Select to expand quotechrispy said..MickPC said..
Yeah but the kanga's might ruin the run of the ball on the greens 
Fark yeah...best comparison I've ever heard...bloody good point !!!
i was attacked by a kangaroo when i played a corporate golf day... amazing how cute **** is when you have had 400 cans .......kill all the shifty farkers
old mate and i did fear for our **** for a moment
Bahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa geez that's some funny shizz champion shifty farking Roos hahahahaha
Select to expand quotethePup said..chrispy said..MickPC said..
Yeah but the kanga's might ruin the run of the ball on the greens
Fark yeah...best comparison I've ever heard...bloody good point !!!
i was attacked by a kangaroo when i played a corporate golf day... amazing how cute **** is when you have had 400 cans .......kill all the shifty farkers
old mate and i did fear for our **** for a moment
Bahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa geez that's some funny shizz champion shifty farking Roos hahahahaha
LOL....thing is roos are a lot easier to spot & with the knowledge they're not so cute & cuddly. Actually able to latch on & disembowel you with their hind legs. Its not so hard to keep ya distance. They actually used to mow & fertilize my lawn out front for the first house we bought when we moved here 7 years ago. You could go there now & they'd be chilling in the park...I remember there was a big public outcry a few years back coz the golfies had shot some, they really don't like 'em...but yeah, awesome comparison on how its ok to shoot kanga's, but not GW's. Crazy situation!
its time for a selective balina cull.
its out of hand.
or the gov get serious about a form of protection
Select to expand quotelaceys lane said..
its time for a selective balina cull.
its out of hand.
or the gov get serious about a form of protection
there hands are tied no cull mate
Select to expand quoteMacaha said..
laceys lane said..
its time for a selective balina cull.
its out of hand.
or the gov get serious about a form of protection
there hands are tied no cull mate
who's doing the tying mate.
you just cant have gws running.... swimming around knocking people off.
they deal with crocs pretty ok
Select to expand quotelaceys lane said..Macaha said..laceys lane said..
its time for a selective balina cull.
its out of hand.
or the gov get serious about a form of protection
there hands are tied no cull mate
who's doing the tying mate
the gov
Select to expand quotelaceys lane said..
its time for a selective balina cull.
its out of hand.
or the gov get serious about a form of protection
A serous question if the government paid for a Electronic device to be fitted to each of your boards would you except that
I'd accept a highly unlikely freebie from the Guvner .... wouldn't make one iota of difference to Mister Big GWS's modus operandi nor make me feel safer when that big bastard is on the lurk
Might however slightly reduce the chance of something else having a chew ..... slightly reduce ..... I hope
Select to expand quotejbshack said..
A serous question if the government paid for a Electronic device to be fitted to each of your boards would you except that
Valid question.
How about this one - should the govt pay for all the medical bills of those that choose unhealthy lifestyle choices - eg smoking? And should these come out of the general ledger? Or should those that make those lifestyle choices pay for the decisions that they make?
In other words why should those that choose to surf in dangerous locations be funded by those that do not give a toss about surfing and live 250km inland?
Why should those that choose to live in stupid locations in stupid buildings be subsidised by those that choose not to? ie in flood prone locations.
Your question is not without merit JB but the ramifications of it are far and beyond what appears a somewhat easy solution. Does that mean that every tourist that comes to Australia gets a free Surfsafe or similar because they want to go for a surf and tick that box? Or is it just long time locals? Or those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale? Where do you draw the line? There are so many other issues to consider.
Select to expand quoteTed the Kiwi said..jbshack said..
A serous question if the government paid for a Electronic device to be fitted to each of your boards would you except that
Valid question.
How about this one - should the govt pay for all the medical bills of those that choose unhealthy lifestyle choices - eg smoking? And should these come out of the general ledger? Or should those that make those lifestyle choices pay for the decisions that they make?
In other words why should those that choose to surf in dangerous locations be funded by those that do not give a toss about surfing and live 250km inland?
Why should those that choose to live in stupid locations in stupid buildings be subsidised by those that choose not to? ie in flood prone locations.
