Select to expand quoteThinkaBowtit said..
^^ The low number of attacks (until recently) indicate nets and drum lines have worked well for NSW and Queensland for a long time. It is now that shark numbers are increasing that the limited culling by those methods is starting to reveal inadequacies. For the record, I'm not going to stop arguing culling, because some people just don't get it, and never will.
Catch rates in nets and drum lines have never been lower, if your idea of extra numbers, then we would also be seeing increased catches, but thats not the case, so that simply shows how incorrect your excuse is..
Id just stay out of the water if their is so many, their's a new pool coming for people who don't want to except the risk..
Select to expand quotejbshack said..ThinkaBowtit said..
^^ The low number of attacks (until recently) indicate nets and drum lines have worked well for NSW and Queensland for a long time. It is now that shark numbers are increasing that the limited culling by those methods is starting to reveal inadequacies. For the record, I'm not going to stop arguing culling, because some people just don't get it, and never will.
Catch rates in nets and drum lines have never been lower, if your idea of extra numbers, then we would also be seeing increased catches, but thats not the case, so that simply shows how incorrect your excuse is..
Id just stay out of the water if their is so many, their's a new pool coming for people who don't want to except the risk..
Nets are only for small sharks. they dont even bother with them in lots of places in qld anymore. what do they bait the lines in WA with?
marine mammal meat? I think not. Thats what they really need to use because thats what GWS over 3m eat.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..Razzonater said..
I like statistics,
people that surf every day in the aw have odds by the power of 7.....
1/1285
one chance of being eaten to death in 1285 down south how do you like those stats
So in other words if you take a sample of 1285 surfers who are out in the water every day only one of them will die due to shark attack?
What do the other 1284 die of ? Bee stings? Falling off motorbikes? Jilted lover? pneumonia is probably up there. Whichever way you look at it surfers are needlessly worried about sharks.
Sorry just did some calculator.....1/642 chance of being eaten to death...
thats based on a million people and surfing every day...... People down south from a demographic of locals with a number(I have given it 20000 down south surfers and local) are close to 1/90.....
Select to expand quotejbshack said..
Id just stay out of the water if their is so many, their's a new pool coming for people who don't want to except the risk..
But don't stay out of school kids.
Select to expand quoteRazzonater said..Ian K said..Razzonater said..
I like statistics,
people that surf every day in the aw have odds by the power of 7.....
1/1285
one chance of being eaten to death in 1285 down south how do you like those stats
So in other words if you take a sample of 1285 surfers who are out in the water every day only one of them will die due to shark attack?
What do the other 1284 die of ? Bee stings? Falling off motorbikes? Jilted lover? pneumonia is probably up there. Whichever way you look at it surfers are needlessly worried about sharks.
Sorry just did some calculator.....1/642 chance of being eaten to death...
thats based on a million people and surfing every day...... People down south from a demographic of locals with a number(I have given it 20000 down south surfers and local) are close to 1/90.....
No worries all stats are estimates. Even 1/90 is pretty low compared to all the other things a seven day a week surfer surfing at the sharkiest beach will die of sooner or later.
How many of these 7 day a week surfers are there down there? We all know that GWS are not territorial, they roam the coastlines and across whole oceans. To reduce your odds from 1/90 to 1/180 you're going to have to reduce the chance of an encounter by 50% which means culling half the GWS in the whole Indian Ocean. That's about 1500 sharks according to the scientific estimates of the numbers left. They are a threatened species, that won't help. For a handful of semi-employed 7 day a week surfers down south. Come on!!
Select to expand quoteIan K said..Razzonater said..Ian K said..Razzonater said..
I like statistics,
people that surf every day in the aw have odds by the power of 7.....
1/1285
one chance of being eaten to death in 1285 down south how do you like those stats
So in other words if you take a sample of 1285 surfers who are out in the water every day only one of them will die due to shark attack?
