Select to expand quotemilani said..
Sharks are not the killing machine that Hollywood makes us to believe. There are over 500 known species of shark and among those only 3 are known to be dangerous - the bull shark, tiger shark, and the great white shark. Humans are not their natural prey they only attack humans when they feel that their habitat is being threatened.
Yes, I think when most people are thinking of sharks, they are thinking of bull sharks, tiger sharks, and great whites.
Of course we are not their natural prey, but arguing they only attack humans when their habitat is being threatened is just making stuff up. How would you know this?
When that little switch inside a GW or Tiger sharks brain switches to the hunger/hunt mode they will eat or at least take an exploratory bite of anything living or dead that may be edible and has ventured into their "zone". I don't for one second believe that anything has been invented that will stop a full blown attack from a hungry GWS or a "gentle mouthing" from a big hungry tiger.
The 'Big uns' are about in greater numbers since protection and the gradual build up of whale numbers, water sports are attracting more and more participants every years, the odds of encountering a hungry shark whilst participating in you preferred marine pastime is increasing, still remote but the recent figures on attacks both on the east and west coasts indicate this is occurring.
It is of no consequence to a victim of a fatal attack to hunt down and kill a suspect, it may go some way to alleviating public angst, but (IMO) to use drum lines in an area where an attack has occurred is seriously flawed, you are not seeking the culprit but using drum lines festooned with smelly baits to attract as many sharks, from as far away as possible into a "killing zone".
I am not sold on the ideal of netting the beaches, I don't know how effective they are, I'm aware of the concerns re by catch, cost, weather limitations associated with nets.
My suggestion would be an "open season" on GWS's, (to coincide with the whale migration), a season where professionals and amateurs can take them, maybe organise a GWS "Tournament" in the West and the East, where fish over 2.5 or 3 mtrs MUST be weighed in, thus removing large specimens from the system without depleting the species too much?
Yes I know a 2.5 mtr GWS can bite my leg off, I also know a 4 mtr one can bite me in half.
Fatal attacks are becoming far too common and something needs to be done to make our coastal waters just that little bit safer for all users.
Select to expand quotemyusernam said..Bara said..Dawn Patrol said..
You have any info to what study found the deterrents ineffective to a great white in attack mode?
I personally think this this whole thing is getting blown out of proportion. Since 2000 there is less than 1 fatality a year in WA. I don't see this apparent incredible danger.
i cant recall the link but it was for the sharkshield version (supposedly the best option) and reviewed several studies in south africa and south australia by UWA. I think it was referenced in an earlier thread on sharks here if you search it. The south australia study was labelled "inconclusive" but the scary thing for me was in 30% of cases it appeared turning the thing on actually provoked an attack in some large (4m plus) females!
No i dont think its an overdone risk if you are a regular surfer in either the south west or south coast. Think about it - maybe we are talking a regular population of "risk takers" of say 20,000 people (being pretty generous here to include people coming down from Perth) with an average of 2 fatalities per year more recently thats a 1 in 10,000 chance you will eventually die from shark attack in WA. Far higher than the risk from car crash where we spend 100s of millions trying to make people safe so $200,000 on unproven deterrents is a real cop out by McGowan IMHO
peter clarkson was devoured by two GWS in full view of his decky. He was an advocate of the sharkshield with testamonials on the ss website and was wearing it at the time of his death.
www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/02/18/3142851.htm
Maybe in your post, include a link to the coroners report that stated Peter Clarke had the shark shield not fitted correctly rendering it useless 
Oops sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the banter
Select to expand quoteRupert said..
When that little switch inside a GW or Tiger sharks brain switches to the hunger/hunt mode they will eat or at least take an exploratory bite of anything living or dead that may be edible and has ventured into their "zone". I don't for one second believe that anything has been invented that will stop a full blown attack from a hungry GWS or a "gentle mouthing" from a big hungry tiger.
The 'Big uns' are about in greater numbers since protection and the gradual build up of whale numbers, water sports are attracting more and more participants every years, the odds of encountering a hungry shark whilst participating in you preferred marine pastime is increasing, still remote but the recent figures on attacks both on the east and west coasts indicate this is occurring.
It is of no consequence to a victim of a fatal attack to hunt down and kill a suspect, it may go some way to alleviating public angst, but (IMO) to use drum lines in an area where an attack has occurred is seriously flawed, you are not seeking the culprit but using drum lines festooned with smelly baits to attract as many sharks, from as far away as possible into a "killing zone".
