Select to expand quoteMask said..Big dubya said..
What I find humorous is that a lot of people who are really for shark catching and killing are folks who support Sea Shepard and all kinds of other wild life preservation. I think you call that hypocritical don't you?
You think that's hypocritical. What about the 6000 "vegetarians" at Cottesloe yesterday? I wonder if they had a barbie or fish and chips after the event?
BTW a lot of folk who used to support and donate to Sea Shepherd probably wont anymore .
Your right. I've never have supported Sea Shepperd being a professional fisherman for many years and the show that they make just makes them look like dickheads. But killing for food and killing sharks because people are scared is two different things. It's hysteria. Fix the roads or put cycling lanes in, that will be money well spent to save lives but paying someone $600,000 dollars to catch sharks for 4 months a year what a joke. Wish I had of got that contract.
So what people die people die every day it's the way of the world and thins the crowds too
Frankly if sharks want to attack humans then we have every right to attack back. We have no need for such large predators attacking humans. So lets dwindle their numbers and overtime they will go live elsewhere if they have any sort of brain. Live by the sword die by it.
^^That is the possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read on these forums. And I've been responsible for some absolute shockers in the past.
If sharks 'want' to attack humans?
Our 'right' to 'attack back'?
'We have no need for such large predators attacking humans'?
'The will go live elsewhere is they have any sort of brain'?
'Live by the sword die by it'.
They're not a calculating, war-mongering, man eating alien species - they're fish. Fish with a natural instinct. Fish that have been around for 25 million years.
Christ almighty - I hope you never have kids.
....
$600k to potentially save the 2 people that died as a result of a shark attack in Australia last year .
I'd rather see that $600k invested to potentially save the 291 that drowned in Australia last year.
Select to expand quoteBig dubya said..
What I find humorous is that a lot of people who are really for shark catching and killing are folks who support Sea Shepard and all kinds of other wild life preservation. I think you call that hypocritical don't you?
Not at all. I support all sorts of wildlife issues (Sea Shepherd is one in particular) but I am of the opinion something? should be done about shark nos. in WA. But also Im one who seriously doubts the benefits of drum lines ??
I am also one who wont continue to support Sea Shepherd if they dont accept any sensible plans that may be put forward in the future. Drum Line protests are marginally acceptable in my eyes but only because they are almost certainly useless - or worse may exacerbate the problem.
If its 'one in all in' for wildlife preservation then why arent there rallies protesting the ready availability of fly spray or mouse traps or the million other ways we top-of-the-chain humans desecrate life around us selectively.
How about those poor rabbits on Macquarie Island being hunted to extinction deliberately without a word of support from any greeny anywhere. Reckon I should start a Bunny Backlash Org in support of these hapless victims of human intervention. An ex-naval warship to disrupt the delivery of the 1000's of tons of deadly poison to be spread across the island.
Surely you can see theres a need to view these issues intelligently on a 1-by-1 basis.
Seems to me as soon as ANY issue goes viral you get a whole band of bandwagoners following the pack blindly into to any protest. Most of whom are more in favour of protests than of issues. These are the type of greenies that get up my nose!
Did you know the cops have a file on serial protesters - same ppl turn up everywhere.
I have heard too there is a website somewhere that offers 'rally support for YOUR cause'. Cyberspace has made Dial-a-Crowd a reality! 
I'm on the fence with this one too. It's a bloody big ocean so a few sharks close to city beaches doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
The thing that is pissing me off though is the term "Cull", its not a cull by any means! I think the media is stirring this up far too much.
I don't think you can be some who say's they care about ocean preservation and support this program its totally opposite to preservation there are a few hi tech ideas out there about how to warn people of the big fish in the area with out killing . It's simple if you don't want the risk don't go in the water.
"They're numbers have recovered such that we can now hunt them" - Japanese whalers.
The people that do not agree to a cull have:
A) Never been attacked by a shark.
B) Never lost a loved one to a shark attack.
Select to expand quotetopline said..
I am hanging on the fence with this issue. I don't want sharks killed but I don't want people dead.
