Select to expand quoteRazzonater said..southace 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.
I was in qld nice place to go diving! I don't dive in cold water! I have seen some old footage of the guys that started cage diving catching GWS and taking them to town to weigh them. They are all multi millionaires now and have the nicest game fishing boats and jewels/ jaws hanging on the wall. In reality $$$ will always come before wild life.
Select to expand quotetripled said..jbshack 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?
If you'd been around for more than 5 minutes you'd know that answer
Select to expand quoteRazzonater said..
The shark shield does not work and the way it is operated is proven to attract sharks in many cases.
Razz i was wondering is you could show any form of proof that sharks are attracted to electronic devices 
Its just that the power rating of these units cannot pass more than about 15m, if they could, then the game would be unreal as a larger barrier could be created..But sadly its been explained to me the simple law of physics says it cant be done, thats why I'm curious on your proof that physics is wrong
Select to expand quotejbshack said..Razzonater said..
The shark shield does not work and the way it is operated is proven to attract sharks in many cases.
Razz i was wondering is you could show any form of proof that sharks are attracted to electronic devices
Its just that the power rating of these units cannot pass more than about 15m, if they could, then the game would be unreal as a larger barrier could be created..But sadly its been explained to me the simple law of physics says it cant be done, thats why I'm curious on your proof that physics is wrongSelect to expand quotejbshack said..Razzonater said..
The shark shield does not work and the way it is operated is proven to attract sharks in many cases.
Razz i was wondering is you could show any form of proof that sharks are attracted to electronic devices
Its just that the power rating of these units cannot pass more than about 15m, if they could, then the game would be unreal as a larger barrier could be created..But sadly its been explained to me the simple law of physics says it cant be done, thats why I'm curious on your proof that physics is wrong
I hope you don't loose sleep over it JBhack
Select to expand quotejbshack said..Razzonater said..
The shark shield does not work and the way it is operated is proven to attract sharks in many cases.
Razz i was wondering is you could show any form of proof that sharks are attracted to electronic devices
Its just that the power rating of these units cannot pass more than about 15m, if they could, then the game would be unreal as a larger barrier could be created..But sadly its been explained to me the simple law of physics says it cant be done, thats why I'm curious on your proof that physics is wrong
You are correct jb within the field of 15 metres it will repulse sharks. However sharks are well aware of electrical disturbance within the water prior to being within 15 metres and up too several hundred metres away the electrical field will attract them.
If said shark has already decided to attack prior to entering the 15 metre range and moves between 24 and 35 kmh it is not enough time to put the brakes on or alter mechanism of feeding. (Rolled eyes and mouth open )
Please see link below for some science in regards to sensitivity of electrical fields.
www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.pelagic.org/overview/articles/sixsense.html&ved=0ahUKEwiAkPeej8LTAhURtJQKHdJ2BkkQFggZMAA&usg=AFQjCNHrRAbt4MG6jPtmiSc7vE7oLXqcuQ
Select to expand quoteDARTH 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.
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...
Except that would kill the Whites that are only doing what Whites should be doing, cleaning up the ocean.
It would be better if whenever there was an attack on a person somewhere, then set baits and cull whatever turns up over the next three days. Esperance would have been a good place to start.
Yes, they would probably take out some that were not involved, but they might also take out the one which offended. Not a perfect solution but it's low tech, many people could do it, probably the cheapest one available and it's available now.
None of the solutions we presently have available are perfect, but at least this one is targeted to get the ones which bite people.
Select to expand quotejbshack said..tripled said..jbshack 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?
If you'd been around for more than 5 minutes you'd know that answer
JB did u just lie about something like that just because you sell them? They never recovered the body or the shark shield. The decky said he had it on and many others have said that Peter was a strong advocate for the device and would not dive without it. There was nothing in the report nor could there be.
Select to expand quotePhilOsoffical said..DARTH 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.
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...
Except that would kill the Whites that are only doing what Whites should be doing, cleaning up the ocean.
It would be better if whenever there was an attack on a person somewhere, then set baits and cull whatever turns up over the next three days. Esperance would have been a good place to start.