I am not sold on the ideal of netting the beaches, I don't know how effective they are, I'm aware of the concerns re by catch, cost, weather limitations associated with nets.
My suggestion would be an "open season" on GWS's, (to coincide with the whale migration), a season where professionals and amateurs can take them, maybe organise a GWS "Tournament" in the West and the East, where fish over 2.5 or 3 mtrs MUST be weighed in, thus removing large specimens from the system without depleting the species too much?
Yes I know a 2.5 mtr GWS can bite my leg off, I also know a 4 mtr one can bite me in half.
Fatal attacks are becoming far too common and something needs to be done to make our coastal waters just that little bit safer for all users.
I concur! Very well said and written!
I think its more scary when SUP ing than when surfing . As when surfing you can duckdive waves and stay in shallow water .
when sup surfing the tendency is to paddle for the rip and stay in deeper water when paddling out .
and the GWS needs the deep water to come up from under and attack .
Dunno about that one SandS...
I've always gone with the theory, the less amount of body parts flapping around in the water the better.
Select to expand quotemyusernam said..
peter clarkson was devoured by two GWS in full view of his decky. He was an advocate of the sharkshield with testamonials on the ss website and was wearing it at the time of his death.
www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/02/18/3142851.htm
Is that supplementary information to the link you posted?
The link you posted says "The senior sergeant says they are unaware if Mr Clarkson was wearing any shark deterrence device while diving yesterday."
Select to expand quotejbshack said..myusernam said..
peter clarkson was devoured by two GWS in full view of his decky. He was an advocate of the sharkshield with testamonials on the ss website and was wearing it at the time of his death.
www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/02/18/3142851.htm
Maybe in your post, include a link to the coroners report that stated Peter Clarke had the shark shield not fitted correctly rendering it useless
Oops sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the banter
Was it that one where he only turned it on when he wanted to surface?
I think one of the important things to note is its supposed to distract the shark when its looking around, but once its decided to attack its not enough of a deterrent to stop it... so it needs to be turned on all the time.
Select to expand quotesouthace said..Rupert said..
When that little switch inside a GW or Tiger sharks brain switches to the hunger/hunt mode they will eat or at least take an exploratory bite of anything living or dead that may be edible and has ventured into their "zone". I don't for one second believe that anything has been invented that will stop a full blown attack from a hungry GWS or a "gentle mouthing" from a big hungry tiger.
The 'Big uns' are about in greater numbers since protection and the gradual build up of whale numbers, water sports are attracting more and more participants every years, the odds of encountering a hungry shark whilst participating in you preferred marine pastime is increasing, still remote but the recent figures on attacks both on the east and west coasts indicate this is occurring.
It is of no consequence to a victim of a fatal attack to hunt down and kill a suspect, it may go some way to alleviating public angst, but (IMO) to use drum lines in an area where an attack has occurred is seriously flawed, you are not seeking the culprit but using drum lines festooned with smelly baits to attract as many sharks, from as far away as possible into a "killing zone".
I am not sold on the ideal of netting the beaches, I don't know how effective they are, I'm aware of the concerns re by catch, cost, weather limitations associated with nets.
My suggestion would be an "open season" on GWS's, (to coincide with the whale migration), a season where professionals and amateurs can take them, maybe organise a GWS "Tournament" in the West and the East, where fish over 2.5 or 3 mtrs MUST be weighed in, thus removing large specimens from the system without depleting the species too much?
Yes I know a 2.5 mtr GWS can bite my leg off, I also know a 4 mtr one can bite me in half.
Fatal attacks are becoming far too common and something needs to be done to make our coastal waters just that little bit safer for all users.
I concur! Very well said and written!
That's a pretty impressive back flip you've pulled off southace. Are you still cage diving with great whites?
Select to expand quoteThinkaBowtit said..southace said..Rupert said..
When that little switch inside a GW or Tiger sharks brain switches to the hunger/hunt mode they will eat or at least take an exploratory bite of anything living or dead that may be edible and has ventured into their "zone". I don't for one second believe that anything has been invented that will stop a full blown attack from a hungry GWS or a "gentle mouthing" from a big hungry tiger.
The 'Big uns' are about in greater numbers since protection and the gradual build up of whale numbers, water sports are attracting more and more participants every years, the odds of encountering a hungry shark whilst participating in you preferred marine pastime is increasing, still remote but the recent figures on attacks both on the east and west coasts indicate this is occurring.