What do the other 1284 die of ? Bee stings? Falling off motorbikes? Jilted lover? pneumonia is probably up there. Whichever way you look at it surfers are needlessly worried about sharks.
Sorry just did some calculator.....1/642 chance of being eaten to death...
thats based on a million people and surfing every day...... People down south from a demographic of locals with a number(I have given it 20000 down south surfers and local) are close to 1/90.....
No worries all stats are estimates. Even 1/90 is pretty low compared to all the other things a seven day a week surfer surfing at the sharkiest beach will die of sooner or later.
How many of these 7 day a week surfers are there down there? We all know that GWS are not territorial, they roam the coastlines and across whole oceans. To reduce your odds from 1/90 to 1/180 you're going to have to reduce the chance of an encounter by 50% which means culling half the GWS in the whole Indian Ocean. That's about 1500 sharks according to the scientific estimates of the numbers left. They are a threatened species, that won't help. For a handful of semi-employed 7 day a week surfers down south. Come on!!
And there you go, by the numbers....
You guys are missing 1/90 per...? Day? Week? Year? Decade?Select to expand quoteRazzonater said..
I like statistics,
I like your approach. It's better than the surfing magazine's approach because, simply, as you pointed out, not everyone surfs. It's the same as including women in the pool of people that have a chance of dying from testicular cancer; nonsense.
To figure the chances is simply:
shark attacks:surfers/length of time
The definition of surfers is the only tricky part.
So say for a given area there were 2 shark attacks over 10 years, and you reckon there are 20,000 "surfers" in the area, chances are 1:100,000 per year. Like you are rolling the dice once/year.
I think most people's definition of "surfer" is very generous. for me it's in the water, on average, 3+ hours/week. Even I don't fall into that category.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..Razzonater said..Ian K said..Razzonater said..
I like statistics,
people that surf every day in the aw have odds by the power of 7.....
1/1285
one chance of being eaten to death in 1285 down south how do you like those stats
So in other words if you take a sample of 1285 surfers who are out in the water every day only one of them will die due to shark attack?
What do the other 1284 die of ? Bee stings? Falling off motorbikes? Jilted lover? pneumonia is probably up there. Whichever way you look at it surfers are needlessly worried about sharks.
Sorry just did some calculator.....1/642 chance of being eaten to death...
thats based on a million people and surfing every day...... People down south from a demographic of locals with a number(I have given it 20000 down south surfers and local) are close to 1/90.....
No worries all stats are estimates. Even 1/90 is pretty low compared to all the other things a seven day a week surfer surfing at the sharkiest beach will die of sooner or later.
How many of these 7 day a week surfers are there down there? We all know that GWS are not territorial, they roam the coastlines and across whole oceans. To reduce your odds from 1/90 to 1/180 you're going to have to reduce the chance of an encounter by 50% which means culling half the GWS in the whole Indian Ocean. That's about 1500 sharks according to the scientific estimates of the numbers left. They are a threatened species, that won't help. For a handful of semi-employed 7 day a week surfers down south. Come on!!
Yeah nice one Ian - South west surfers are less valuable human beings than you? What a toss.
Select to expand quotejbshack said..ThinkaBowtit said..
^^ The low number of attacks (until recently) indicate nets and drum lines have worked well for NSW and Queensland for a long time. It is now that shark numbers are increasing that the limited culling by those methods is starting to reveal inadequacies. For the record, I'm not going to stop arguing culling, because some people just don't get it, and never will.
Catch rates in nets and drum lines have never been lower, if your idea of extra numbers, then we would also be seeing increased catches, but thats not the case, so that simply shows how incorrect your excuse is..
Id just stay out of the water if their is so many, their's a new pool coming for people who don't want to except the risk..
SO JB culling doesnt work in your opinion. Do you accept something has to be done by WA government to protect its citizens in the water?
If so what is it?
Select to expand quoteBara said..Ian K said..Razzonater said..Ian K said..Razzonater said..
I like statistics,
people that surf every day in the aw have odds by the power of 7.....
