There is zero evidence-based analysis that culling sharks has any impact on numbers of shark attacks.
Select to expand quotejbshack said..Razzonater said..
Jb buddy let's not be silly about this, when there was shark net and hook fishing and prior to them being protected we had a period down south in excess of 20 years with no attacks.....none......okay okay there was one depending which 20 year period you want to analyse......
in the last ten years there has been ?????10-15 fatals....in west oz...
i get get told all the time about people getting buzzed or chased in or stalked, these people don't like forums or media or in fact people but it's common knowledge in all groups who surf any off track or remote locations...
no one says kill them all, it's not a cull.... It's just a bit off fishing catch and kill one or two here and there until they sort their attitude out
Sorry that doesn't show "History". There is no link between attacks and numbers of sharks. Thinky says history proves this and i have asked for evidence of that? You say that less attacks back years ago, before sharks were protected. Well do you also except that other conditions have changed recently, like more people in the water?
What history does show is that culling sharks for water safety makes zero difference, in fact in most places, attacks have continued or even increased.
Also you say you have fishing experience, can you please let me know of any commercial fishing industry that targeted Great Whites? Also do you mean to tell me that commercial fisherman these days don't accidentally catch and kill great whites as by catch? The only difference is if you did, you wouldn't report it as you'd get fined. Surely you'd appreciate that happens..
Lets also not forget NSW and QLD has been culling sharks continually for over 70 years and attacks are (in case you handn't noticed) increasing dramatically..
Also if attacks are to be attributed more great whites, why are attacks still so sporadic? Two with in a week of each other a little over a year ago, and then one this year just gone..Surely if great whites are increasing in numbers and because of that, attacks would also be continually increasing also.. Thats not really the case though..
There wasn't commercial fishing targeting whites but in SA there was shark netting which did involve the catching of non targeted species (whites) until the govt decided to buy back these licences, I bet my left one (from talking to these guys fixing ****e on their boats) that a steady number of whites were being constantly removed from our oceans!!
Select to expand quoteZachery said..jbshack said..Razzonater said..
Jb buddy let's not be silly about this, when there was shark net and hook fishing and prior to them being protected we had a period down south in excess of 20 years with no attacks.....none......okay okay there was one depending which 20 year period you want to analyse......
in the last ten years there has been ?????10-15 fatals....in west oz...
i get get told all the time about people getting buzzed or chased in or stalked, these people don't like forums or media or in fact people but it's common knowledge in all groups who surf any off track or remote locations...
no one says kill them all, it's not a cull.... It's just a bit off fishing catch and kill one or two here and there until they sort their attitude out
Sorry that doesn't show "History". There is no link between attacks and numbers of sharks. Thinky says history proves this and i have asked for evidence of that? You say that less attacks back years ago, before sharks were protected. Well do you also except that other conditions have changed recently, like more people in the water?
What history does show is that culling sharks for water safety makes zero difference, in fact in most places, attacks have continued or even increased.
Also you say you have fishing experience, can you please let me know of any commercial fishing industry that targeted Great Whites? Also do you mean to tell me that commercial fisherman these days don't accidentally catch and kill great whites as by catch? The only difference is if you did, you wouldn't report it as you'd get fined. Surely you'd appreciate that happens..
Lets also not forget NSW and QLD has been culling sharks continually for over 70 years and attacks are (in case you handn't noticed) increasing dramatically..
Also if attacks are to be attributed more great whites, why are attacks still so sporadic? Two with in a week of each other a little over a year ago, and then one this year just gone..Surely if great whites are increasing in numbers and because of that, attacks would also be continually increasing also.. Thats not really the case though..
There wasn't commercial fishing targeting whites but in SA there was shark netting which did involve the catching of non targeted species (whites) until the govt decided to buy back these licences, I bet my left one (from talking to these guys fixing ****e on their boats) that a steady number of whites were being constantly removed from our oceans!!
Your missing the point that they still are being removed. Just not reported any more as by catch. The thing with a dead shark is it sinks, never to be seen again. Are people really that naive to believe that fishermen don't still accidentally catch the occasional great white, or put a bullet in their heads if seen and are close enough
Lets also not forget the NSW culling program, on going for over 70 years..
