Page 32 of 64 < 1 2 ... 30 31 32 33 34 ... 63 64 >
Topic Options
#1241755 - 13/02/2014 13:37 Re: sharks [Re: ColdFront]
Adele Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 29/12/2010
Posts: 376
Loc: Somerset TAS
Originally Posted By: ColdFront
I trust you actually read the posts Adele. I put up info and Jax responded with "cold one", referred to me as a twit and done everything except respond to the actual information posted right down to accusing me of having never been in the ocean. I have continually provided information relevant to the topic and been subjected to insult after insult.

Please don't tar me with that brush. I am the one providing the stats and information relative to the thread.


Fair call ColdFront you have always supplied information relevant to backing up your argument. I just wish others would too.


Edited by Adele (13/02/2014 13:38)

Top
#1241762 - 13/02/2014 13:49 Re: sharks [Re: terrified]
ColdFront Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/06/2008
Posts: 17313
Loc: Wide Bay..Near the beach
So do I. As you can see by the info provided there is pretty strong evidence that the solution is to better educate the public and stop the pointless culling.

This was the post he responded to .

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Originally Posted By: Jax
Very little is caught on drums other than sharks No dugongs. No whales. No dolphins.


(my bold)

Hmmmm. Dolphins stealing baits of the drum lines have even been foul hooked through the body.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drum_lines

"Drum lines are also responsible for bycatch, inlcuding dolphins and sea turtles, both of which are fully protected in Australian waters."

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/drum-lines-kill-harmless-species-report-20131224-2zvtk.html


How was it attacking anyone? It simply points out the fact that Dolphins and Turtles DO get caught on drum lines .
_________________________
"I donít play golf, but I donít mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who play golf , denigrate means *put down*."

Top
#1241767 - 13/02/2014 13:56 Re: sharks [Re: terrified]
ColdFront Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/06/2008
Posts: 17313
Loc: Wide Bay..Near the beach
"The Grey Nurse Shark population is estimated to be less than 500 individuals and is believed to be restricted in its range to southern Queensland and New South Wales. There are concerns that the numbers have fallen to such a depressed level it is difficult for individuals to find mates with which to reproduce (Environment Australia, 2002a). Grey Nurse Sharks have late reproductive maturity (4-6 years) and produce only 1-2 pups every 2 years (Otway and Parker, 1999). Consequently, the annual rates of population increase are very low, making the species highly vulnerable to non-natural sources of mortality.


Yet they are still being caught on drumlins and in nets. It's total lunacy. Killing any "protected species" is absolute madness.
_________________________
"I donít play golf, but I donít mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who play golf , denigrate means *put down*."

Top
#1241779 - 13/02/2014 14:24 Re: sharks [Re: terrified]
ColdFront Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/06/2008
Posts: 17313
Loc: Wide Bay..Near the beach
Maybe Barnett should read this from Gad's news article.

"This conviction sends a strong message that harming of our threatened species will not be tolerated," he said.

"The low population numbers following historical exploitation, plus their low reproductive rate, long gestation and late age at sexual maturity lead to slow recovery of the great white shark population and demonstrate the need for its protection."

Maybe this was a swipe at him also.
_________________________
"I donít play golf, but I donít mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who play golf , denigrate means *put down*."

Top
#1241793 - 13/02/2014 15:26 Re: sharks [Re: ColdFront]
Gad Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 27/12/2010
Posts: 290
Loc: Silkstone
Originally Posted By: ColdFront
"The Grey Nurse Shark population is estimated to be less than 500 individuals and is believed to be restricted in its range to southern Queensland and New South Wales. There are concerns that the numbers have fallen to such a depressed level it is difficult for individuals to find mates with which to reproduce (Environment Australia, 2002a). Grey Nurse Sharks have late reproductive maturity (4-6 years) and produce only 1-2 pups every 2 years (Otway and Parker, 1999). Consequently, the annual rates of population increase are very low, making the species highly vulnerable to non-natural sources of mortality.


Yet they are still being caught on drumlins and in nets. It's total lunacy. Killing any "protected species" is absolute madness.


That guestimate is only speaking of the east coast population. There is a west coast population also.

everyone wants/likes facts/figures. who to believe? who to ridicule?