It is of no consequence to a victim of a fatal attack to hunt down and kill a suspect, it may go some way to alleviating public angst, but (IMO) to use drum lines in an area where an attack has occurred is seriously flawed, you are not seeking the culprit but using drum lines festooned with smelly baits to attract as many sharks, from as far away as possible into a "killing zone".
I am not sold on the ideal of netting the beaches, I don't know how effective they are, I'm aware of the concerns re by catch, cost, weather limitations associated with nets.
My suggestion would be an "open season" on GWS's, (to coincide with the whale migration), a season where professionals and amateurs can take them, maybe organise a GWS "Tournament" in the West and the East, where fish over 2.5 or 3 mtrs MUST be weighed in, thus removing large specimens from the system without depleting the species too much?
Yes I know a 2.5 mtr GWS can bite my leg off, I also know a 4 mtr one can bite me in half.
Fatal attacks are becoming far too common and something needs to be done to make our coastal waters just that little bit safer for all users.
I concur! Very well said and written!
That's a pretty impressive back flip you've pulled off southace. Are you still cage diving with great whites?
No I threw the towel in last year. I have always stated that the Sharks are breeding up in numbers. 10 spotted on yesterday's tour spot in a six hour period. But culling needs to be a well organised operation that's why I opposed of it in our original discussions.
Like rupert suggested in the old days the game fishermen targeted the larger whites primarily for a weigh in Competition.
The smaller sharks that got away are now the 5 meter ones that we see now 20 years on.
The biggest problem is no one really knows how many GWS are in our ocean as they don't spend a lot of time
on the surface. I suspect most of the counts are done from the tourist boats that travel daily and entice them to the surface for a treat.
problem is there are so many people now (shark huggers) which know little about these sea creatures other than a trip out to see them occasionally and sitting at home watching misleading docos and making assumptions that GWS are some sort of beautiful smart cute fluffy sharks , but in reality they are ruthless eating killing machines.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..jbshack said..myusernam said..
peter clarkson was devoured by two GWS in full view of his decky. He was an advocate of the sharkshield with testamonials on the ss website and was wearing it at the time of his death.
www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/02/18/3142851.htm
Maybe in your post, include a link to the coroners report that stated Peter Clarke had the shark shield not fitted correctly rendering it useless
Oops sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the banter
Was it that one where he only turned it on when he wanted to surface?
I think one of the important things to note is its supposed to distract the shark when its looking around, but once its decided to attack its not enough of a deterrent to stop it... so it needs to be turned on all the time.
The one attack on Peter Clarke he had the electrode attached to his air hose. The air hose needs to sink to be active. Floating on the surface rendered it useless.
The second attack was the one were it was not turned on. Sadly though people chose to ignore these facts when saying these units don't work.
Its kinda like saying he died in a car crash, the seat belt didn't work, even though he wasn't wearing it
Testing has found that these units will work 9 out of 10 times, even in a motivated attack, but then again some people will still argue the world is flat 
I went looking for the coroner's report before I posted as I had been waiting for it to come out. I'd like to see it. I'm totally open to being corrected and I'd be glad to know if it was the case. Just strikes me if he was such an advocate and believer in the product you would think he would have it on. I'll go looking for the report now
Ps. Yes skim read report. Nothing there about shark shield not being on JB's hack. It was never found so they would never know. And that's even if it has a logging function which I doubt. The coroner's report focused mainly on the failings of the skipper.
Are we talking about culling or anti shark devices here?
I like most wildlife and pets. Cats are great but feral Cats are savages hence why they cull them.
Mice are cute but they spread disease so we kill them.
Pigs are cute but wild pigs ruin our country so we kill them!
Just about any creature that causes harm to the human life we cull or find a solution but GWS now seem to be over protected! That's my opinion anyways. Amen
Theres been more stingray deaths worldwide then shark deaths.so why not cull rays.theres plenty of ways of dying at sea by accident (drowning).or by other species of fish seasnakes rays swordfish.seriously the list go on.killing great whites is not the answer.
Select to expand quotegavnwend said..
Theres been more stingray deaths worldwide then shark deaths.so why not cull rays.theres plenty of ways of dying at sea by accident (drowning).or by other species of fish seasnakes rays swordfish.seriously the list go on.killing great whites is not the answer.
I think if there was a population of stingrays in the local swimming hole they would be fished out for safety. There is no shortage of them so move them away from bad interactions with people.
