sharks

Posted by: terrified

sharks - 27/11/2003 22:34

Gday to all; :wave:

Could anyone please tell me exactly what a "BULLSHARK" is and any info on them if you know please..

I was fishing here about 2 weeks ago in the local river{Shoalhaven River}here in Nowra and i seen a shark,everyone says to me it could be a "Bullshark",ive never heard of a bullshark before..

Any info be very much appreciated..

Thanx everyone..

Craig :wave:
:cheers:
Posted by: seaweed

Re: sharks - 27/11/2003 22:51

Hi Craig,
I don't know what a bull shark is but when I went diving around Bega about 2 years ago I saw a lot of Bull Rays around the jetty. Is that what they mean?? ( A bull ray looks like a standard sting ray but are around the same size as a manta, about 2-4 metres across the fins depending on age)
:cheers:
Posted by: Fine Elsewhere

Re: sharks - 28/11/2003 03:00

Hi Craig & Seaweed, i've just looked up my fish book, which tells me theres about 250 species of sharks in the world, of which about half are in Australian waters - there are families of sharks mentioned, but did not name all 250 names & no sign of a bullshark - my fishing mate has a better book than me, so i'll get him to look it up - i rang him tonite, but he has also got sick of this weather with his farming & headed off to his beach shack for a few days fishing - lucky devil, its getting a bit too close to school hols for me to take a few days off unfortunately!
:wave: FE
Posted by: thermalben

Re: sharks - 28/11/2003 11:02

Bullsharks are common in the Gold Coast canals - they've been responsible for a couple of fatalaties up here in recent years.

To quote the QLD DPI :
Quote:
It is believed that this shark has made more attacks on humans than the white pointer or the tiger shark eek . Due to its ability to tolerate low-salinity waters, the bull whaler can be found far up rivers, and has been recorded hundreds, sometimes thousands, of kilometres up rivers in other parts of the world
More info here , with a story from Catalyst here too.
Posted by: pingtang

Re: sharks - 28/11/2003 11:57

Very interesting.A few years ago,I read a book about shark attacks in Australia.I noticed that many of the attacks were from Bullsharks,with some being fatal as Ben said.I think there may have been a fatal attack in the Georges River(Sydney)a long time ago.
Posted by: terrified

Re: sharks - 28/11/2003 22:55

Gday to all;

I very much appreciate your posts..

I was telling a few friends in which are water -skiers and water ski on the Shoalhaven River,they said they will be taking extreme care and they also will find this info very interesting too..

So many thanx to all,i appreciate it very much.. :wave:
:cheers:
Posted by: (sic)

Re: sharks - 15/05/2004 00:27

Hello there, thought I would take it upon myself to educate you slightly on the Carcharhinus Leucas or Bull Shark as it is commonly known.
The Bull Shark has also been called the River Shark, Freshwater Whaler, Estuary Whaler and Swan River Whaler. It can be found from WA and around the northern coastline down the east coast to NSW.
It is the only species of shark that is known to spend extended periods of time in fresh water also.
A combination of different things make it easily recognisable such as the greyish heavy body, second dorsal fin, small eyes, short blunt snout and triangular serrated teeth. laugh
Bull sharks are considered dangerous to humans -even more so than the Great White and are often found in water less than 30 feet deep!
They are estimated to live to 24 yrs and can grow up to 3.4m - 11 ft... eek
Bull shark flesh is consumed by humans and the skin is often used as leather.
There you go, a brief run down on the little blighters, any other sharks you need to know about... Im your informant wink
Posted by: Spiceman

Re: sharks - 15/05/2004 01:07

I was about to say similar. A 70 year old died last year from an attack in Gold Coast canal. More people die around the world from bull sharks than from any other shark. It has been found up to 2800 km up the Mississippi River in the USA and 4000 km up the Amazon River in Peru. It has been found in Lake Nicaragua (Central America) and the Zambezi River (Africa).

Without doubt it is the deadliest shark in the world as far as humans are concerned and loves rivers and estuaries and breeds in river mouths. I suspect it was one of these suckers I saw while surfing in the Maroochy river mouth about 3 years ago. Anyway it was a big shark about 6-8 ft long and looked a lot like the pics I've seen of bulls. Didn't hang in the water too long to find out for sure though.

