Select to expand quoteBara said..Surf69 said..RichardG said..DARTH said..RichardG said..
This is certainly of interest and protects swimmers in that limited location. I guess it begs the question about what efforts are to be made by the governmental authorities to enhance the safety of surfers and other water users at Gearies, Avalon and Bitumens and other places nearby. e.g. culling, drone detection shark spotting and other shark management strategies.
Surf at your own risk 
Yes that is what I thought. So zero new efforts will be taken by governments in WA for surfers, since culling and drum lines were ended by the WA government. That is in stark contrast to NSW governments efforts in shark detection, monitoring and the like.
From a Govt perspective everybody swims but not everybody surfs, so the reality is that concentrated expensive efforts on an already tight budget to protect Surfers would see a serious "fiscal over representation" especially when you consider actual risk v's likely-hood, even considering consequences. So there is a formal approach that is taken.
This is why the subsidy for the shark deterrent's was made available. Doesn't cover enough but they need to have boxes ticked etc and as you're well aware the options are limited as the subsidy doesn't include "Rpela" as an example.
So in a court of law you as a surfer would be expected to demonstrate a Duty of care to yourself ( and others, as far as is reasonably practicable ) and in the case of potential shark attack, if you believe that there's a risk then you are expected to mitigate or prevent an exposure to that risk. So cutting a really long story short, swimmers get better protection than surfers...as long as they use the protected areas.
SO..... get a shark deterrent's of some kind if you don't have one already. Its a bummer that all available deterrent's arent all getting subsidised. I've just had two installed on my grommets customs and they are not subsidised at all... and that pisses me off.
Not that anyone has a leg to stand on (no pun intended) legally to sue for compensation over shark attack, but those who have claimed somewhere (for example in social media) that there's a risk, would have an even weaker case by identifying that they are exposed to a risk but failed to take reasonable effort (as far as is practicable) to mitigate against the risk.
Hope that makes sense ?
Except NO electronic repellant stops a great white in attack mode. A inconvenient fact you and McClown keep ignoring.
Oh OK Sharks have an attack mode and NO electronic repellant works, you say that with conviction so you must be all over it. Thanks.
I guess you'll do nothing and just whine about it then?
Select to expand quotejbshack said..Bara said..Surf69 said..RichardG said..DARTH said..RichardG said..
This is certainly of interest and protects swimmers in that limited location. I guess it begs the question about what efforts are to be made by the governmental authorities to enhance the safety of surfers and other water users at Gearies, Avalon and Bitumens and other places nearby. e.g. culling, drone detection shark spotting and other shark management strategies.
Surf at your own risk
Yes that is what I thought. So zero new efforts will be taken by governments in WA for surfers, since culling and drum lines were ended by the WA government. That is in stark contrast to NSW governments efforts in shark detection, monitoring and the like.
From a Govt perspective everybody swims but not everybody surfs, so the reality is that concentrated expensive efforts on an already tight budget to protect Surfers would see a serious "fiscal over representation" especially when you consider actual risk v's likely-hood, even considering consequences. So there is a formal approach that is taken.
This is why the subsidy for the shark deterrent's was made available. Doesn't cover enough but they need to have boxes ticked etc and as you're well aware the options are limited as the subsidy doesn't include "Rpela" as an example.
So in a court of law you as a surfer would be expected to demonstrate a Duty of care to yourself ( and others, as far as is reasonably practicable ) and in the case of potential shark attack, if you believe that there's a risk then you are expected to mitigate or prevent an exposure to that risk. So cutting a really long story short, swimmers get better protection than surfers...as long as they use the protected areas.
SO..... get a shark deterrent's of some kind if you don't have one already. Its a bummer that all available deterrent's arent all getting subsidised. I've just had two installed on my grommets customs and they are not subsidised at all... and that pisses me off.
Not that anyone has a leg to stand on (no pun intended) legally to sue for compensation over shark attack, but those who have claimed somewhere (for example in social media) that there's a risk, would have an even weaker case by identifying that they are exposed to a risk but failed to take reasonable effort (as far as is practicable) to mitigate against the risk.