In October 2001, the Grey Nurse Shark was listed as two separate populations (west and east coast populations) under the EPBC Act. Given the serious decline in numbers of the east coast population of Grey Nurse Sharks, this population is now listed as critically endangered. The size of the west coast population is unknown but considering the species life history characteristics and continuing impacts from fishing, this population remains listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act (Environment Australia 2002a).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_nurse_shark_conservation

Some scientists, fishers and divers and peak organisations such as the Australian Underwater Federation believe that the methodology used to estimate numbers of approximately 400-500 is limited and that grey nurse shark numbers have increased since protection in 1984 and that the east coast population numbers have been quoted as up to 1000, 2000 and 6000.

There is good reason for this belief apart from anecdotal observations. The original estimate of 400-500 was based on a single mark/capture survey done in June 2003 however a second identical survey in August 2003 resulted in much higher estimates (p=0.5 for 6000 sharks).

Also interestingly of all the GNS sighted in the August 2003 survey not a single one was reported as having any visible hooks or trailing lines visible.

Unfortunately some scientists and politicians decided that research which does not fit a conservationalist agenda is not published and repeated requests in the NSW Parliament to produce copies of the August 2003 research were flagrantly ignored.

However the research papers were finally obtained from a leaked source and the Government had to admit that the research had taken place. But to this day the August 2003 research has been deleted from the official public record and never published in any scientific journals.
Latest research from a workshop in Sydney in November 2009 is that the estimates of GNS undertaken by consultants funded by DEWHA for Grey Nurse Sharks on the east coast is now in excess of 1340.

This is more than three times the previous published estimates and supports the long held belief of the Australian Underwater Federation that the previous research was limited and\or that there has been an increase in numbers of sharksÖÖ
The Grey Nurse Shark (east coast population) total population is estimated to be between 1146 and 1662 individuals (Cardno Ecology Lab 2010).

A previous estimate was 500 individuals consisting of 250 adults (Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2001br).

The number of Grey Nurse Sharks (east coast population) observed varied greatly along the NSW coast during the 10 state-wide surveys conducted. The number of Grey Nurse Shark (east coast population) in NSW could be as low as 292; this is the highest number of individuals observed during a single survey. There are now concerns that the population has fallen to such critically low numbers that individual animals are now failing to find mates and successfully reproduce.

It should be noted when considering the accuracy of population estimates, Grey Nurse Sharks (east coast population) are not being caught by deep water fisheries (60+ metres), indicating that there is minimal chance of any Grey Nurse Shark (east coast population) in deeper waters not being covered by the surveys (Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2001br).

Top
#1241794 - 13/02/2014 15:30 Re: sharks [Re: terrified]
ColdFront Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/06/2008
Posts: 17313
Loc: Wide Bay..Near the beach
This part of your article stands out particularly well.

"The number of Grey Nurse Shark (east coast population) in NSW could be as low as 292; this is the highest number of individuals observed during a single survey. There are now concerns that the population has fallen to such critically low numbers that individual animals are now failing to find mates and successfully reproduce. "
_________________________
"I donít play golf, but I donít mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who play golf , denigrate means *put down*."

Top
#1241800 - 13/02/2014 15:50 Re: sharks [Re: ColdFront]
Gad Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 27/12/2010
Posts: 290
Loc: Silkstone
pmsl.. I didn`t think anyone would jump on the 6,000 figure

Top
#1241805 - 13/02/2014 16:14 Re: sharks [Re: Gad]
Gad Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 27/12/2010
Posts: 290
Loc: Silkstone
be aware that in my above post I have lumped different survey figures together to show that it`s all to do with the numbers, we can pick and choose the numbers we like if we search for them

Top
#1241810 - 13/02/2014 16:32 Re: sharks [Re: terrified]
ColdFront Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/06/2008
Posts: 17313
Loc: Wide Bay..Near the beach
I didn't because I've read many reports on the grey nurse and none have ever said more than 2,000. If it were 6,000 it still isn't many.

The pros also haven't caught any beyond a certain depth so there is a fairly good consensus on numbers it would seem.

There was a healthy population of these in Port Philip Bay once and they have been all but wiped out. They used to lay along gutters in their hundreds .
_________________________
"I donít play golf, but I donít mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who play golf , denigrate means *put down*."

Top
#1241828 - 13/02/2014 17:02 Re: sharks [Re: terrified]
Jax Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/12/2009
Posts: 738
Loc: WA
Maybe the great whites that have set up camp there ate them, while they were breeding up their own well stocked nursery.
Oh no, wrong Port, I meant Stephens. Never mind.