My point is "History" as claimed (but not supported) shows nothing..
No I am not missing the point, I am saying in the past a lot more sharks were being removed as by catch by commercial fishing, hence lower numbers hence less attacks, and yes the ODD white would still be getting killed but nothing like 20-30years ago
Select to expand quoteZachery said..
No I am not missing the point, I am saying in the past a lot more sharks were being removed as by catch by commercial fishing, hence lower numbers hence less attacks, and yes the ODD white would still be getting killed but nothing like 20-30years ago
Thats your theory/opinion, how about supporting it with some documented evidence
Loads of claims like "History proves" and your betting your testicles on a hear say and opinion..Yet nothing to show any real evidence to support it.
Select to expand quotejbshack said..Zachery said..
No I am not missing the point, I am saying in the past a lot more sharks were being removed as by catch by commercial fishing, hence lower numbers hence less attacks, and yes the ODD white would still be getting killed but nothing like 20-30years ago
Thats your theory/opinion, how about supporting it with some documented evidence
Loads of claims like "History proves" and your betting your testicles on a hear say and opinion..Yet nothing to show any real evidence to support it.
Documents?
What you are asking is clear to everyone with common sense to understand.
MORE SHARKS in the water = MORE attacks to humans
BTW where is the documentation? (3rd party independent analysis on the effectiveness of the gadgets against GW's ?)
Select to expand quotenovetti said..jbshack said..Zachery said..
No I am not missing the point, I am saying in the past a lot more sharks were being removed as by catch by commercial fishing, hence lower numbers hence less attacks, and yes the ODD white would still be getting killed but nothing like 20-30years ago
Thats your theory/opinion, how about supporting it with some documented evidence
Loads of claims like "History proves" and your betting your testicles on a hear say and opinion..Yet nothing to show any real evidence to support it.
Documents?
What you are asking is clear to everyone with common sense to understand.
MORE SHARKS in the water = MORE attacks to humans
BTW where is the documentation? (3rd party independent analysis on the effectiveness of the gadgets against GW's ?)
More sharks means more interaction is the base of your argument. So same as, more people in the water with the same number of sharks = more attacks..
Documentation on shark devices I thought you worked only on commonsense. (your version of common-sense that is)
See for me i would suggest that commonsense would be to take the professional opinion of those in the know, IE marine biologists..
For the record I'm not really looking to try change any closed minds. Its just that a statement was made that "History proves" that culling sharks has shown to reduce attacks. I simply asked for evidence of that, seems it won't be forth coming.. Figured as such..
Select to expand quotejbshack said..novetti said..jbshack said..Zachery said..
No I am not missing the point, I am saying in the past a lot more sharks were being removed as by catch by commercial fishing, hence lower numbers hence less attacks, and yes the ODD white would still be getting killed but nothing like 20-30years ago
Thats your theory/opinion, how about supporting it with some documented evidence
Loads of claims like "History proves" and your betting your testicles on a hear say and opinion..Yet nothing to show any real evidence to support it.
Documents?
What you are asking is clear to everyone with common sense to understand.
MORE SHARKS in the water = MORE attacks to humans
BTW where is the documentation? (3rd party independent analysis on the effectiveness of the gadgets against GW's ?)
More sharks means more interaction is the base of your argument. So same as, more people in the water with the same number of sharks = more attacks..
Documentation on shark devices I thought you worked only on commonsense. (your version of common-sense that is)
See for me i would suggest that commonsense would be to take the professional opinion of those in the know, IE marine biologists..
For the record I'm not really looking to try change any closed minds. Its just that a statement was made that "History proves" that culling sharks has shown to reduce attacks. I simply asked for evidence of that, seems it won't be forth coming.. Figured as such..
Standard for culler fraternity tbh....... 
Select to expand quotejbshack said..Zachery said..