Same goes for sea snakes, swordfish (bit of a looong bow that one though) and others like crocs, lions, elephants, hippos, bears etc etc
Whats so special about great whites???
Only thing is they are supposedly endangered but meanwhile the evidence mounts that this is no longer the case either. After all after near 40 years of protection if their numbers arent growing then the flip side is protection doesnt work anyway so lets stop having people die for a policy that doesnt work.
Killing other animals purely to protect habit is an animal instinct.
Moreover, the ocean is not our habitat. We use it for recreation, transport and food.
We know the risks when we enter the water.
We must act like sentient beings instead of animals.
Humans are better than this.
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
Killing other animals purely to protect habit is an animal instinct.
Moreover, the ocean is not our habitat. We use it for recreation, transport and food.
We know the risks when we enter the water.
We must act like sentient beings instead of animals.
Humans are better than this.
So after all that you are just a troll. I though you were better than that, very disappointing
Select to expand quotesouthace said..Cobra said..
Why the backflip Southace?
12 months ago shark lover now ?
Im not attacking you just interested why the flip flop.
Because we are superior beings. We must protect our species at all costs and sacrifices . The planet will not survive without us! Amen
The question was. why the change?
Are you saying we were not so superior a year or two ago?
Have we suddenly become more 'superior'?
We went through all the same discussion when this topic came up two years ago, and you were firmly of the opposite opinion you now seem to be.
What has changed in that time to change your opinion?
it was my opinion electronic tracking would be a fair better option than culling.but obviously that's not going to happen in a hurry. I now say cull 100 GWS over 3.5 meters should reduce attacks for the next 10 to 20 years.
Select to expand quotejbshack said..FormulaNova said..jbshack said..myusernam said..
peter clarkson was devoured by two GWS in full view of his decky. He was an advocate of the sharkshield with testamonials on the ss website and was wearing it at the time of his death.
www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/02/18/3142851.htm
Maybe in your post, include a link to the coroners report that stated Peter Clarke had the shark shield not fitted correctly rendering it useless
Oops sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the banter
Was it that one where he only turned it on when he wanted to surface?
I think one of the important things to note is its supposed to distract the shark when its looking around, but once its decided to attack its not enough of a deterrent to stop it... so it needs to be turned on all the time.
The one attack on Peter Clarke he had the electrode attached to his air hose. The air hose needs to sink to be active. Floating on the surface rendered it useless.
The second attack was the one were it was not turned on. Sadly though people chose to ignore these facts when saying these units don't work.
Its kinda like saying he died in a car crash, the seat belt didn't work, even though he wasn't wearing it
Testing has found that these units will work 9 out of 10 times, even in a motivated attack, but then again some people will still argue the world is flat
How much do you sell them for JB?
Select to expand quoteBara said..Adriano said..
Killing other animals purely to protect habit is an animal instinct.
Moreover, the ocean is not our habitat. We use it for recreation, transport and food.
We know the risks when we enter the water.
We must act like sentient beings instead of animals.
Humans are better than this.
So after all that you are just a troll. I though you were better than that, very disappointing
It's my opinion. What does that have to do with trolling?
Addressing others personally by name calling on a Seabreeze forum is against the rules.
Select to expand quotesouthace said..
it was my opinion electronic tracking would be a fair better option than culling.but obviously that's not going to happen in a hurry. I now say cull 100 GWS over 3.5 meters should reduce attacks for the next 10 to 20 years.
Fair enough. But logically, electronic tracking was never going to make much difference to the problem because it would be an impossible job to tag and track sufficient sharks to make the project effective. That was always the case, and still is.
There are methods other than culling to reduce the likelihood of being attacked but none of them were practical or cost effective then and they still are not. They probably never will be.
Shark shields, shark nets, shark tagging, alarm buoys, not surfing early or late in the day, etc, will all have a small effect for those who do everything as per the advice given, but the fact is, with people, very few observe all the advice. Plus, you can do everything right and still get attacked. Sharks don't read rule books and they certainly don't take advice from TV advertisements.
The problem is that when all this blew up two years ago, almost all those who were opposed to a targetted removal or cull of those sharks deemed to pose a risk, were of the opinion that there were better methods of fixing the problem, they said.
When pressed for what those methods might be, they proposed a whole lot of either non-existent, or only proposed, or still emerging, or existent but largely ineffective methods.
