The issue of shark culling has recently surfaced in the media. The article ‘Proof still required that shark culling works’, written by Glenn Hyndes and published on abc. com, addresses the fact that there is no evidence that shark culling is beneficial for the public, yet the law has been used by the Western Australian Government. This article was written on December 12th 2013, when shark culling was discussed in the media, has a very passionate, logical and concerned tone towards the topic.
Hyndes has written this article for an audience of people who think sharks are a danger, people who want to protect sharks and the Western Australian Government. Hyndes implies throughout the article that there is a division between those who want public safety and those who want to protect sharks. He reasons that there is a split over the issue and that it ‘boils down’ to public safety and protecting sharks. He has used this kind of language in a hope to appeal to his audience who are on either side of the fence, mainly in hope to open up the argument to those who are for shark culling.
Hyndes also acknowledges that there is an increase in shark attacks and he uses the language “certainly the threat to public safety,” to show the audience that he does understand their concern but there is other ways around the issue. He also recognises that there was a report stating that sharks are growing in populations but he says “there is no evidence”. He really tries to plead and convince with the audience that encounters with sharks are not due to an increase in population, rather other factors.
Sitting with her child in front of the television, Maori Wolfs is astonished to see the content of her three-and-a-half year olds favorite cartoon. If you pay attention to the dialogue, the images of the value-laden messages, you ll get a queasy, dawning sense that your kids have entered into a cartoon moral warp, where everything that s cool and inviting to children is being given and genuinely ...
Hyndes has confronted his audience from the start with his use of language and questioning the reader about their beliefs of shark culling. Hyndes has effectively used imagery to convey the rift between the public. The low camera angle shows the shark as a dangerous and feared predator but the light reflecting on the water also shows the tranquillity of the natural water, without human interference. Hyndes informs his audience that the sudden increase in shark attacks is in truth due to an increase in human use of our beaches, not shark population growing.
Hyndes mentions that Australian’s love everything that comes with the beach, which is a generalised statement. Hyndes states that sharks are “slow growing”, “late maturing”, and “produce few offspring’s”. By using these statements, Hyndes hopes to convince the audience that sharks are not significantly growing in population and therefore our increase in the use of the beach is the cause of our increasing amount of encounters with sharks. He acknowledges that the public believe that it is the sharks that are increasing but the public are the ones who are spending more time in their habitat.
Hyndes tries to get the audience to see the other side and that there is a more logical reason for these shark encounters. Hyndes also argues that sharks are a critical part of our ecosystem, and keep everything in balance. He labels the sharks as an “apex” and a “ruthless predator” to help depict their vitality in the ecosystem and to reiterate the fact that they should not be culled without any evidence to support this law. Hyndes also recognises that removing these predators can change the balance of our ecosystem and have “unknown or unpredictable consequences.
” Hyndes is attempting to inform his audience that we need to be extremely cautious about introducing the shark culling program. He hopes that this will resinate with his audience and have the intended effect of getting the audience to think about this law and if it is as good of an idea as it was once seen as. Hyndes continually tries to drill the fact that sharks do in fact “play a key role in our ecosystem” and we cannot afford to cull them. He has used strong language to stress the point to the audience. Hyndes has supported his contention by offering suggestions to shark culling at the conclusion of his article.
Shark culling has become the new issue for the Australian media. Over the past three years, after seven fatal shark attacks in Western Australia’s waters, Premier Colin Barnett, declared to kill any shark bigger than three meters spotted in the designated kill zones. This culling has killed many sharks and is going to result to the extinction of these species. Miranda Devine published an opinion ...
He states that we should be looking at ways to reduce our encounters with these “predators” as us humans are the people who continue to invade their habitat. Tracking systems is also another suggestion that Hyndes has offered in his article, as well as electronic devices and wetsuits. He hopes to convince the audience that we all need to be placing more effort and more funds into such an important issue by testing and develop these devices so that we can either deter sharks from entering our populated beaches or reduce our encounters with them.
Hyndes hopes to emphasise that there are other solutions rather than culling these precious species. Hyndes has implied throughout the article that there is a lot that humans still need to uncover about the great white shark before we decide to cull them off. There is no evidence that shark culling will benefit the public, and there could be dire consequences if we continue to kill them off. Therefore, whilst Hyndes values public safety, he informs his audience that there is nowhere near enough evidence uncovered to decide whether or not we should kill these great white sharks.