Yes, they would probably take out some that were not involved, but they might also take out the one which offended. Not a perfect solution but it's low tech, many people could do it, probably the cheapest one available and it's available now.
None of the solutions we presently have available are perfect, but at least this one is targeted to get the ones which bite people.
People want action and they want it now!
Select to expand quoteDARTH said..
People want action and they want it now!
Yes they do but they arent going to get it under mcgowan - hes made that clear. Anyone else find it frustratingly ironic that when barnet tried to do something he was blocked by the then federal environment minister greg hunt but now mcgowan doesnt want to or cant do anything the libs are positively encouraging action just for some political point scoring?
meanwhile innocent people are getting killed regularly. Is it any wonder we hate politicians so much?
Select to expand quoteRupert said..
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
Seriously, Why cant this be done??
I used to have to buy tags to fish for snapper at shark bay, why cant a fisher purchase a GWS tag (GPS Tracker) and fish for them?
Gamex but down south.
Low public cost. Funded by the fishers.
Tourism increase.
Scientific data collected.
Their "Protected" status doesn't need to be changed.
The GWS don't even need to be culled, just get the tags out there, at the very least determine how many there are and where they are going. We already have to do this for tagged fish and crabs and crays.
Cause at the moment, its:
"We cant cull the sharks because we don't know how many there are, so stay out of the water until we do."
When are you going to find out how many there are?
"We're not and we have no plans too. In the meantime, Stay out of the water"
Select to expand quoteRazzonater said..jbshack said..Razzonater said..
The shark shield does not work and the way it is operated is proven to attract sharks in many cases.
Razz i was wondering is you could show any form of proof that sharks are attracted to electronic devices
Its just that the power rating of these units cannot pass more than about 15m, if they could, then the game would be unreal as a larger barrier could be created..But sadly its been explained to me the simple law of physics says it cant be done, thats why I'm curious on your proof that physics is wrong
You are correct jb within the field of 15 metres it will repulse sharks. However sharks are well aware of electrical disturbance within the water prior to being within 15 metres and up too several hundred metres away the electrical field will attract them.
If said shark has already decided to attack prior to entering the 15 metre range and moves between 24 and 35 kmh it is not enough time to put the brakes on or alter mechanism of feeding. (Rolled eyes and mouth open )
Please see link below for some science in regards to sensitivity of electrical fields.
www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.pelagic.org/overview/articles/sixsense.html&ved=0ahUKEwiAkPeej8LTAhURtJQKHdJ2BkkQFggZMAA&usg=AFQjCNHrRAbt4MG6jPtmiSc7vE7oLXqcuQ
I have seen that page before but it still is not proof they attract sharks. In fact pages like that one and every single marine biologist will tell you sharks only use that electric receptor with in a few meters to search. A electric current from a electronic device is different that that. A shark will detect a heart beat from over 100 mtrs away, but not a electronic current. I have had one person question if they can detect a "wave" as such from the electronic field, but not the actually current.
Thats why i asked for the proof you had you say attack sharks, what you provided isn't that..
Select to expand quoteBara said..DARTH said..
People want action and they want it now!
Yes they do but they arent going to get it under mcgowan - hes made that clear. Anyone else find it frustratingly ironic that when barnet tried to do something he was blocked by the then federal environment minister greg hunt but now mcgowan doesnt want to or cant do anything the libs are positively encouraging action just for some political point scoring?
meanwhile innocent people are getting killed regularly. Is it any wonder we hate politicians so much?
So, what now......
Accept that there is a risk to entering Australian waters no matter how many of the fishies we cull.....that's what....
The Southern Ocean is huge, the blighters swim around the world.
Does anyone seriously believe culling a few out of thousands will make any difference?
Legal Question. (Out of curiosity)
From www.fish.wa.gov.au/Pages/Home.aspx and www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/frma1994256/s46.html
"These species are protected and may NOT be taken"
So long as you don't take or possess, are you breaking a law?
You can still "fish" for them though, right?