It was pointed out by me and others that if we went on to put our hopes on those solutions to the problem, it would end up that nothing effective would be done and the problem would continue unabated and even escalate. That is where we are now.
Who is surprised? And why are they surprised? Did they think by now the government would have had all the great whites tagged and ringing alarms as soon as they swam along the coast? That was never going to happen. Some might like to think it was, but realistically, it never was and it probably never will. It is far too expensive and for the minimal effectiveness it would achieve, it would not be money well spent.
The governments placated the public by throwing millions of dollars into things that would make virtually no difference to the problem except maybe to those swimming at busy and well-populated beaches.
So, here we are two years down the track, with a new government, the sharks are still biting, and people are still dying.
Plus, the new government is now shackled by all the guff they gave the previous government about the methods they used, so all those methods are off the table.
It will be interesting to see what great projects they now think might fix the problem. They will be a bit difficult for them to find because they have already ruled out the cheapest and most effective method when they were in opposition.
Select to expand quotepweedas said..southace said..
it was my opinion electronic tracking would be a fair better option than culling.but obviously that's not going to happen in a hurry. I now say cull 100 GWS over 3.5 meters should reduce attacks for the next 10 to 20 years.
Fair enough. But logically, electronic tracking was never going to make much difference to the problem because it would be an impossible job to tag and track sufficient sharks to make the project effective. That was always the case, and still is.
There are methods other than culling to reduce the likelihood of being attacked but none of them were practical or cost effective then and they still are not. They probably never will be.
Shark shields, shark nets, shark tagging, alarm buoys, not surfing early or late in the day, etc, will all have a small effect for those who do everything as per the advice given, but the fact is, with people, very few observe all the advice. Plus, you can do everything right and still get attacked. Sharks don't read rule books and they certainly don't take advice from TV advertisements.
The problem is that when all this blew up two years ago, almost all those who were opposed to a targetted removal or cull of those sharks deemed to pose a risk, were of the opinion that there were better methods of fixing the problem, they said.
When pressed for what those methods might be, they proposed a whole lot of either non-existent, or only proposed, or still emerging, or existent but largely ineffective methods.
It was pointed out by me and others that if we went on to put our hopes on those solutions to the problem, it would end up that nothing effective would be done and the problem would continue unabated and even escalate. That is where we are now.
Who is surprised? And why are they surprised? Did they think by now the government would have had all the great whites tagged and ringing alarms as soon as they swam along the coast? That was never going to happen. Some might like to think it was, but realistically, it never was and it probably never will. It is far too expensive and for the minimal effectiveness it would achieve, it would not be money well spent.
The governments placated the public by throwing millions of dollars into things that would make virtually no difference to the problem except maybe to those swimming at busy and well-populated beaches.
So, here we are two years down the track, with a new government, the sharks are still biting, and people are still dying.
Plus, the new government is now shackled by all the guff they gave the previous government about the methods they used, so all those methods are off the table.
It will be interesting to see what great projects they now think might fix the problem. They will be a bit difficult for them to find because they have already ruled out the cheapest and most effective method when they were in opposition.
I have always read your posts on this matter and most of the time they are written with maturity and intent.
It's actualy not easy to cull GWS. I have been involved in catch tag and release GWS which took a 7 day charter and on the last day loosing the smaller shark we hooked due to a faulty hook this took place in a GWS hot spot.
The cull would need to take place at a hotspot where GWS gather to feed. It's not just a matter of heading of the coast and laying out a slick and waiting for a bite.
i think the next step will be the government will propose a serious of wave pools along the coast of WA and basicly tell the public the ocean is no longer safe for humans to play in.
Select to expand quoteRupert said..
When that little switch inside a GW or Tiger sharks brain switches to the hunger/hunt mode they will eat or at least take an exploratory bite of anything living or dead that may be edible and has ventured into their "zone". I don't for one second believe that anything has been invented that will stop a full blown attack from a hungry GWS or a "gentle mouthing" from a big hungry tiger.
The 'Big uns' are about in greater numbers since protection and the gradual build up of whale numbers, water sports are attracting more and more participants every years, the odds of encountering a hungry shark whilst participating in you preferred marine pastime is increasing, still remote but the recent figures on attacks both on the east and west coasts indicate this is occurring.
It is of no consequence to a victim of a fatal attack to hunt down and kill a suspect, it may go some way to alleviating public angst, but (IMO) to use drum lines in an area where an attack has occurred is seriously flawed, you are not seeking the culprit but using drum lines festooned with smelly baits to attract as many sharks, from as far away as possible into a "killing zone".
