, relocation and tag and release.
• Like all sharks, White sharks, Tiger sharks and Bull sharks display behaviours that mean they are likely to return to particular areas and habitats repeatedly over their lifetime.
• Many sharks, including White sharks, Tiger sharks and Bull sharks are known to travel very long distances. During the tag and release research in Cid Harbour, sharks were tagged and monitored to aid understanding of their movements. It was found that many individuals did travel significant distances from the site of capture.
• Most sharks travelled between the mainland, the Whitsundays islands and reefs over 100km offshore. Some sharks also travelled significantly further, with one tiger shark travelling almost 400km and a bull shark travelling over 1000km north to the Torres Strait.
• The Cid Harbour research also found that some sharks returned to Cid Harbour during their travels — however, it is unlikely that they will inhabit a particular location permanently.

• Where do sharks go when they have been tagged and released?
• There is no evidence currently available for Queensland about the behaviour of sharks captured on a SMART or catch alert drumline, tagged and released offshore.
• For NSW, there’s data on the seasonal patterns of sharks caught on SMART drumlines that were tagged, relocated approximately 1km offshore, and released.
• NSW uses listening stations to monitor shark behaviour around swimming beaches. Tagged sharks have been detected when they come within 500m of one of the 21 listening stations along the NSW coast.
• NSW found the average number of days until an individual shark was first detected on a listening station was 74 days after being tagged and released, within a range of up to 605 days. The average distance travelled from the tagged location to where a shark was first detected on a listening station was 17 km, and ranged up to 985 km.

• How will tagging and releasing of sharks assist swimmer safety?
• The Tribunal’s decision pointed out that Queensland is the only place that continues to deliberately operate a program where sharks are automatically euthanised if caught on drumlines. Elsewhere, they are tagged and released alive if it is humane and safe to do so. Neither the South African program nor the New South Wales program has reported an increase in shark incidents as a result of changing to a non-lethal program.
• Monitoring tagged sharks released away from the drumline capture site — in accordance with the Tribunal decision — will improve understanding of how sharks behave after drumline capture, relocation and tag and release.
• While NSW has significant data about shark movements based on their extensive tag and release program, there is currently no Queensland data available about how sharks behave after being tagged, relocated offshore and released from drumlines.

More information on NSW approach can be found in their SMART drumlines frequently asked questions.

• What does the research at Cid Harbour tell us about shark behaviour? 
• Ongoing research appears to show some tiger and bull sharks leave Cid Harbour area immediately after capture and tagging, then travel a considerable distance, while others stay around the Whitsunday Region moving between the coast, islands and offshore reefs.
• Based on the limited amount of movement data presented in the Biopixel progress report, the authors suggest that sharks move through Cid Harbour as they use the broader Whitsundays region and that residency in the Harbour itself was low for most individuals.
• The Biopixel progress report discusses anecdotal information that suggests boats may be throwing food scraps overboard, and some intentionally attract sharks with food, and that this human behaviour could attract sharks to the area. Shark feeding has been shown to change shark behaviour and movement patterns in other parts of the world.
• The Authority’s Guide for Recreational Visitors in the Whitsundays includes a responsible reef practice to not throw rubbish or food scraps overboard.
• It is not accurate to use the Cid Harbour research as a reason to not progress a SMART or catch alert drumline trial or to say there’s no value in tag and release programs in Queensland.