No I am not missing the point, I am saying in the past a lot more sharks were being removed as by catch by commercial fishing, hence lower numbers hence less attacks, and yes the ODD white would still be getting killed but nothing like 20-30years ago
Thats your theory/opinion, how about supporting it with some documented evidence
Loads of claims like "History proves" and your betting your testicles on a hear say and opinion..Yet nothing to show any real evidence to support it.
It wasn't hear say or opinions it was first hand knowledge from 3 different netting boats I know the skippers, you have never shown any evidence apart from your opinion so yeah I will bet my left nut over your lack of experience opinion that a lot of whites were by catch 30 years ago and hence numbers were down, PS my THEORY/OPINION supports my claim also, the years from 1970 to 2000 and corresponding great white shark attack deaths, point proven
Select to expand quoteZachery said..jbshack said..Zachery said..
No I am not missing the point, I am saying in the past a lot more sharks were being removed as by catch by commercial fishing, hence lower numbers hence less attacks, and yes the ODD white would still be getting killed but nothing like 20-30years ago
Thats your theory/opinion, how about supporting it with some documented evidence
Loads of claims like "History proves" and your betting your testicles on a hear say and opinion..Yet nothing to show any real evidence to support it.
It wasn't hear say or opinions it was first hand knowledge from 3 different netting boats I know the skippers, you have never shown any evidence apart from your opinion so yeah I will bet my left nut over your lack of experience opinion that a lot of whites were by catch 30 years ago and hence numbers were down, PS my THEORY/OPINION supports my claim also, the years from 1970 to 2000 and corresponding great white shark attack deaths, point proven
First hand knowledge, from someone that told you
Yeah how can i argue with "Lots were killed" 
Id stay out of the water if i was you
Select to expand quotejbshack said..Zachery said..jbshack said..Zachery said..
No I am not missing the point, I am saying in the past a lot more sharks were being removed as by catch by commercial fishing, hence lower numbers hence less attacks, and yes the ODD white would still be getting killed but nothing like 20-30years ago
Thats your theory/opinion, how about supporting it with some documented evidence
Loads of claims like "History proves" and your betting your testicles on a hear say and opinion..Yet nothing to show any real evidence to support it.
It wasn't hear say or opinions it was first hand knowledge from 3 different netting boats I know the skippers, you have never shown any evidence apart from your opinion so yeah I will bet my left nut over your lack of experience opinion that a lot of whites were by catch 30 years ago and hence numbers were down, PS my THEORY/OPINION supports my claim also, the years from 1970 to 2000 and corresponding great white shark attack deaths, point proven
First hand knowledge, from someone that told you
Yeah how can i argue with "Lots were killed"
Id stay out of the water if i was you
OK as your sceptical as you are allowed to be move onto the 2nd part, the figures from year 2000 on with govt buy backs of net fishing in SA well before this, I figured you would not comment on this!! Hey I don't support culling but have a look at HISTORY and what happened in the periods leading up to this you certainly don't have to be a scientist to see that after 2000 attacks started ramping up, and while we are at it do more people in the water mean more deaths!!! If I was a stealth attacker would I want more people in the water or just a loner, just a thought, I mean its easier to take one person than try and choose!!! Why do people think more people in the water that is just one of your bull**** theories for example, there doesn't need to be more people only more sharks look at the area they cover!!PS someone has also told you plenty of pies but of course they are all fact in your case.
Well Zachary, feel free to show the verifiable evidence that culling reduces attacks.
Why don't you start with NSW....70 years and counting....
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
Well Zachary, feel free to show the verifiable evidence that culling reduces attacks.
Why don't you start with NSW....70 years and counting....
Not talking about NSW so u can crawl back to where u come from troll
I agree entirely with JBshack. Is your negative response still the same? Is JB a troll?
As I said, we have over 70 years of culling activity in NSW and attacks are steady or increasing depending on where you look.
So, what makes you think WA is any different? Are the sharks smarter?
Select to expand quotedjt91184 said..drewpweiner said..Adriano said..
We also have the ability to annihilate ourselves with thermonuclear weapons, but miraculously have only just enough sense to not do that. Interesting that it is our survival instinct that prevents us from doing that, given that our instinct for war and violence created that scenario in the first place.