1/1285
one chance of being eaten to death in 1285 down south how do you like those stats
So in other words if you take a sample of 1285 surfers who are out in the water every day only one of them will die due to shark attack?
What do the other 1284 die of ? Bee stings? Falling off motorbikes? Jilted lover? pneumonia is probably up there. Whichever way you look at it surfers are needlessly worried about sharks.
Sorry just did some calculator.....1/642 chance of being eaten to death...
thats based on a million people and surfing every day...... People down south from a demographic of locals with a number(I have given it 20000 down south surfers and local) are close to 1/90.....
No worries all stats are estimates. Even 1/90 is pretty low compared to all the other things a seven day a week surfer surfing at the sharkiest beach will die of sooner or later.
How many of these 7 day a week surfers are there down there? We all know that GWS are not territorial, they roam the coastlines and across whole oceans. To reduce your odds from 1/90 to 1/180 you're going to have to reduce the chance of an encounter by 50% which means culling half the GWS in the whole Indian Ocean. That's about 1500 sharks according to the scientific estimates of the numbers left. They are a threatened species, that won't help. For a handful of semi-employed 7 day a week surfers down south. Come on!!
Yeah nice one Ian - South west surfers are less valuable human beings than you? What a toss.
Where did I say that? I wouldn't want them culling sharks for an unemployed windsurfer on the east coast either.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..Bara said...They are a threatened species, that won't help. For a handful of semi-employed 7 day a week surfers down south. Come on!!
Yeah nice one Ian - South west surfers are less valuable human beings than you? What a toss.
Where did I say that? I wouldn't want them culling sharks for an unemployed windsurfer on the east coast either.
They will never be a threatened species. Even with the unrestrained pressure put on them in early days they survived. Fishing management (in WA at least) has come a long way since then.
Would you be okay with the self-employed who give themselves and their workers a work schedule that's surf dependent?
the old stats. Well what are the chances if you are surfing at a sharky spot, loke the seaward size of frazer island, gold coast canals, cactus beach, south coast wa, that bombie in wa? etc. much higher.
If you dive in certain parts of SA your chances of seeing a GWS are pretty high. In fact if you dive or surf where they do the cage diving I think your chances of dying are pretty high. How do the stats work then?
I daresay if you spent each day int he water at the seal colony in SA where they go cage diving you would be shark poo by the end of the week.
Select to expand quote
Yeah nice one Ian - South west surfers are less valuable human beings than you? What a toss.
Where did I say that? I wouldn't want them culling sharks for an unemployed windsurfer on the east coast either. They are a threatened species, that won't help. For a handful of semi-employed 7 day a week surfers down south. Come on!!
Right i got ya logic now - so if you are a worker then your life is nearly as sacrosanct as Ians. Nearly. But even then a big fish's life is just ahead of you on his twisted priority list.
So is the fish ahead of you on your list? That would be something....
Select to expand quoterod_bunny said..OverUnderImages said..rod_bunny said..OverUnderImages said..rod_bunny said..Rupert 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"
This is a great theory, but unfortunately there has been NO testing on the impact these tags have on such highly sensitive beasts...
there has been numerous cases of tagged sharks showing aggression and less effective hunting ability, including some FACTS that reveal that the tag PING frequency is within the range of a seal (one of the GW primary food source) meaning it doesn't take long for seals to associate that noise to the GW.. (early warning/Cat collar effect)... there is not enough research to show what effects this has on other marine life or GW food sources..
this is just me thinking out loud now with only that one fact to back it up, but if the GW's loose ability to hunt their normal prey then we become more vulnerable as we bob around on our boards.
not to mention what the sharks go through to get tags implanted, they may not be clever but after a bunch of dudes drill holes and implant things inside their stomach what would you do when you saw the next human figure.....
WTF??
How is ^this^ going to cause trauma to a shark??
WTF?
you must be pretty clueless if you think that's an image of a GPS tag.....
WTF?? Did I say that was a picture of GPS tag?? That's all that is left after the GPS tag has fallen off!