Edited by Jax (13/02/2014 17:05)

Top
#1241896 - 13/02/2014 21:06 Re: sharks [Re: Jax]
Gad Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 27/12/2010
Posts: 290
Loc: Silkstone
apparently survivors have an opinion too

Shark cull opposition angers attack victims

http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/8799039/shark-cull-opposition-angers-attack-victims

Top
#1241908 - 13/02/2014 21:52 Re: sharks [Re: terrified]
ColdFront Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/06/2008
Posts: 17313
Loc: Wide Bay..Near the beach
I wonder what he was paid? It is a current affair after all. However I'd encourage all to listen to the end of that video regarding tagging and the success of a non lethal alternative. After all it's all about saving lives yeah?

Meanwhile another perspective.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-...3-1226795287479
_________________________
"I donít play golf, but I donít mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who play golf , denigrate means *put down*."

Top
#1241931 - 13/02/2014 23:44 Re: sharks [Re: terrified]
Jax Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/12/2009
Posts: 738
Loc: WA

Top
#1242453 - 15/02/2014 21:10 Re: sharks [Re: terrified]
EddyG Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 19/12/2008
Posts: 4050
Loc: NSW Port Stephens
_________________________
Rainfall
MTD 41.0mm
YTD 997.3mm
https://www.flickr.com/photos/eddygroot/
YNWA

Top
#1242467 - 15/02/2014 23:09 Re: sharks [Re: terrified]
Golden State Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 19/12/2013
Posts: 192
Loc: Buderim
This would be even more hilarious if it weren't so true ...

http://www.shockmansion.com/2014/02/15/v...tern-australia/
_________________________
#prayforrain

Top
#1242469 - 15/02/2014 23:22 Re: sharks [Re: terrified]
ColdFront Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/06/2008
Posts: 17313
Loc: Wide Bay..Near the beach
Hahaha .Gold !! Pretty much nailed it.
_________________________
"I donít play golf, but I donít mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who play golf , denigrate means *put down*."

Top
#1242538 - 16/02/2014 12:11 Re: sharks [Re: Golden State]
Gad Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 27/12/2010
Posts: 290
Loc: Silkstone
Originally Posted By: Golden State
This would be even more hilarious if it weren't so true ...

http://www.shockmansion.com/2014/02/15/v...tern-australia/


as a rec fisho my eyebrows often lift when a set length is proclaimed on 'take' fish species. This has not changed with the WA govt setting a measurement with regards to the sharking program they introduced.

For me personally I measure from tip of mouth to tail/trunk join,most recognised measurements go from tip of head to tip of extended tail.... depending on species that can be a huge difference

Top
#1242666 - 16/02/2014 18:27 Re: sharks [Re: T_D_S]
S .O. Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 31/01/2011
Posts: 1517
Loc: Southern Victoria
Originally Posted By: T_D_S
Originally Posted By: S .O.



Again your statistics are short on accuracy . There would be lucky to be 200,000 people who regularly have put themsleves within danger of Great White Attack , in the last 40 years ....
and teh deatsh are in the Dozens within that period .... so not a million to one .



I ain't getting involved what this threads topic is but for the sake of statistics reputation-

regularly would be once a week and 48 is a few dozen... so, 52*40*200,000 = 416,000,000/48 = 8666666.667 or 1 in 8,000,000????


... Statistically Obtuse


I'm not trying to be Statistical ..... I'm trying to show that you can't put Statistics to compare this to anything else .......
The fact that the main danger in the most quoted statistics ( being car fatalities ) , is that Humans are the danger to themselves in automotive fatalities as opposed to the automobiles themselves ... And participation in Automotive activities or even being ( hit by or indirectly related to ) are extremely higher ....
Lets not to mention the fact that everyone now pretty much lives in " Bubble wrap " compared to past era's ... Imagine the road toll without all the modern safeties and laws .... I don't won't Ocean Usage to go down that path ....
And my opinion on this matter is far less important than Joe Publics ( most people of a Strong Anti Shark control opinions ) next step .to restrict water access ... for the sake of 10 % of what would be taken form the east coast in the same period .
LIKE THE INCREDIBLY STUPID words / thoughts that get typed into his/her computer like Cold Front often does ...
Oceanic activites are not a Hobbie ... They are some peoples LIVES ....

If you don't understand this statement then you don't have enough invested in the topic and should just spend some more time at the Aquarium enjoying your beautiful creatures ....
NO one i personaly know with a vested interest wants to destroy ( or your words = cull ) a species into extinction .
Best some of these people get back to what they usually do in their past time = champiion global warming .... this topic is getting old .
_________________________
" Solar Powered "

Top
#1242690 - 16/02/2014 19:22 Re: sharks [Re: S .O.]
T_D_S Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 17/03/2013
Posts: 102
Originally Posted By: S .O.
Originally Posted By: T_D_S
Originally Posted By: S .O.