That's an interesting observation to make. That we have a survival instinct not to kill yourself but by declaring war we increase our chances of losing our lives or our fellow man's life all for the sake of political ideology. Pathetic humans. Can't wait for AI & neural implantation to sort this **** out.Adriano said..
We are the only species who have the ability to create the scenario where we can justify the indiscriminate killing of other animals just going about their business in their only available environment in order to make recreation, not survival
Justify? The only arguments i have ever seen for cannibalism is "nature does it so why can't I" which is purely based on a well known fallacy called the naturalistic fallacy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Holy shmoly what was the naturilistic fallacy bloke smoking it just words on top of words. Humans have eaten each other. For all sorts of mythical reasons.
Humans who find it moral taboo in desperate times will eat other humans despite their conviction.
Just because you don't understand the terminology or big words don't give out a personal attack. That is called an ad hominem fallacy. The argument was never about the morality of humans eating humans. Fool.
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
There is zero evidence-based analysis that culling sharks has any impact on numbers of shark attacks.
Yes because,
It's a given. Less sharks will = less likely a chance of attack. Scientists study correlations that have the possibility of being false and set out to prove or disprove it. It doesn't bother with truisms, there is no need for a study. It is like saying "There is zero evidence-based analysis that destroying half the world's population of cars has any impact on numbers of drivers driving cars." Of course there will be less drivers!
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
I agree entirely with JBshack. Is your negative response still the same? Is JB a troll?
As I said, we have over 70 years of culling activity in NSW and attacks are steady or increasing depending on where you look.
So, what makes you think WA is any different? Are the sharks smarter?
No I actually respect JB and his passion for this topic, and I am sure he spends a lot of time researching, you on the other hand continue to defecate your thoughts onto every topic.
So your telling me the ocean demographics of wa and NSW are exactly the same, wow big call that one.
Read my previous comment I don't support culling as I don't believe it is effective.
I call you a troll because every time I comment you immediately reply, if I did this to you I would have to be on SB 24/7 so is trolling or do you have a mancrush on me??
Select to expand quotedrewpweiner said..Adriano said..
There is zero evidence-based analysis that culling sharks has any impact on numbers of shark attacks.
Yes because,
It's a given. Less sharks will = less likely a chance of attack. Scientists study correlations that have the possibility of being false and set out to prove or disprove it. It doesn't bother with truisms, there is no need for a study. It is like saying "There is zero evidence-based analysis that destroying half the world's population of cars has any impact on numbers of drivers driving cars." Of course there will be less drivers!
Well if it's a given, show us the peer reviewed scientific analysis. It should be a pushover.
Select to expand quotedrewpweiner said..Adriano said..
There is zero evidence-based analysis that culling sharks has any impact on numbers of shark attacks.
Yes because,
It's a given. Less sharks will = less likely a chance of attack. Scientists study correlations that have the possibility of being false and set out to prove or disprove it. It doesn't bother with truisms, there is no need for a study. It is like saying "There is zero evidence-based analysis that destroying half the world's population of cars has any impact on numbers of drivers driving cars." Of course there will be less drivers!
SO why then when places like Hawaii culled over 4700 large sharks, did they find no reduction in attacks In fact they had the opposite happen, a increase..
Ever wondered what may happen if you cull Great Whites what could happen with other species of shark. Can you guarantee us that if you were to cull great whites, Bull sharks wouldn't breed up fast (Because they do breed fast) and take over were the great whites left of, but only this time more ferocious similar to what is happening in Reunion Have you researched what is happening their
Out of curiosity have you ever wondered why WA fisheries spent so much time tagging and monitoring Bull sharks of our coast Have you seen the movement of those sharks and the relentless detections
Sorry you say its obvious and anyone can see it, well for me i see you adding 2 and 2 together and coming up with 22
Some history to help explain why WA shark attacks used to be less frequent. In the late 1700s whaling in WA began and became increasingly popular into the 1800s, mostly with the Norwegians and Yanks. Later the French, Brits and Aussies joined in and whaling became WA's first viable industry, raising more revenue at the time than sheep. It was a sporadic industry, with ups and downs spanning wars, the discovery of petroleum and the invention of bigger faster boats and exploding harpoons.
