Shark Nets Persuasive Speech

English Oral

Contention:

That shark nets should be removed from Australian beaches.

Hook:

Picture this

You are a 200-year-old endangered Hawksbill Sea Turtle twisting yourself into a foreign knot. Thrashing for freedom, panic sets in as your realise you are helpless in your bending cage. The ocean turns from turquoise green to Prussian blue as the sun slowly pierces the shadows of your watery grave. Bubbles rush from your mouth like stolen phantoms as you begin to contemplate your own mortality. Slowly suffocating, hope begins to fade. Deeper and deeper you sink into unconsciousness. Euphoria sets in as your panic begins to ease, in your mind you remember freedom, just a memory but not so long ago, is this death? Is this a good death? You take one last breath, and let go of

the fear, the pain, the suffering.

Introduction: Good morning/afternoon Mrs. Arnold and fellow students. I am here today to convince you to agree with me that shark nets should be removed from Australian waters. Sharks nets have been in place for many years, since more and more humans have been attacked by sharks in the waters around Australia and the world. While they have had some success, they are far from efficient at keeping humans safe, and rather act as a death trap for the innocent marine life, sifting around the ocean, going about their daily business. As with any natural habitat, humans should enter at their own risk. People don’t swim in crocodile infested waters do they? It’s not a new finding that sharks swim in oceans and spend their days seeking food? Is it? Perhaps humans should start taking responsibility for the food imbalance that has driven sharks to come ashore to find more food? I further contend that shark nets aren’t actually necessary or effective and there are other alternatives that should be considered.

1st Argument:
Firstly, Shark nets cause an accidental destruction and killing of innocent marine life. There has been no statistics to show they cause any benefit to humans. Yet they have killed over 15,000 marine animals in Australia, and are still implemented as ‘life saving solutions.’ Endangered species, dolphins and even humans have all been victims of the vicious schemes brought to our beaches, so we as humans feel a false sense of security, in an environment that is not actually ours. This environment is one we can live without. According to CSIRO shark expert Barry Bruce “a shark net is not a barrier, but rather a fishing device.” A fishing device for 100 species of endangered animals, now tangled and fixed in the life taking devices, breathless at the bottom of the cold, isolated ocean. Furthermore, while shark nets not only kill innocent marine species, the nets are not a barricade and they do not prevent sharks from getting near our beaches and attacking humans. Shark nets are only 150m wide, 6m tall and usually set in about 10m of water. Therefore, due to their enormous size, sharks have the luxury to simply swim over and around them to access our shores. While, smaller, harmless and defenseless creatures are left to get tangled and to die by suffocation and starvation. While I understand that there is no easy solution to the problem of preventing sharks from coming in close to the shore and attacking surfers and swimmers, and shark nets attempt to solve this on going issue, I ask you, how many needless deaths of these majestic marine creatures will it take until “professionals” see they are pointless and attempt to implement actual life saving solutions into our oceans?

2nd Argument:
Furthermore, humans should enter the ocean at their own risk, it’s the shark’s natural habitat. Shark nets are not the answer. We as humans would not be so stupid to jump into a crocodile infested environment, yet we swim and surf in shark swarming oceans. Would we consider to remove these crocodiles from their natural environment? Would we even begin to consider removing a 4 and a half metre albino headed crocodile after it attacked and killed a fisherman? We just believe that it was the fisherman’s fault. He entered the Adelaide river at his own risk and horrifically suffered the costs. So why don’t we feel the same about sharks? …………………………….EXPERT EVIDENCE OR CASE STUDY NEEDS MORE GUTS
CA: While I accept that no human should die or be maimed while swimming or surfing, life’s unpredictable. We live it at our own risk. We get in a car and risk being in an accident, we catch planes and trains that could easily crash. It’s the individual’s own risk.

3rd Argument:
Instead of using shark nets to protect humans from being shark food, perhaps marine people should take responsibility and correct the ecological imbalance that has resulted in a shortage of food for sharks.

As they are at the top of the food chain, sharks play a very important role in the oceans in a way that an average fish does not. Sharks keep populations of other fish healthy and in proper proportion for their ecosystem. By preying on the old, sick or slower fish in a population, they prevent the spread of disease and prevent outbreaks that could be devastating. According to Ransom Myers from Shark savers, “sharks may be gone within the next decades if we continue to kill them, resulting in the loss of important foods that we depend on for survival, causing a marine ecosystem imbalance.” At the same time, I accept that shark nets could be useful, especially in shark infested areas that have been renowned as spots where many attacks have occurred, but I still believe, as you would, that scientists should spend more resources on working out why it is becoming more common for sharks to be entering shallower waters, looking for food – namely seals, who just happen to look like

humans.

4th Argument:
Finally, shark nets don’t actually work, and there are more effective alternatives available. We have many options from marine biologists and scientists, that could prove to be more effective in combating sharks attacks, for example: sonic radiations, wetsuits, surfboards and sprays. So why are we still choosing to use these ineffective nets? Did I also mention that shark nets costs 1.4 million dollars for an 8-month contract that operates on 14 days of the month on beaches between Wollongong and Newcastle only? That’s your parents, Mrs. Arnold and every tax payer in Australia forking out of each pay to sustain something that is, well, hardly sustainable. However, there have been some instances where shark nets have been effective in deterring sharks from entering highly populated beaches and surfing territory. This still doesn’t justify their use, especially at the cost of the lives of other sea creatures.

Conclusion:
In closing, I urge you to consider my arguments before you come to your own conclusions about the worthiness of shark nets. Keep in mind apart from being virtually ineffective, they are responsible for more than …% of marine animal deaths. Furthermore, there are more effective alternatives that could be used for those worried about being mistaken as a seal. I argue, enter at your own risk, just like any other potential harmful situation. It’s your choice. So next time you read or hear a report about a surfer or swimmer, being attacked or having a close encounter with a shark, think about those nets. Would it have deterred the shark, or possibly have caught it? Or would that old Hawksbill Sea Turtle be tangled in its web of messy netting, dying, slowly?