As you can ^see^ adding the GPS part adds sooo much more.... and given that it falls off after time, impacts the sharks feeding how?
The GPS tags don't transmit unless they are at surface, so unlikely to give warning.
I did suggest that Joe Average should be able to tag the shark.
Did I advocate removing the shark from the water?
Did I suggest we take out the battery black & decker to bolt it to a shark?
and if you're gonna get all quotey...
My response was purely based on the loose term GPS tag, as far as i am aware those tags in your photo may still ping when underwater but signal is only received when it surfaces. also its not always the frequency from the ping itself it can also be low frequency EMF from the battery itself that penetrates further through the water..
We see this effect with shark shields and other personal devices.. the high freq, high voltage output doesn't extend far due to high attenuation but the low frequency emf can penetrate longer range.. this is why some people believe that they may in fact attract sharks before deterring them.
Rod, i think we both sit on the same side of the fence and agree that we have an issue and we need some action, just getting caught up in the detail...
Select to expand quote
So is the fish ahead of you on your list? That would be something....
Statistically yes. (Though if push came to shove and he was homing in on me I'd try to poke him in the eye). There's 7 billion of us and 3 - 5,000 great whites. We asses them as vulnerable. The biggest threat to us is not the shark but ourselves. If left to our natural inclinations of never taking a backward step we'll overpopulate and destroy our niche on the planet. We're in the 6th great mass extinction. Our attitude to the Great White Shark is just us all over. We won't take a backward step. The oceans are already out of whack. If we take out everything in it with teeth who knows how the effect will cascade down? Swarms of jelly fish. Irukandji jelly fish could explode. You won't be surfing then.
Anyway the whole argument is pointless either way. Just think about the stats. There's way more for a surfer to worry about than getting bitten by a shark.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
So is the fish ahead of you on your list? That would be something....
Statistically yes. (Though if push came to shove and he was homing in on me I'd try to poke him in the eye). There's 7 billion of us and 3 - 5,000 great whites. We asses them as vulnerable. The biggest threat to us is not the shark but ourselves. If left to our natural inclinations of never taking a backward step we'll overpopulate and destroy our niche on the planet. We're in the 6th great mass extinction. Our attitude to the Great White Shark is just us all over. We won't take a backward step. The oceans are already out of whack. If we take out everything in it with teeth who knows how the effect will cascade down? Swarms of jelly fish. Irukandji jelly fish could explode. You won't be surfing then.
Anyway the whole argument is pointless either way. Just think about the stats. There's way more for a surfer to worry about than getting bitten by a shark.
From where you surf you may be right I dont know but for where i live and surf (margaret river) the single biggest risk i face to my life ending prematurely is being attacked by a great white shark statistically speaking. All other man made risks are far far down the list of odds.
Funnily enough i would like to do something to reduce that risk as much as I can without giving up the watersports that I love. Since these sharks are dubiously protected I have to rely on a government based approach to this.
Read the above posts on stats and population at risk being misleading to say the least. I reckon you are the one who needs to think about the stats...
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
We're in the 6th great mass extinction. Our attitude to the Great White Shark is just us all over. We won't take a backward step. The oceans are already out of whack. If we take out everything in it with teeth who knows how the effect will cascade down? Swarms of jelly fish. Irukandji jelly fish could explode. You won't be surfing then.
Are you blaming humans for the first five great mass extinctions?
You might have missed the bit where we did take a backward step. We stopped killing GW sharks a few decades back and now they've started eating us on a fairly regular basis. Can only assume the more they breed and the longer we don't kill them, this will only become more regular.
Also, by your logic, when we helped them into the "vulnerable" or "threatened" state (which actually is it??) you believe they reached before we took the backward step, were the oceans out of whack? Did awful things cascade down and ruin everything? Were we surfing in swarms of jellyfish?
No. Nothing happened.
Select to expand quoteBara said..jbshack said..ThinkaBowtit said..