By "fish" I mean fishing for sharks, just not targeting GWS specifically - they are bycatch of Tiger shark fishing.
Pulling them alongside your boat, putting a tag in and releasing them. Isn't "Taking" them.
You cant take sharks with an Interdorsal fin length of >700mm so any large shark should be released anyway.
Select to expand quotejbshack said..Razzonater said..jbshack said..Razzonater said..
The shark shield does not work and the way it is operated is proven to attract sharks in many cases.
Razz i was wondering is you could show any form of proof that sharks are attracted to electronic devices
Its just that the power rating of these units cannot pass more than about 15m, if they could, then the game would be unreal as a larger barrier could be created..But sadly its been explained to me the simple law of physics says it cant be done, thats why I'm curious on your proof that physics is wrong
You are correct jb within the field of 15 metres it will repulse sharks. However sharks are well aware of electrical disturbance within the water prior to being within 15 metres and up too several hundred metres away the electrical field will attract them.
If said shark has already decided to attack prior to entering the 15 metre range and moves between 24 and 35 kmh it is not enough time to put the brakes on or alter mechanism of feeding. (Rolled eyes and mouth open )
Please see link below for some science in regards to sensitivity of electrical fields.
www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.pelagic.org/overview/articles/sixsense.html&ved=0ahUKEwiAkPeej8LTAhURtJQKHdJ2BkkQFggZMAA&usg=AFQjCNHrRAbt4MG6jPtmiSc7vE7oLXqcuQ
I have seen that page before but it still is not proof they attract sharks. In fact pages like that one and every single marine biologist will tell you sharks only use that electric receptor with in a few meters to search. A electric current from a electronic device is different that that. A shark will detect a heart beat from over 100 mtrs away, but not a electronic current. I have had one person question if they can detect a "wave" as such from the electronic field, but not the actually current.
Thats why i asked for the proof you had you say attack sharks, what you provided isn't that..
An electric current creates a magnetic field, this is what the sharks sense, blue salt water is a great conductor of not only noise and electricity bit has a very differing magnetic field to an electrical current.
As an example of solid proof of this they often will bite an outboard motor, this is not because of the sound as many attack outboards which are off but off the magnetic field put out from either the wiring within in the case of electric start and or the electrolysis of the anode material or two differing metals creating electrical current and therefore a magnetic field anomoly.
Before asking for further proof i will suggest that this info is forwarded to the people you know. They will not be able to prove it is incorrect (as it is correct) however they will suggest that it is however than not be able to provide any further info on why.
Upon associated response I will than provide further empirical and scientific breakdown.
The only thing which may actually work is total disruption of magnetic fields and this is something i am working on and will not provide any further info as I have come this far solo and self funded.
Select to expand quoteRazzonater said..jbshack said..Razzonater said..jbshack said..Razzonater said..
The shark shield does not work and the way it is operated is proven to attract sharks in many cases.
Razz i was wondering is you could show any form of proof that sharks are attracted to electronic devices
Its just that the power rating of these units cannot pass more than about 15m, if they could, then the game would be unreal as a larger barrier could be created..But sadly its been explained to me the simple law of physics says it cant be done, thats why I'm curious on your proof that physics is wrong
You are correct jb within the field of 15 metres it will repulse sharks. However sharks are well aware of electrical disturbance within the water prior to being within 15 metres and up too several hundred metres away the electrical field will attract them.
If said shark has already decided to attack prior to entering the 15 metre range and moves between 24 and 35 kmh it is not enough time to put the brakes on or alter mechanism of feeding. (Rolled eyes and mouth open )
Please see link below for some science in regards to sensitivity of electrical fields.
www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.pelagic.org/overview/articles/sixsense.html&ved=0ahUKEwiAkPeej8LTAhURtJQKHdJ2BkkQFggZMAA&usg=AFQjCNHrRAbt4MG6jPtmiSc7vE7oLXqcuQ
I have seen that page before but it still is not proof they attract sharks. In fact pages like that one and every single marine biologist will tell you sharks only use that electric receptor with in a few meters to search. A electric current from a electronic device is different that that. A shark will detect a heart beat from over 100 mtrs away, but not a electronic current. I have had one person question if they can detect a "wave" as such from the electronic field, but not the actually current.