Your question is not without merit JB but the ramifications of it are far and beyond what appears a somewhat easy solution. Does that mean that every tourist that comes to Australia gets a free Surfsafe or similar because they want to go for a surf and tick that box? Or is it just long time locals? Or those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale? Where do you draw the line? There are so many other issues to consider.
Should gov pay fat arse bitch polly's to party,,,,but they do.
Select to expand quoteCobra said..
Should gov pay fat arse bitch polly's to party,,,,but they do.
What an absolute disgrace that whole fiasco is. Can not believe she took so long to fall on her sword. Always been lots of issues with the sense of entitlement across all walks of life in this country. The Pollies have a history of extorting far and beyond most though. Check out NSW Govts over the last 5 years. Makes BB look like an angel - if possible Well she is from these parts after all !!
What about drone surveillance as a cheaper and much more specific and localised means of sighting sharks at our beaches,maybe operated by lifeguards while on duty so the alarms can be set off asap after a sighting.with the argument between pro-cullers and live and let live mindset at a stalemate another means of protecting lives needs to be considered,Id actually feel a lot more comfortable seeing a surveillance drone periodically cruising the lineup up and down the beach after the frequency of shark related incidents-
Select to expand quoteTed the Kiwi said..jbshack said..
A serous question if the government paid for a Electronic device to be fitted to each of your boards would you except that
Valid question.
How about this one - should the govt pay for all the medical bills of those that choose unhealthy lifestyle choices - eg smoking? And should these come out of the general ledger? Or should those that make those lifestyle choices pay for the decisions that they make?
In other words why should those that choose to surf in dangerous locations be funded by those that do not give a toss about surfing and live 250km inland?
Why should those that choose to live in stupid locations in stupid buildings be subsidised by those that choose not to? ie in flood prone locations.
Your question is not without merit JB but the ramifications of it are far and beyond what appears a somewhat easy solution. Does that mean that every tourist that comes to Australia gets a free Surfsafe or similar because they want to go for a surf and tick that box? Or is it just long time locals? Or those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale? Where do you draw the line? There are so many other issues to consider.
Smoking and health issues are different sadly because smoking taxes raise money also so the two equal out, well kinda except that the health cost outweighs the income but thats another thread.
I just was curious because culling sharks is very costly. So why not if the government was to put money into another option would that help be excepted Lacey said the government needs to find a better solution, so if that is their solution would you except their help
An side point is that the WA Labour government have said they will subsidise electronic devices. Honestly for me i find that nothing more than a ploy to try and buy votes from the anti cull movement.
For me, i don't think its the government responsibility to make the ocean safe for me to surf in..Im happy to pay my own way.
Select to expand quoteRicardo1709 said..
What about drone surveillance as a cheaper and much more specific and localised means of sighting sharks at our beaches,maybe operated by lifeguards while on duty so the alarms can be set off asap after a sighting.with the argument between pro-cullers and live and let live mindset at a stalemate another means of protecting lives needs to be considered,Id actually feel a lot more comfortable seeing a surveillance drone periodically cruising the lineup up and down the beach after the frequency of shark related incidents-
Considering the amount of breaks Unprotrolled I would say that would be a impossibility.
im happy with our shark drums,,,until something comes along better or some do gooder ****s it up for us.
Select to expand quotejbshack said..
Ted the Kiwi said..
jbshack said..
A serous question if the government paid for a Electronic device to be fitted to each of your boards would you except that
Valid question.
How about this one - should the govt pay for all the medical bills of those that choose unhealthy lifestyle choices - eg smoking? And should these come out of the general ledger? Or should those that make those lifestyle choices pay for the decisions that they make?
In other words why should those that choose to surf in dangerous locations be funded by those that do not give a toss about surfing and live 250km inland?
Why should those that choose to live in stupid locations in stupid buildings be subsidised by those that choose not to? ie in flood prone locations.
Your question is not without merit JB but the ramifications of it are far and beyond what appears a somewhat easy solution. Does that mean that every tourist that comes to Australia gets a free Surfsafe or similar because they want to go for a surf and tick that box? Or is it just long time locals? Or those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale? Where do you draw the line? There are so many other issues to consider.