^^ The low number of attacks (until recently) indicate nets and drum lines have worked well for NSW and Queensland for a long time. It is now that shark numbers are increasing that the limited culling by those methods is starting to reveal inadequacies. For the record, I'm not going to stop arguing culling, because some people just don't get it, and never will.
Catch rates in nets and drum lines have never been lower, if your idea of extra numbers, then we would also be seeing increased catches, but thats not the case, so that simply shows how incorrect your excuse is..
Id just stay out of the water if their is so many, their's a new pool coming for people who don't want to except the risk..
SO JB culling doesnt work in your opinion. Do you accept something has to be done by WA government to protect its citizens in the water?
If so what is it?
Just to be clear, its not my opinion that culling doesn't work. Its all the marine scientists. The brains trust that look into these things, the countries who have tried culling sharks for better protection that are all saying it doesn't work. Theres your first problem, if you don't want to take professional advice on the matter, nothing i share could be of interest.
I personally support making ourselves safer in that wild environment. SO many different options like
Eco nets Safe swimming enclosures
Electronic devices, like Rpela or shark shield,
Maybe more research into strips and colours, (but i won't hold my breath on that one)
Better beach warnings and spotters. Even helicopters to have better more clear directions available. Like Red light get the f--k out.
I think tagging has its place, but more transparency needs to be the general public.
Beach first aid kits and first aid training for surfers.
Even simple issues like beach locations and maybe the chopper could carry blood supply.
If those issues above had been implicated then
Doreen would have been wearing a shark shield and science says she would have had a 90% chance of deterring the attack.
Ben, if the ambulance hadn't got lost, or the helicopter had blood or even if the beach had warning signs up saying sharks had been sighted earlier, then things would be different.
If the young girl in Esperance had of had a Rpela fitted to her board, well, or even if beach signs had been erected stating sharks had been sighted for two days before hand. Maybe a different result.
Things can change, water safety can be improved, will we make it 100% safe to surf, no, i doubt that will ever happen, but if we want to just concentrate on vengeance and not science, then i would not expect too much to change.
Anyway I'm of for a surf, id avoid the water anyone who thinks sharks need culling..Its clearly just not safe..
I suspect the acceptable level of shark attack has nothing to do with statistics. The reaction here would be exactly the same whether there were twice was as many or half as many surfers/swimmers in WA.
The acceptable level is dictated by the frontal memory lobe of the surfer's brain. It looks like one or two a year is the set point. Like a thermostat. Negative feedback and all that. An attack in the last year and those thinking of taking up surfing don't. Those thinking of giving up do. The diehards possibly don't go out in sharky overcast weather, or when the bait fish are running. 5 waves a session will do when they used to catch 10. They stick with the crowd rather than surf alone. They remember to turn on the shark repellant.
May not be the whole story but it's got to be a factor. Culling will not alter the set point.
(The stats are fine with me though, sharky or not makes no difference. Temperature, the gnarly shore break, maybe lightning are my excuses. There's another one. Do you go out in thunderstorms?)http://www.coastalwatch.com/surfing/15063/it-s-not-about-sharks-it-s-about-people
Select to expand quotejbshack said..Bara said..jbshack said..ThinkaBowtit said..
^^ The low number of attacks (until recently) indicate nets and drum lines have worked well for NSW and Queensland for a long time. It is now that shark numbers are increasing that the limited culling by those methods is starting to reveal inadequacies. For the record, I'm not going to stop arguing culling, because some people just don't get it, and never will.
Catch rates in nets and drum lines have never been lower, if your idea of extra numbers, then we would also be seeing increased catches, but thats not the case, so that simply shows how incorrect your excuse is..
Id just stay out of the water if their is so many, their's a new pool coming for people who don't want to except the risk..
SO JB culling doesnt work in your opinion. Do you accept something has to be done by WA government to protect its citizens in the water?
If so what is it?