WA whale stations dotted the coast from Exmouth to Albany (there may be more): Point Cloates near North West Cape (Exmouth) serviced Norwegian whaling ships; Babbage Island, near Carnarvon was still operating in the 1950s; Port Gregory (near Kalbarri) in the mid-1800s; Fremantle's Bathers Bay processed whales at the jetty and a tunnel was built to get the stuff into town easily; Dunsborough was established thanks to the whaling station at Castle Rock in the mid-1800s; Flinders Bay in Augusta was a big whaling area; and the one everyone has heard of was Cheyne's Beach, Albany, the last one to close in the late 1970s.
The point is, one of the drawbacks of dragging dead and dying whales about the place and cutting them up in and near the water was the sharks they attracted, including whites. These sharks were eating profits and were often killed.
In just a tiny slice of WA's whaling history (and that's not counting what other countries were taking in our waters at the time), almost 17,000 humpback whales were killed just in the ten years from 1949 to 1959. That would have attracted a few sharks...
So, a couple of hundred years of killing large sharks near WA's coastline set the scene for a relatively low chance of being eaten by one come the mid 1900s, when more people were getting into the water for recreation, including members of Seabreeze's WA surfing fraternity, such as jbs.
Fast-forward to the late 1900s, white sharks were given protected status because of low numbers (although not so low that the balance of the ocean tipped into the horrifying state we're led to believe will happen if we start culling them again...); and fast-forward again to right now when white sharks have been protected for long enough to reach maturity and to breed, and for some of those to reach maturity and also begin to breed. And to a time when it is becoming unsurprising when another person is attacked or killed by a large (often white) shark while surfing, diving or swimming.
The humpbacks are migrating again, right now. Here's hoping WA doesn't have another attack this whale season while some people continue to ignore the fact that thanks to shark culling they grew up in WA enjoying the safest time in history to be in the water.
Tick. Tock.
Select to expand quoteThinkaBowtit said..
Some history to help explain why WA shark attacks used to be less frequent. In the late 1700s whaling in WA began and became increasingly popular into the 1800s, mostly with the Norwegians and Yanks. Later the French, Brits and Aussies joined in and whaling became WA's first viable industry, raising more revenue at the time than sheep. It was a sporadic industry, with ups and downs spanning wars, the discovery of petroleum and the invention of bigger faster boats and exploding harpoons.
WA whale stations dotted the coast from Exmouth to Albany (there may be more): Point Cloates near North West Cape (Exmouth) serviced Norwegian whaling ships; Babbage Island, near Carnarvon was still operating in the 1950s; Port Gregory (near Kalbarri) in the mid-1800s; Fremantle's Bathers Bay processed whales at the jetty and a tunnel was built to get the stuff into town easily; Dunsborough was established thanks to the whaling station at Castle Rock in the mid-1800s; Flinders Bay in Augusta was a big whaling area; and the one everyone has heard of was Cheyne's Beach, Albany, the last one to close in the late 1970s.
The point is, one of the drawbacks of dragging dead and dying whales about the place and cutting them up in and near the water was the sharks they attracted, including whites. These sharks were eating profits and were often killed.
In just a tiny slice of WA's whaling history (and that's not counting what other countries were taking in our waters at the time), almost 17,000 humpback whales were killed just in the ten years from 1949 to 1959. That would have attracted a few sharks...
So, a couple of hundred years of killing large sharks near WA's coastline set the scene for a relatively low chance of being eaten by one come the mid 1900s, when more people were getting into the water for recreation, including members of Seabreeze's WA surfing fraternity, such as jbs.
Fast-forward to the late 1900s, white sharks were given protected status because of low numbers (although not so low that the balance of the ocean tipped into the horrifying state we're led to believe will happen if we start culling them again...); and fast-forward again to right now when white sharks have been protected for long enough to reach maturity and to breed, and for some of those to reach maturity and also begin to breed. And to a time when it is becoming unsurprising when another person is attacked or killed by a large (often white) shark while surfing, diving or swimming.