Thats why i asked for the proof you had you say attack sharks, what you provided isn't that..
An electric current creates a magnetic field, this is what the sharks sense, blue salt water is a great conductor of not only noise and electricity bit has a very differing magnetic field to an electrical current.
As an example of solid proof of this they often will bite an outboard motor, this is not because of the sound as many attack outboards which are off but off the magnetic field put out from either the wiring within in the case of electric start and or the electrolysis of the anode material or two differing metals creating electrical current and therefore a magnetic field anomoly.
Before asking for further proof i will suggest that this info is forwarded to the people you know. They will not be able to prove it is incorrect (as it is correct) however they will suggest that it is however than not be able to provide any further info on why.
Upon associated response I will than provide further empirical and scientific breakdown.
The only thing which may actually work is total disruption of magnetic fields and this is something i am working on and will not provide any further info as I have come this far solo and self funded.
I completely understand what your basing your theory on. But sharks don't use those receptors for anything over a small range, a meter to two at best. You would have seen pictures of Hammerheads circling on a spot of sand, that is them using that sense and Hammer heads are better adapted to use these sensory due to the simple width of the head.
I won't ask for any more proof, i get what you are saying is just a general statement and not as you said, not actually been proven.
" sharks in Albany or Busso??
It's crazy to think a few blokes fishing for sharks in the metro area brings more in close. It just doesnt happen like that. The simple fact is there are just plenty more around but even then, there's probably only a couple caught a week and most they catch are small, under 5 or 6ft. That size is pretty much harmless.
If surfers are that concerned about fisho's bringing in the sharks, i'd suggest they start getting worried about a repeat of last year with 10's of thousands of kilos of shark food about to hit the metro area in the next 4-6 weeks 
Select to expand quotesouthace said..
They attack anything that splashes around in the water that's how they hunt.
They do attack humans and eat them. It's also false information to say they don't like to eat humans!
They are somewhat preastoric like crocodiles and dinosaurs small brains trapped in large body's!
CLANG.....That was the sound of a penny dropping.
Select to expand quoteMDSXR6T said..
It's crazy to think a few blokes fishing for sharks in the metro area brings more in close. It just doesnt happen like that. The simple fact is there are just plenty more around but even then, there's probably only a couple caught a week and most they catch are small, under 5 or 6ft. That size is pretty much harmless.
If surfers are that concerned about fisho's bringing in the sharks, i'd suggest they start getting worried about a repeat of last year with 10's of thousands of kilos of shark food about to hit the metro area in the next 4-6 weeks
The point is its not just a few blokes. With in the local fishing tackle industry, many shops will admit that shark fishing has helped them get over the line. Its actually bigger than anyone thought. Hence why its being looked into.
Select to expand quotemyusernam said..jbshack said..tripled said..jbshack 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?
If you'd been around for more than 5 minutes you'd know that answer
JB did u just lie about something like that just because you sell them? They never recovered the body or the shark shield. The decky said he had it on and many others have said that Peter was a strong advocate for the device and would not dive without it. There was nothing in the report nor could there be.
Firstly i don't sell them, the funny part, is don't even really like the Shark shield product, (but not because the science doesn't work)
Secondly i have actually read both the coronas reports for the two fatalities but it was some time ago.
If i have the names mixed up than i apologise, Your right, one was not recovered, the second attack the electrode was attached to the hose. So either way, it was useless.
This is my last post in this thread.
proof of drum lines and shark nets working being managed correctly and effectively in a place which was shark fatality number one until Western Australia took the honours..........
please read and have a think, fairly responsible management and the stats are there and clear to see.
www.shark.co.za/Pages/ProtectionSharks-NetsDrumlines
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
Accept that there is a risk to entering Australian waters no matter how many of the fishies we cull.....that's what....
The Southern Ocean is huge, the blighters swim around the world.