Just to be clear, its not my opinion that culling doesn't work. Its all the marine scientists. The brains trust that look into these things, the countries who have tried culling sharks for better protection that are all saying it doesn't work. Theres your first problem, if you don't want to take professional advice on the matter, nothing i share could be of interest.
I personally support making ourselves safer in that wild environment. SO many different options like
Eco nets Safe swimming enclosures
Electronic devices, like Rpela or shark shield,
Maybe more research into strips and colours, (but i won't hold my breath on that one)
Better beach warnings and spotters. Even helicopters to have better more clear directions available. Like Red light get the f--k out.
I think tagging has its place, but more transparency needs to be the general public.
Beach first aid kits and first aid training for surfers.
Even simple issues like beach locations and maybe the chopper could carry blood supply.
If those issues above had been implicated then
Doreen would have been wearing a shark shield and science says she would have had a 90% chance of deterring the attack.
Ben, if the ambulance hadn't got lost, or the helicopter had blood or even if the beach had warning signs up saying sharks had been sighted earlier, then things would be different.
If the young girl in Esperance had of had a Rpela fitted to her board, well, or even if beach signs had been erected stating sharks had been sighted for two days before hand. Maybe a different result.
Things can change, water safety can be improved, will we make it 100% safe to surf, no, i doubt that will ever happen, but if we want to just concentrate on vengeance and not science, then i would not expect too much to change.
Anyway I'm of for a surf, id avoid the water anyone who thinks sharks need culling..Its clearly just not safe..
Also in the cheap seats where you are surfing JB.
Im not saying culling is necessarily the answer either but I am saying those fluffy little things like red lights on helis and deterrents that are scientifically proven to not work on great whites in attack mode etc etc you mention are just that- fluff.
So in effect what you are saying is do nothing that is effective. Thats not good enough.
Marine scientists are never going to publicly state a cull is a good way to go but you go too far in saying they are the "brains trust" on this. they are as conflicted as any other group. A cull is the least rewarding option for them.
All options should be on the table including culling and assessed by independent committee. More research is needed urgently. Just assuming GWs are endangered and giving the benefit of the doubt is just not good enough.
Im not off for a surf today. Had a bronzie in the water with us as the salmon went past yesterday which was spooky enough, and its too big for a nice safe beachbreak.
Select to expand quoteBara said..jbshack said..Bara said..jbshack said..ThinkaBowtit said..
^^ The low number of attacks (until recently) indicate nets and drum lines have worked well for NSW and Queensland for a long time. It is now that shark numbers are increasing that the limited culling by those methods is starting to reveal inadequacies. For the record, I'm not going to stop arguing culling, because some people just don't get it, and never will.
Catch rates in nets and drum lines have never been lower, if your idea of extra numbers, then we would also be seeing increased catches, but thats not the case, so that simply shows how incorrect your excuse is..
Id just stay out of the water if their is so many, their's a new pool coming for people who don't want to except the risk..
SO JB culling doesnt work in your opinion. Do you accept something has to be done by WA government to protect its citizens in the water?
If so what is it?
Just to be clear, its not my opinion that culling doesn't work. Its all the marine scientists. The brains trust that look into these things, the countries who have tried culling sharks for better protection that are all saying it doesn't work. Theres your first problem, if you don't want to take professional advice on the matter, nothing i share could be of interest.
I personally support making ourselves safer in that wild environment. SO many different options like
Eco nets Safe swimming enclosures
Electronic devices, like Rpela or shark shield,
Maybe more research into strips and colours, (but i won't hold my breath on that one)
Better beach warnings and spotters. Even helicopters to have better more clear directions available. Like Red light get the f--k out.
I think tagging has its place, but more transparency needs to be the general public.
Beach first aid kits and first aid training for surfers.
Even simple issues like beach locations and maybe the chopper could carry blood supply.
If those issues above had been implicated then
Doreen would have been wearing a shark shield and science says she would have had a 90% chance of deterring the attack.