The humpbacks are migrating again, right now. Here's hoping WA doesn't have another attack this whale season while some people continue to ignore the fact that thanks to shark culling they grew up in WA enjoying the safest time in history to be in the water.
Tick. Tock.
Old news......
Select to expand quoteDARTH said..ThinkaBowtit said..
Some history to help explain why WA shark attacks used to be less frequent. In the late 1700s whaling in WA began and became increasingly popular into the 1800s, mostly with the Norwegians and Yanks. Later the French, Brits and Aussies joined in and whaling became WA's first viable industry, raising more revenue at the time than sheep. It was a sporadic industry, with ups and downs spanning wars, the discovery of petroleum and the invention of bigger faster boats and exploding harpoons.
WA whale stations dotted the coast from Exmouth to Albany (there may be more): Point Cloates near North West Cape (Exmouth) serviced Norwegian whaling ships; Babbage Island, near Carnarvon was still operating in the 1950s; Port Gregory (near Kalbarri) in the mid-1800s; Fremantle's Bathers Bay processed whales at the jetty and a tunnel was built to get the stuff into town easily; Dunsborough was established thanks to the whaling station at Castle Rock in the mid-1800s; Flinders Bay in Augusta was a big whaling area; and the one everyone has heard of was Cheyne's Beach, Albany, the last one to close in the late 1970s.
The point is, one of the drawbacks of dragging dead and dying whales about the place and cutting them up in and near the water was the sharks they attracted, including whites. These sharks were eating profits and were often killed.
In just a tiny slice of WA's whaling history (and that's not counting what other countries were taking in our waters at the time), almost 17,000 humpback whales were killed just in the ten years from 1949 to 1959. That would have attracted a few sharks...
So, a couple of hundred years of killing large sharks near WA's coastline set the scene for a relatively low chance of being eaten by one come the mid 1900s, when more people were getting into the water for recreation, including members of Seabreeze's WA surfing fraternity, such as jbs.
Fast-forward to the late 1900s, white sharks were given protected status because of low numbers (although not so low that the balance of the ocean tipped into the horrifying state we're led to believe will happen if we start culling them again...); and fast-forward again to right now when white sharks have been protected for long enough to reach maturity and to breed, and for some of those to reach maturity and also begin to breed. And to a time when it is becoming unsurprising when another person is attacked or killed by a large (often white) shark while surfing, diving or swimming.
The humpbacks are migrating again, right now. Here's hoping WA doesn't have another attack this whale season while some people continue to ignore the fact that thanks to shark culling they grew up in WA enjoying the safest time in history to be in the water.
Tick. Tock.
Old news......
And that is simply the history of whaling. Sorry Thinky its not Proof of culling sharks making water safer for surfers, Its far from it..
No jbs, it is the history of shark culling in WA, via whaling. I didn't even touch on actual shark fishing. You are living in denial if you cannot see the link.
What happens when there is a dead whale in the water, what is PROVEN to happen, what follows to feed, you seriously can't deny that when whale hunting was big business that sharks were by catch, just the same as shark netting when it was big business 30 yrs ago and unregulated!!
Select to expand quoteThinkaBowtit said..
'' some people continue to ignore the fact that thanks to shark culling they grew up in WA enjoying the safest time in history to be in the water''
Exactly.
JBS can't see that it is statistically easier to be eaten by a shark while surfing, swimming, diving etc TODAY in the SW than it was 30 years ago.
Select to expand quotenovetti said..ThinkaBowtit said..
'' some people continue to ignore the fact that thanks to shark culling they grew up in WA enjoying the safest time in history to be in the water''
Exactly.
JBS can't see that it is statistically easier to be eaten by a shark while surfing, swimming, diving etc TODAY in the SW than it was 30 years ago.
That actually has zero to do with my opinion. I actually believe we are more than likely to have a shark interaction today more so than before. But the reason for that is what we are debating. Your just trying to make up rubbish. Read carefully what you post because comments like that are just stupid and will derail and discussion that "Could" take place..