Again your statistics are short on accuracy . There would be lucky to be 200,000 people who regularly have put themsleves within danger of Great White Attack , in the last 40 years ....
and teh deatsh are in the Dozens within that period .... so not a million to one .



I ain't getting involved what this threads topic is but for the sake of statistics reputation-

regularly would be once a week and 48 is a few dozen... so, 52*40*200,000 = 416,000,000/48 = 8666666.667 or 1 in 8,000,000????


... Statistically Obtuse


I'm not trying to be Statistical ..... I'm trying to show that you can't put Statistics to compare this to anything else .......
The fact that the main danger in the most quoted statistics ( being car fatalities ) , is that Humans are the danger to themselves in automotive fatalities as opposed to the automobiles themselves ... And participation in Automotive activities or even being ( hit by or indirectly related to ) are extremely higher ....
Lets not to mention the fact that everyone now pretty much lives in " Bubble wrap " compared to past era's ... Imagine the road toll without all the modern safeties and laws .... I don't won't Ocean Usage to go down that path ....
And my opinion on this matter is far less important than Joe Publics ( most people of a Strong Anti Shark control opinions ) next step .to restrict water access ... for the sake of 10 % of what would be taken form the east coast in the same period .
LIKE THE INCREDIBLY STUPID words / thoughts that get typed into his/her computer like Cold Front often does ...
Oceanic activites are not a Hobbie ... They are some peoples LIVES ....

If you don't understand this statement then you don't have enough invested in the topic and should just spend some more time at the Aquarium enjoying your beautiful creatures ....
NO one i personaly know with a vested interest wants to destroy ( or your words = cull ) a species into extinction .
Best some of these people get back to what they usually do in their past time = champiion global warming .... this topic is getting old .


Wow, ok then...way to personally attack me for SFA. I simply put forth the notion that based on your numbers the statistics do not ring true to your own statement... what's wrong with being scientific about something???

As for the rest of your ill hearted rant...

When have I ever put something stupid into my browser? confused

When have I said I spend my time at the aquarium? confused

When did I say the words "cull" or any other such thing? confused

When have I ever "championed" global warming? confused

INFACT... I clearly stated I WAS NOT GETTING INVOLVED in this, so why the [censored] do you attack me hey???

IT MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL that I am attacked personally for nothing else than having put forth mathematical process. I spose my geographic location has a role in it too? EH?!

ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTED!!!! Why do I even bother coming on to WZ anymore??? mad
_________________________
Formerly Lightning...Lee

Currently on hiatus while undergoing self appointed therapy for WZ related mental issues...

Top
#1242694 - 16/02/2014 19:42 Re: sharks [Re: terrified]
ColdFront Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/06/2008
Posts: 17313
Loc: Wide Bay..Near the beach
Yeah but you're not as close to the equator as I am TDS so not as stupid by S.O's logic. Extraordinary personal attack S.O. At least I know where I stand on the topic. You clearly don't. A few weeks ago you entered the thread as a fence sitter.

The biggest howls of protest come from a minority of the surfing community and the understandably emotional girlfriend of one of the victims. I recently watched an interview with an abalone diver who had his head in the mouth of a great white in what was the second time he was attacked. He doesn't want them culled. He must just be stupid like me yeah? How dare he not support the cull. What right does he have to ay no? What an absolute clown yeah?

This is an obvious reversal of your supporting argument regarding ocean activities. The surfers can stay out of the water if they chose .Yet the divers who earn a living out there seem to understand the risk.


Originally Posted By: S .O
The fact that the main danger in the most quoted statistics ( being car fatalities ) , is that Humans are the danger to themselves in automotive fatalities


The exact same thing can be applied to surfers except of course for the reality that there are a damned sight more cars on the road being used for purposes other than hobbies . crazy
_________________________
"I donít play golf, but I donít mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who play golf , denigrate means *put down*."

Top
Page 32 of 64 < 1 2 ... 30 31 32 33 34 ... 63 64 >


Who's Online
6 registered (scott12, Sidney, GringosRain, Steve777, Wave Rider, 1 invisible), 272 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Ben K, gardener, Thunderpunch, Wezza
Forum Stats
29315 Members
32 Forums
23640 Topics
1456282 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image