Ben, if the ambulance hadn't got lost, or the helicopter had blood or even if the beach had warning signs up saying sharks had been sighted earlier, then things would be different.
If the young girl in Esperance had of had a Rpela fitted to her board, well, or even if beach signs had been erected stating sharks had been sighted for two days before hand. Maybe a different result.
Things can change, water safety can be improved, will we make it 100% safe to surf, no, i doubt that will ever happen, but if we want to just concentrate on vengeance and not science, then i would not expect too much to change.
Anyway I'm of for a surf, id avoid the water anyone who thinks sharks need culling..Its clearly just not safe..
Also in the cheap seats where you are surfing JB.
Im not saying culling is necessarily the answer either but I am saying those fluffy little things like red lights on helis and deterrents that are scientifically proven to not work on great whites in attack mode etc etc you mention are just that- fluff.
So in effect what you are saying is do nothing that is effective. Thats not good enough.
Marine scientists are never going to publicly state a cull is a good way to go but you go too far in saying they are the "brains trust" on this. they are as conflicted as any other group. A cull is the least rewarding option for them.
All options should be on the table including culling and assessed by independent committee. More research is needed urgently. Just assuming GWs are endangered and giving the benefit of the doubt is just not good enough.
Im not off for a surf today. Had a bronzie in the water with us as the salmon went past yesterday which was spooky enough, and its too big for a nice safe beachbreak.
Yawn.........................................
Select to expand quoteDARTH said..Bara said..jbshack said..Bara said..jbshack said..ThinkaBowtit said..
^^ The low number of attacks (until recently) indicate nets and drum lines have worked well for NSW and Queensland for a long time. It is now that shark numbers are increasing that the limited culling by those methods is starting to reveal inadequacies. For the record, I'm not going to stop arguing culling, because some people just don't get it, and never will.
Catch rates in nets and drum lines have never been lower, if your idea of extra numbers, then we would also be seeing increased catches, but thats not the case, so that simply shows how incorrect your excuse is..
Id just stay out of the water if their is so many, their's a new pool coming for people who don't want to except the risk..
SO JB culling doesnt work in your opinion. Do you accept something has to be done by WA government to protect its citizens in the water?
If so what is it?
Yawn.........................................
yeah great contribution must have worked a few brain cells pretty hard there eh?
Select to expand quoteBara said..DARTH said..Bara said..jbshack said..Bara said..jbshack said..ThinkaBowtit said..
^^ The low number of attacks (until recently) indicate nets and drum lines have worked well for NSW and Queensland for a long time. It is now that shark numbers are increasing that the limited culling by those methods is starting to reveal inadequacies. For the record, I'm not going to stop arguing culling, because some people just don't get it, and never will.
Catch rates in nets and drum lines have never been lower, if your idea of extra numbers, then we would also be seeing increased catches, but thats not the case, so that simply shows how incorrect your excuse is..
Id just stay out of the water if their is so many, their's a new pool coming for people who don't want to except the risk..
SO JB culling doesnt work in your opinion. Do you accept something has to be done by WA government to protect its citizens in the water?
If so what is it?
Yawn.........................................
yeah great contribution must have worked a few brain cells pretty hard there eh?
Getting a bit worked up arnt you geez, settle down..
Select to expand quoteBara said..jbshack said..Bara said..jbshack said..ThinkaBowtit said..
^^ The low number of attacks (until recently) indicate nets and drum lines have worked well for NSW and Queensland for a long time. It is now that shark numbers are increasing that the limited culling by those methods is starting to reveal inadequacies. For the record, I'm not going to stop arguing culling, because some people just don't get it, and never will.
Catch rates in nets and drum lines have never been lower, if your idea of extra numbers, then we would also be seeing increased catches, but thats not the case, so that simply shows how incorrect your excuse is..
Id just stay out of the water if their is so many, their's a new pool coming for people who don't want to except the risk..
SO JB culling doesnt work in your opinion. Do you accept something has to be done by WA government to protect its citizens in the water?
If so what is it?