Not sure why there is so much backlash to W.A for drum lining. The east coast has drum lined for decades. And also shark nets, how many hundreds or thousands of sharks have been killed in that process, I don't see or hear of much protest over there. Maybe because they don't have many shark attacks (maybe it works, people are not getting eaten and sharks are still thriving) think about it? - lets not forget that something like 70 million sharks yearly are killed worldwide for fin soup.
The spotlight probably needs to be taken off W.A a little bit and put on the big world culling issue?
This is too much of a touchy subject so I don't want to judge either way. I love the water and kiting so I definitely still be going out and jumping that drum line this afternoon. Yeeoow
Ina answer to the question above: 962 sharks destroyed on average per year from 1962 to 2005 according to the federal dept of the environment.
Select to expand quotekiterdan said..
$600k to potentially save the 2 people that died as a result of a shark attack in Australia last year .
I'd rather see that $600k invested to potentially save the 291 that drowned in Australia last year.
Well said Dan,
$600K would save more than 2 lives!
Select to expand quoteErcorn said..
The people that do not agree to a cull have:
A) Never been attacked by a shark.
B) Never lost a loved one to a shark attack.
youll actually find they don't want sharks harmed after an incident
Select to expand quotecauncy said..Ercorn said..
The people that do not agree to a cull have:
A) Never been attacked by a shark.
B) Never lost a loved one to a shark attack.
youll actually find they don't want sharks harmed after an incident
How would you know that?
Select to expand quoteErcorn said...cauncy said..Ercorn said..
The people that do not agree to a cull have:
A) Never been attacked by a shark.
B) Never lost a loved one to a shark attack.
youll actually find they don't want sharks harmed after an incident
How would you know that?
Because I educate myself ,
Select to expand quotecauncy said...Ercorn said...cauncy said..Ercorn said..
The people that do not agree to a cull have:
A) Never been attacked by a shark.
B) Never lost a loved one to a shark attack.
youll actually find they don't want sharks harmed after an incident
How would you know that?
Because I educate myself ,
And you'll find most of those that approve don't even use the ocean
Give it a few more years with shark numbers rising and more attacs, maybe a young surfer kid or two taken along our metro coast every year and lets see what sort of public sentiment we end up with then
I don't know about the rest of you but I'm over it......Referendum I say then we can see what the public really think since that's what this is about 
and maybe after that we can go a day without hearing BS trumped up stats etc. from both sides and get on with life
Select to expand quoteErcorn said..
The people that do not agree to a cull have:
A) Never been attacked by a shark.
B) Never lost a loved one to a shark attack.
The family of the young bloke who was taken by a shark recently vocally opposed any cull of sharks.
There are many survivors of shark attacks who publicly state they don't take it personally and don't want sharks culled.
Blaming sharks for attacks is like blaming an avalanche for burying a snowboarder riding off piste or a rock climber for being hit by a boulder.
Stop putting human traits onto sharks ie. "they attack us so they deserve it" and "maybe they will learn not to attack us" If anything they attack us because WE deserve it - how many sharks do we kill as bycatch? And they don't "talk to each other" so as to warn each other about drum lines and the bad humans.
Select to expand quoteErcorn said..
The people that do not agree to a cull have:
A) Never been attacked by a shark.
B) Never lost a loved one to a shark attack.
So are you suggesting that the best decision is made under duress? A good decision is an emotional one??
Select to expand quoteErcorn said..
The people that do not agree to a cull have:
A) Never been attacked by a shark.
B) Never lost a loved one to a shark attack.
I was nudged by a great white off Fremantle North Mole, I went into the water at the time spearfishing with the thought that the water looked "sharky" - day was overcast and water was murky.
I have friends who have been followed whilst swimming by (allegedly) the same shark off North Mole round to Leighton beach.
I am against the "cull".
Nudging is apparently classed as an attack, the shark is trying to figure out if you're edible and what your reaction will be.
Select to expand quotePirateDunk said..Ercorn said..
The people that do not agree to a cull have:
A) Never been attacked by a shark.
B) Never lost a loved one to a shark attack.
I was nudged by a great white off Fremantle North Mole, I went into the water at the time spearfishing with the thought that the water looked "sharky" - day was overcast and water was murky.
I have friends who have been followed whilst swimming by (allegedly) the same shark off North Mole round to Leighton beach.
I am against the "cull".