I am not sold on the ideal of netting the beaches, I don't know how effective they are, I'm aware of the concerns re by catch, cost, weather limitations associated with nets.
My suggestion would be an "open season" on GWS's, (to coincide with the whale migration), a season where professionals and amateurs can take them, maybe organise a GWS "Tournament" in the West and the East, where fish over 2.5 or 3 mtrs MUST be weighed in, thus removing large specimens from the system without depleting the species too much?
Yes I know a 2.5 mtr GWS can bite my leg off, I also know a 4 mtr one can bite me in half.
Fatal attacks are becoming far too common and something needs to be done to make our coastal waters just that little bit safer for all users.
Open season is a bit dangerous. Im sure it could be done by local shire and it would be easy imo.
Wait for a dead whale to wash up and kill away, easy...
It is easy to catch great whites, bait needs to be seal whale or tuna.
Easy very easy.
I said i wouldnt post but I cannot contain it any longer.
In western australia all cray boats could use shark hooks on the floats, so a few hundred shark hooks in the water every day spread through a,b,c fishing zones at a minimum and daily.
Fisheries stopped this about ten years ago.........
In western australia we used to have 12-15 shark net fishing boats up until 10-15 years ago...
Fisheries made it economically viable to maintain. As of last year I think there were only one or two guys left.
Great whites are apex predators and fisheries allow cage diving which trains them and they relate humans to food and boat noise to food.
They are rewarded with food and in doing so become complacent of humans trained and learn to relate people to food.
Fisheries allow this.
When the ban on great whites was put into effect there were no scientific reasons or facts to do so.
It takes a great white twenty years to build up the jaw compressive strength to eat a mammal which could be classed as seal or human.
Unfortunately these have been trained to do so and in the last few attacks many of the victims were eaten.
Earing a whole person is not an accident, nor is it a case of mistaken odentity.
To summarise ot is not a cull it is fishing, do i agree with fishing for sharks, absolutely it was my youth and provided my family with income passed through several generations.
Fisheries and the epa have no idea absolutely none.
They never knew how many sharks were there when they put them in protection and now have less of a xlue than ever. There is no science and every phd educated person with a voice just wants to keep being funded millions and millions for developing things that will never be finalised cause that will dey up the funding.
The shark shield does not work and the way it is operated is proven to attract sharks in many cases.
In the case of the divers attacked it is likely they had these on until they did not work in which case they turned them off.............
Unfortunately the people eaten cannot relay this part of their story.
It will only get worse while cage diving and studies and fisheries do not allow fishing.
It is not culling it is fishing.
Select to expand quoteRazzonater said..
It is easy to catch great whites, bait needs to be seal whale or tuna.
Easy very easy.
I said i wouldnt post but I cannot contain it any longer.
In western australia all cray boats could use shark hooks on the floats, so a few hundred shark hooks in the water every day spread through a,b,c fishing zones at a minimum and daily.
Fisheries stopped this about ten years ago.........
In western australia we used to have 12-15 shark net fishing boats up until 10-15 years ago...
Fisheries made it economically viable to maintain. As of last year I think there were only one or two guys left.
Great whites are apex predators and fisheries allow cage diving which trains them and they relate humans to food and boat noise to food.
They are rewarded with food and in doing so become complacent of humans trained and learn to relate people to food.
Fisheries allow this.
When the ban on great whites was put into effect there were no scientific reasons or facts to do so.
It takes a great white twenty years to build up the jaw compressive strength to eat a mammal which could be classed as seal or human.
Unfortunately these have been trained to do so and in the last few attacks many of the victims were eaten.
Earing a whole person is not an accident, nor is it a case of mistaken odentity.
To summarise ot is not a cull it is fishing, do i agree with fishing for sharks, absolutely it was my youth and provided my family with income passed through several generations.
Fisheries and the epa have no idea absolutely none.
They never knew how many sharks were there when they put them in protection and now have less of a xlue than ever. There is no science and every phd educated person with a voice just wants to keep being funded millions and millions for developing things that will never be finalised cause that will dey up the funding.
The shark shield does not work and the way it is operated is proven to attract sharks in many cases.
In the case of the divers attacked it is likely they had these on until they did not work in which case they turned them off.............
Unfortunately the people eaten cannot relay this part of their story.
It will only get worse while cage diving and studies and fisheries do not allow fishing.