Hope that makes sense ?
Except NO electronic repellant stops a great white in attack mode. A inconvenient fact you and McClown keep ignoring.
Their was a story in "The Australian" recently. (It wont let me copy it here for some reason). A small paragraph shared a story from a local surfer says your wrong Bara. The story was about Esperance being under attack.
Quote:
Another surfer, Tilo Massenbaeur, says he has had three brushes with great whites in the past three years, two at Kelp Beds. On one occasion, a 3m great white charged at him but veered away "like it had been punched in the face" when it was within just 2m of him. He attributes this to the shark deterrent device that was fitted to his board.
I did some research, he was using a Rpela and i guess was glad he didn't take your word for it Bara 
Thank you, Just talking about Tilo last night and was about to share that with Bara
Tilo's a good mate of mine and a bloody good, hardcore surfer, can shape a nice board too. Didn't realise there was a story in the Austalian and I was only aware of one occasion, but yes he uses a rplea. First hand account from a stand up guy suggesting it works well. Was enough to get a couple for the grommets.
Select to expand quotejbshack said.
Do any of these animals have Ampullae Of Lorenzini 
Clearly by that question, you are not even aware of how the system works..
JB, you're not thinking outside the box!!
Of course they don't but all of this proven scientific research could still useful on land? There are dozens of discoveries made whilst researching something else.
Right now it's just a simple watch battery stopping a 1000kg shark and making it do a 180 in a split second but next year, well who knows right? A triple AAA might power a device that repels an attacking lion or tiger once it gets to within a 1m of the wearer
Select to expand quotehilly said..
Understandable with population increase
cdn3.chartsbin.com/chartimages/l_eoo_45b739414a40ac11afacf3f3167b2a1d
From the Sprivulis Shark Paper:
"Despite significant total population growth in Western Australia, water sport participation data for Western Australia in the 10 years 2001-2010 showed a nonsignificant decreasing trend from 4,171,000 to 3,394,000 surf sport or diving episodes per year"
Population is rising, water use is decreasing, yet shark attacks are on the rise.
Time for a Cull, not a plastic fence that wont last one winter storm.
Select to expand quoteLateStarter said..hilly said..
Understandable with population increase
cdn3.chartsbin.com/chartimages/l_eoo_45b739414a40ac11afacf3f3167b2a1d
From the Sprivulis Shark Paper:
"Despite significant total population growth in Western Australia, water sport participation data for Western Australia in the 10 years 2001-2010 showed a nonsignificant decreasing trend from 4,171,000 to 3,394,000 surf sport or diving episodes per year"
Population is rising, water use is decreasing, yet shark attacks are on the rise.
Time for a Cull, not a plastic fence that wont last one winter storm.
Select to expand quoteLateStarter said..hilly said..
Understandable with population increase
cdn3.chartsbin.com/chartimages/l_eoo_45b739414a40ac11afacf3f3167b2a1d
From the Sprivulis Shark Paper:
"Despite significant total population growth in Western Australia, water sport participation data for Western Australia in the 10 years 2001-2010 showed a nonsignificant decreasing trend from 4,171,000 to 3,394,000 surf sport or diving episodes per year"
Population is rising, water use is decreasing, yet shark attacks are on the rise.
Time for a Cull, not a plastic fence that wont last one winter storm.
Less People in the water surfing, numbers are reducing Thats great news... Not personally the experience I've seen first hand, but is that what you concur Latestarter, crowd factors have been on the decline
Still whilst you want to bark on about culling or not, whats wrong with building a 100% safe swimming enclosure..
Select to expand quotenot a plastic fence that wont last one winter storm.
Have you not actually ever bothered to have a look at the "Plastic fence" and seen actually just how well it works? It has also lasted more than a single storm, well into its 4th year i think..Not once had an issue..Really some simple research from a few would be helpful.