Nudging is apparently classed as an attack, the shark is trying to figure out if you're edible and what your reaction will be.
Chalk that one down as a once in a lifetime experience. A heart in the mouth one !
It's amazing how emotional people have become on the issue.
1. The reality is that catching the odd shark off the coast is unlikely to do much to affect:
a) their numbers, or
b) attack incidents.
2. What about the ongoing international over-fishing of other large fish species? Do they not count? This is much bigger problem than a few drumlines off WA coast.
There is nothing better in the world than catching a few waves in the beautiful south west waters. Because of the shark attacks myself and my family haven't surfed in WA waters for the last 2 years and its a damn shame..
We take action to prevent avalanche eg ie blasting risky areas .. we take action to prevent being killed by a drunk driver ie drink driving laws , RBT's etc.. We cull roos , pigs ,goats , buffalo and birds because of the damage that they cause... I see no reason why we cant take this action to try to prevent shark attacks ..
I hope these drum lines work ...
A long time commercial fisherman told me last week that they reckon ( professional fishermen) there is at least 30 - 40 very large sharks 5m +cruising the waters down South more than there were 10 years ago and this is the problem and as a result the increase in shark attacks. They also suspect the same 2/3 sharks are responsible for the shark attacks and when they come back to a populated area they will attack again if they are hungry and any surfer in the wrong place may get attacked. Hence why they are so worried about the South point and left handers area. ( not to mention Cottesloe)
He also told me that very large sharks only eat every couple of weeks on a diet of large mammals ie whales , dolphins, seals etc so they drum lines will only catch sharks that are hungry and looking for food. A large non-hungry shark won't attack humans but may swim past and check you out and scare the living day lights out of you - I was kiting at South Cottesloe about 6 years ago in September and saw a massive 5m+ white pointer about 50m off the small groyne and the shark rolled on its side as I passed about 20ft away and looked at me with its big black eye but just cruised on like a big submarine - I totally **** myself. - So sharks don't attack every day or get hooked on drum lines every day. Hence why large hungry sharks are so dangerous to surfers and swimmers.
He reckons cull 30/40 big ones down South and those massive sharks cruising the Perth Metro area and the huge risk of being attacked will go down to levels as they where 10/15 years ago -
Cull the monsters in populated surfing and swimming areas and leave the rest alone - The drum lines only catch hungry sharks.
I surfed down South for a week last week with my 13 year old son and I was pretty nervous in the water for him more than me.
Select to expand quoteMonkers said..
There is nothing better in the world than catching a few waves in the beautiful south west waters. Because of the shark attacks myself and my family haven't surfed in WA waters for the last 2 years and its a damn shame..
We take action to prevent avalanche eg ie blasting risky areas .. we take action to prevent being killed by a drunk driver ie drink driving laws , RBT's etc.. We cull roos , pigs ,goats , buffalo and birds because of the damage that they cause... I see no reason why we cant take this action to try to prevent shark attacks ..
I hope these drum lines work ...
We cull roos because often they get so overpopulated they end up being extremely sick and damaging the environment (eg. Puckapunyal Army base)
We cull pigs, goats buffalo and birds (not native) because they are introduced species and they are damaging the environment.
Possums are a protected native species in Australia but in NZ they are a noxious pest, and are culled to protect the environment.
Are you getting the common thread for management of the above animals?
Sharks are not an introduced species in the ocean and are not damaging the environment. WE ARE.
Select to expand quotePeterc150 said..
There is no scientific basis for WA's shark cull program.
There is no scientific basis that screening of luggage decreases airplanes being hijacked or bombed. I am nonetheless still in favor of passenger and bag screening.
Select to expand quotelostinlondon said..Monkers said..
If anything they attack us because WE deserve it - how many sharks do we kill as bycatch? .
You statement is as offensive as that of the infamous Australian Mufti "Sheik Hilali", who said women deserve to be raped if they go around like uncovered meat.
Select to expand quotecauncy said..Ercorn said...cauncy said..Ercorn said..
The people that do not agree to a cull have:
A) Never been attacked by a shark.
B) Never lost a loved one to a shark attack.
youll actually find they don't want sharks harmed after an incident
How would you know that?
Because I educate myself ,
Knowing about how people react after shark attacks would not be classed as education to most people