It is not culling it is fishing.
I agree with most you state but as for your catching methods problem is that it will not target the exact species Including age/sex/size of the predator in question. This is one reason why a cull has not been put into place. It needs to be well managed without the fear of unbalancing the Ocean marinelife chain.
Select to expand quoteDARTH said..Rupert said..
Open season is a bit dangerous. Im sure it could be done by local shire and it would be easy imo.
Wait for a dead whale to wash up and kill away, easy...
Seriously that would work Darth, maybe that clown that was filmed standing on the carcase a while back could be given a weapon. Select to expand quoteI said; "My suggestion would be an "open season" on GWS's, (to coincide with the whale migration), a season where professionals and amateurs can take them, maybe organise a GWS "Tournament" in the West and the East, where fish over 2.5 or 3 mtrs MUST be weighed in, thus removing large specimens from the system without depleting the species too much?"
I'm sorry that I am quoting myself but my suggestion of a designated GWS Tournament was to have people catch and tag the smaller ones (with trackers if you like) whilst removing the big buggas from the system. This would be done all for free, at no cost to the shire or the taxpayer and provide revenue for the district..
A sponsored game fishing event for GWS's, week one out of Albany and then Bunbury/Busselton during the "open season" would attract those who can afford it from all over the world because they would be in with a chance to land the biggest fish ever caught on rod and reel.
Hell if I had the cash I would be hitting up the powers that be and be putting it together myself
Select to expand quotemyusernam said..
I went looking for the coroner's report before I posted as I had been waiting for it to come out. I'd like to see it. I'm totally open to being corrected and I'd be glad to know if it was the case. Just strikes me if he was such an advocate and believer in the product you would think he would have it on. I'll go looking for the report now
Ps. Yes skim read report. Nothing there about shark shield not being on JB's hack. It was never found so they would never know. And that's even if it has a logging function which I doubt. The coroner's report focused mainly on the failings of the skipper.
Yeah, it seems they concluded that there was no evidence of anything much other than an air hose that may have been bitten by a shark, and that the skipper should have acted differently.
I'm sure there's another attack where the user was only turning it on on descent or ascent, and it was judged that this was not enough to prevent an attack.
Select to expand quotesouthace said..Razzonater said..
It is easy to catch great whites, bait needs to be seal whale or tuna.
Easy very easy.
I said i wouldnt post but I cannot contain it any longer.
In western australia all cray boats could use shark hooks on the floats, so a few hundred shark hooks in the water every day spread through a,b,c fishing zones at a minimum and daily.
Fisheries stopped this about ten years ago.........
In western australia we used to have 12-15 shark net fishing boats up until 10-15 years ago...
Fisheries made it economically viable to maintain. As of last year I think there were only one or two guys left.
Great whites are apex predators and fisheries allow cage diving which trains them and they relate humans to food and boat noise to food.
They are rewarded with food and in doing so become complacent of humans trained and learn to relate people to food.
Fisheries allow this.
When the ban on great whites was put into effect there were no scientific reasons or facts to do so.
It takes a great white twenty years to build up the jaw compressive strength to eat a mammal which could be classed as seal or human.
Unfortunately these have been trained to do so and in the last few attacks many of the victims were eaten.
Earing a whole person is not an accident, nor is it a case of mistaken odentity.
To summarise ot is not a cull it is fishing, do i agree with fishing for sharks, absolutely it was my youth and provided my family with income passed through several generations.
Fisheries and the epa have no idea absolutely none.
They never knew how many sharks were there when they put them in protection and now have less of a xlue than ever. There is no science and every phd educated person with a voice just wants to keep being funded millions and millions for developing things that will never be finalised cause that will dey up the funding.
The shark shield does not work and the way it is operated is proven to attract sharks in many cases.
In the case of the divers attacked it is likely they had these on until they did not work in which case they turned them off.............
Unfortunately the people eaten cannot relay this part of their story.
It will only get worse while cage diving and studies and fisheries do not allow fishing.
It is not culling it is fishing.
I agree with most you state but as for your catching methods problem is that it will not target the exact species Including age/sex/size of the predator in question. This is one reason why a cull has not been put into place. It needs to be well managed without the fear of unbalancing the Ocean marinelife chain.
Pretty conclusive evidence from queensland where only one fatal attack in 50 years at netted or hook beaches.
I am not in agreeance with walls of death however have no problem with a couple hooks.