Just to be clear, its not my opinion that culling doesn't work. Its all the marine scientists. The brains trust that look into these things, the countries who have tried culling sharks for better protection that are all saying it doesn't work. Theres your first problem, if you don't want to take professional advice on the matter, nothing i share could be of interest.
I personally support making ourselves safer in that wild environment. SO many different options like
Eco nets Safe swimming enclosures
Electronic devices, like Rpela or shark shield,
Maybe more research into strips and colours, (but i won't hold my breath on that one)
Better beach warnings and spotters. Even helicopters to have better more clear directions available. Like Red light get the f--k out.
I think tagging has its place, but more transparency needs to be the general public.
Beach first aid kits and first aid training for surfers.
Even simple issues like beach locations and maybe the chopper could carry blood supply.
If those issues above had been implicated then
Doreen would have been wearing a shark shield and science says she would have had a 90% chance of deterring the attack.
Ben, if the ambulance hadn't got lost, or the helicopter had blood or even if the beach had warning signs up saying sharks had been sighted earlier, then things would be different.
If the young girl in Esperance had of had a Rpela fitted to her board, well, or even if beach signs had been erected stating sharks had been sighted for two days before hand. Maybe a different result.
Things can change, water safety can be improved, will we make it 100% safe to surf, no, i doubt that will ever happen, but if we want to just concentrate on vengeance and not science, then i would not expect too much to change.
Anyway I'm of for a surf, id avoid the water anyone who thinks sharks need culling..Its clearly just not safe..
Also in the cheap seats where you are surfing JB.
Um surfing with my 13 year old, till dark were a friend was killed from a shark attack maybe 600 meters from the wave, less than a year ago.
Not sure i get your point..Don't like the risk, stay out of the water.
The amount of sharks down south currently is amazing. Are you aware that before white man, the aboriginals have a saying you don't swim when the salmon are running..Its not a new problem, sharks that is, what is new or at best changing is attacks. So if you surfed with out a Rpela that far of shore, id say your crazy..
Select to expand quoteBara
Im not saying culling is necessarily the answer either but I am saying those fluffy little things like red lights on helis and deterrents that are scientifically proven to not work on great whites in attack mode etc etc you mention are just that- fluff.
Of course culling is the answer.
Humpback's are a perfect example of how things bounce back. In the 70's they were classed as endangered and yet 50 years later there are probably 100,000 of them swimming around. Certainly not difficult to find in season. What happens when there are 300 000 in the wild? Do we then need to cull them to protect the greater environment? Little has been said about the 7000 animals culled in Kakadu National Park, a UNESCO site, 2 months ago for the greater good of the park but kill a few white sharks and its the end of the world.
If GWS continue to be protected they will simply keep on eating and reproducing and attacks will become more and more frequent. A cull doesn't mean we kill every last GWS but something well managed and say within 10 or 15miles of the coast. Anything out wide is really no threat
Keep in mind that a humpback might have 1 calf every couple of years but a white shark will have 6 or 7+ pups every couple of years. Scary to think about the population growth white sharks in 20+ years.
Select to expand quoteMDSXR6T said..
A cull doesn't mean we kill every last GWS but something well managed and say within 10 or 15miles of the coast. Anything out wide is really no threat
Keep in mind that a humpback might have 1 calf every couple of years but a white shark will have 6 or 7+ pups every couple of years. Scary to think about the population growth white sharks in 20+ years.
Killing them if they come within 10 - 15 miles does mean killing every last one. They cross oceans but are basically coastal nomadic. That's where the humpbacks migrate, that's where the seals hangout. Humpbacks might be bouncing back but the Blue whales haven't. Whales in general are still way down. GWS, given that they are assessed as vulnerable, are still way down on pre- whaling numbers.
Read up on it all.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_white_shark
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpback_whale
scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=whale+populations+pre+whaling&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwji2quq4dTTAhWGrJQKHSPWB7UQgQMIHzAA
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_white_shark
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_whale