Select to expand quoteThinkaBowtit said..
No jbs, it is the history of shark culling in WA, via whaling. I didn't even touch on actual shark fishing. You are living in denial if you cannot see the link.
When was whaling in WA outlawed? 1963 for humpies and 1978 for spermies?
Are you saying the rise on attacks in the last few years is related to something that happened 39-54 years ago?
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..ThinkaBowtit said..
No jbs, it is the history of shark culling in WA, via whaling. I didn't even touch on actual shark fishing. You are living in denial if you cannot see the link.
When was whaling in WA outlawed? 1963 for humpies and 1978 for spermies?
Are you saying the rise on attacks in the last few years is related to something that happened 39-54 years ago?
It is, almost a direct effect. The whalers killed sharks as they killed whales to stop them eating the their catch. The whales for a long time stayed out deep but soon realised that they weren't being hunted anymore and started getting closer and closer to the coast with sharks following and growing in number (slowly) at the same time more people entering the water.
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..ThinkaBowtit said..
No jbs, it is the history of shark culling in WA, via whaling. I didn't even touch on actual shark fishing. You are living in denial if you cannot see the link.
Are you saying the rise on attacks in the last few years is related to something that happened 39-54 years ago?
I'm saying the cumulative culling of sharks, in particular whites, during almost two centuries of whaling in WA (and elsewhere) kept the white shark populations low. The combination of the end of whaling (less sharks killed regularly) and the protection of white sharks (allowing a constantly upward trend in numbers as breeding age is reached) has resulted in more whites and more frequent attacks on humans.
I can't believe the obvious is so hard for some people to recognise.
I'm also not the only one relating to things from decades back in history. The Hawaii cull jbs keeps referring to finished 41 years ago. Only 500ish of the 4600ish sharks culled were tigers, the ones most likely to attack humans. The cull lasted 17 years. The annual visitor numbers when it ended were around 6 million. Now they're around 9 million. Small coast, mega people in the warm water. No, doesn't remind me of WA either...
Select to expand quotejbshack said..drewpweiner said..Adriano said..
There is zero evidence-based analysis that culling sharks has any impact on numbers of shark attacks.
Yes because,
It's a given. Less sharks will = less likely a chance of attack. Scientists study correlations that have the possibility of being false and set out to prove or disprove it. It doesn't bother with truisms, there is no need for a study. It is like saying "There is zero evidence-based analysis that destroying half the world's population of cars has any impact on numbers of drivers driving cars." Of course there will be less drivers!
SO why then when places like Hawaii culled over 4700 large sharks, did they find no reduction in attacks In fact they had the opposite happen, a increase..
Ever wondered what may happen if you cull Great Whites what could happen with other species of shark. Can you guarantee us that if you were to cull great whites, Bull sharks wouldn't breed up fast (Because they do breed fast) and take over were the great whites left of, but only this time more ferocious similar to what is happening in Reunion Have you researched what is happening their
Out of curiosity have you ever wondered why WA fisheries spent so much time tagging and monitoring Bull sharks of our coast Have you seen the movement of those sharks and the relentless detections
Sorry you say its obvious and anyone can see it, well for me i see you adding 2 and 2 together and coming up with 22
So then we kill all the bull sharks, simple as that. Napalm the **** out of all em, farkin killers, we should kill them back... wipe em off the face off the earth. Does this sentiment aggravate you? We could also genetically modify them to make them sterile, like we ought to with ****ing mosquito's but you environmentalists pricks out there still want farking mosquitos, don't you? lol
The probable reason of the hawaii incident is because "Between 1959 and 1976, Hawaii culled over 4,500 sharks around the islands. According to the Hawaii Institute for Marine Biology, however, the program made no difference in the number of shark attacks that occurred." they only killed 4,500 sharks in 17 years, that's 270 a year, and how many sharks are in hawaiian waters per year? A hell of a lot more than 270. Anyway it makes no difference because my argument was for complete obliteration, not a subtle cut from their increasing population.