Does anyone seriously believe culling a few out of thousands will make any difference?
There's always been a risk, and with good intentions decisions were made that over time have contributed to making it riskier. It's time to reassess.
You're right, the Southern and Indian Oceans are huge. By comparison the recreational areas of the WA coastline are a speck. Not really a problem then, is it, to knock off the "fishies" frequenting those spots and occasionally eating people? Still a risk, but not as risky... like you enjoyed growing up.
Culling does make a difference. Death by shark in Aus waters was rare 40 years ago, when people still caught (culled) sharks. It's this period of letting them breed up that has made a difference.
Select to expand quoteDARTH said..
People want action and they want it now!
No. They wanted it two years ago when the fish were biting, but some people didn't like the action which was proposed.
The loud protestations were along the lines of "Apex predator", "It's their territory",. "there are better ways",.
"Every shark is sacred, every shark is great,.. " etc etc,.. From what they were saying, apparently the demise of just one Great White was going to irrevocably set the whole planet on a path to destruction!
So in the end, nothing effective was done apart from lots of money being spent on stuff that made little or no difference to the problem. Consequently, people are still being bitten resulting in the fatalities reported.
Who is surprised and why are they surprised?
For all those who now decide they would like something done about it, you're too late. You should have supported effective action two years ago when the argument for a targeted cull had some momentum and government support.
All that has now gone and the present government who previously argued against it while in opposition can hardly do a back flip now, so soon after previously opposing it, and initiate a cull of any sort. Thus the best method for an immediate solution is no longer available. The moment has passed. Bon Appetit Sid.
Another fatality at Reunion Island yesterday, 20th attack since 2011.
I wonder how long (how many more attacks) until water sports activities are banned in WA.
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39038833
In 2016 118 people drowned at beaches, ocean or estuary. www.royallifesaving.com.au/facts-and-figures/research-and-reports/drowning-reports
Many people didn't drown because they would never swim at these locations because of the perceived risk of shark attack.
Many people didn't drown because they swam between the flags ( safety in numbers)
Many didn't drown because they don't dare go out above waist deep. ( sharks again)
How many more do you think would drown if we reduced the perceived risk of shark attack?
Interesting angle. If that survey is accurate, probably more would die than we'd save by culling a few sharks.
There are simply far more people in the water than decades ago, doing more adventurous things.
I don't buy the line that the only significant factor is more sharks in the water.
Messing with nature is very rarely the answer.
The ocean is not some fun park for us to do with as we please.
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
There are simply far more people in the water than decades ago, doing more adventurous things.
I don't buy the line that the only significant factor is more sharks in the water.
I don't know what things are like in the area you frequent, but I can reliably state that in the area I am very familiar with over a very long time, there are LESS people in the water, on the water, or even near the water now than there were twenty years ago, thirty years ago, and forty years ago.
I think you would need to go back to the late 1960's before the numbers were similar. As soon as fiberglass boards became popular in the mid sixties, the numbers in the water exploded, right up to when the fish started biting here in 2000.
If the attack rate was due to an increase in water users, the rate should have progressively increased from the 1960's to the year 2000. it did not. It remained close to zero. The attack rate increased after 2000 at a rate apparently unrelated to any change in the number of water users after that time.
In fact, from my observations, the number of swimmer/surfers took a serious dive at the first bite, (November 2000) and never really took off again. I noticed very clearly because I suddenly had the whole reef to myself. I still do.
There was a short respite between the first bite and later ones, but since the last feeding frenzy started a few years ago, it appears the numbers in the water have now dropped to all time lows, and it thins a bit more after every attack.
A quick look around on most days shows very few out in the water, even though there can be a half decent wave rolling through, one which would have attracted wall to wall surfers twenty years ago. There are hardly any short boarders or boogers, just a lot of old folk on SUPS where they probably feel a bit safer. At least the visibility is better so they should get a bit more warning when something comes to nibble their toes.
Whatever the reason for the recent upsurge in shark attacks is, it is not due to more people in the water. Well, not on the west coast anyway.