Smoking and health issues are different sadly because smoking taxes raise money also so the two equal out, well kinda except that the health cost outweighs the income but thats another thread.
I just was curious because culling sharks is very costly. So why not if the government was to put money into another option would that help be excepted Lacey said the government needs to find a better solution, so if that is their solution would you except their help
An side point is that the WA Labour government have said they will subsidise electronic devices. Honestly for me i find that nothing more than a ploy to try and buy votes from the anti cull movement.
For me, i don't think its the government responsibility to make the ocean safe for me to surf in..Im happy to pay my own way.
im not sure. patrolled areas a electronic system would be possible. the sharks down at cabbie, Byron, lennox etc are a problem for the goldie too.
drones !!!!!
I would consider a shark safe on a dw board but surfboards its just too costly.
a serious shortboarder would get a new board at least twice a year not to mention their other boards too.
becomes very expensive exercise.
the system needs to be mobile and be able to be fitted to any board jb and I believe its do able. or pre fit a shell type system that you
can move the 'guts' of the system board to board
but maybe shark safe aren't interested in that
LL see belowSelect to expand quotekatana said..
ive just spent the past few days talking to some of the worlds best manufactures and weight and performance is so critical. I am not going to cut corners on quality.
we had a proto interchangerble model we tested earlier this year but was not 100% successful so we have a new model in the pipeline and will hopefully be out by the end of the year .This has almost tripled our budget costs but I wont realease any thing until we are 100%happy with it
Stripping back a dc 17.4 like travis board.
Lighten it up be stripping back paint and leaving it brushed carbon look. A light we ight grip too.
Because this is a long distance type ocean board seriously considering shark shield for it
Select to expand quoteMacaha said...
Did you burn the paint offjust wrap it in black stripes sharks hate that look
So they say. Think I would have faith in the shield
Select to expand quotelaceys lane said..
Macaha said...
Did you burn the paint offjust wrap it in black stripes sharks hate that look
So they say. Think I would have faith in the shield
go both but hey if your paddling that neck of the woods good luck,go the Greg Noel art
What about just taking them of the endangered list and setting a real low bag limit and strict sizing
i.e 1 per day over 6 foot and your golden
This would reduce the larger more predatory ones at least.....
Select to expand quoteTux said..
What about just taking them of the endangered list and setting a real low bag limit and strict sizing
i.e 1 per day over 6 foot and your golden
This would reduce the larger more predatory ones at least.....
Tux did you see a guy was attacked in Vic last week. A bronze whaler.. So were do you stop unless you kill them all..
The point is still the same, cull a thousand sharks and your in the water one day, a shark swims up to bite you, how has that cull helped you at that one moment
We need to think smarter and beyond the simple methods. These large sharks swim up and down the coast from South Australia. Drum lines and nets have been used up and down the coast for decades and yet the problem is increasing. The argument that "This beach has nets/drums and has no attacks" is really irrational as the sharks swim hundreds of kms weekly. So what you kill today will be replaced by another tomorrow. No nets and drums in Vic yet how many attacks, these sharks all swim through the waters.
As for price, well i guess its what price is your health worth.. IN WA our state government has spent $20 million dollars on this issue for what
A set of fins is $160, its a cheap price for some safety..IN the future when Katana get more support, anything will be possible.
Select to expand quotejbshack said..Tux said..
What about just taking them of the endangered list and setting a real low bag limit and strict sizing
i.e 1 per day over 6 foot and your golden
This would reduce the larger more predatory ones at least.....
So were do you stop unless you kill them all..
I'm with jbshack lets kill them all.
Select to expand quotePrawnhead said..
“Buy the ticket, take the ride.”
? Hunter S. Thompson
Had to share that old book cover, Prawnhead, but hell yeah. I agree with your sentiments. 
Select to expand quoteCobra said...jbshack said..Tux said..
What about just taking them of the endangered list and setting a real low bag limit and strict sizing
i.e 1 per day over 6 foot and your golden
This would reduce the larger more predatory ones at least.....
So were do you stop unless you kill them all..
I'm with jbshack lets kill them all.
Just the ones on the north coast