It is a bloody versatile shark and "Until very recently, researchers thought the sharks in Lake Nicaragua were a separate species because there was no way for the sharks to move in or out. It was discovered that they were jumping along the rapids just like Salmon. Bull Sharks tagged inside the lake were later caught in the open ocean." Buggers......
Posted by: Spiceman

Re: sharks - 15/05/2004 01:22

Quote:
On July 6, as 8-year-old Jessie Arbogast waded in about 2 feet of water along Florida's Gulf Islands National Seashore, a 7-foot-long bull shark ambushed him, tearing off his right arm and a chunk of his right leg. The attack came so near to shore that Jessie's uncle and another beachgoer were able to grab the shark and drag it onto land where park rangers shot it, pried its mouth open, and retrieved the severed arm. The boy almost bled to death and lapsed into a coma. Surgeons reattached the limb, and though Jessie is showing signs of coming to, doctors say it's too soon to know if he'll make a full recovery.

Earlier that day, just a few miles away, I was standing on the dock of my family's house contemplating a swim. I can't claim a premonition, but something made me hesitate. Call it a flash of anxiety. A thought of how the once benign waters of the Florida Panhandle have seemed a little less inviting this past year. Last summer, not far from the scene of the Arbogast attack, a bull shark ripped the swimming platform off a 22-foot speed boat. The same week, bull sharks mauled a group of triathletes as they trained 15 miles down the coast. Chuck Anderson, a 44-year-old school assistant principal, lost his right hand and much of his arm and barely made it to shore as the sharks trailed him. Less than two months later Thadeus Kubinski, a retired businessman living near Tampa Bay, was attacked by a bull shark when he jumped off his backyard dock into five feet of water. His stunned wife ran to call 911. Kubinski died before help arrived. As I finished this story, the Associated Press reports that a man surfing just down the beach from the scene of the Arbogast attack was bitten while sitting on his board. He was taken to the same hospital, but his condition did not appear serious. The culprit wasn't identified, but the attack fit the bull shark's MO.

Posted by: percy_04

Re: sharks - 22/05/2004 19:28

i recently had a shark experience, with a WHITE POINTER
Posted by: Fine Elsewhere

Re: sharks - 23/05/2004 00:11

Hi All, ah Sic now you have saved me from thinking my memory was gone !!! yes i know about Freshwater & Swan River Whalers (i didn't know it as a Bullshark)- yes a few have been caught in the Swan River over the years, 1 in particular figured in a Crime war in Perth years ago when a mob threw a victim in the river thinking the body would not be found, but then the fishermen pulled in a Swan River Whalers with quite a few human bits still intact in it!!!
Now Percy you can't possibly post up a one liner saying you had an "experience" with a White Pointer - this is a fishing thread for heaven sake !!!!! - you HAVE to tell us about it????
For a while we had the world record for a White Pointer caught by a World Champion Game fisherman named Green hook a big one off Albany back when the Whaling Station was working in the 1970's The big whites used to follow the Whales up as they were towed up from the Southern Ocean. I saw it when it was landed, it was huge around the middle and from memory was about 15ft long - i'll keep my eye out in my office & might find the photo i took. i've caught a few sharks over the year, the biggest was unintentional when a 9ft 6in bronze whaler got tangled in my fishing net one night. When we lifted him up he had rolled 60 meters of net around him - i thought he was dead until his nose came out of the water and he was very much alive and with one swish of his tail took all the front windscreen off my mates new boat and got his teeth stuck in an oar - great excitement for a few minutes!!! Today when i catch sharks i mostly release then - poor things are getting hammered by shark fisherman & that rotten mob who catch them & cut their fins off mad gets me really upset.
Anyway no fishing for me for last few weeks as its been too rough, but got one of my best ever catches of King George whiting just over a month ago.
:wave: FE
Posted by: percy_04

Re: sharks - 24/05/2004 16:23

ok, ok. it was exactly this weekend last year and my dad went for a dive and i sat on the shore and watched. I saw my dad surface to get his bearings then he submerged again, but anout 30 seconds later i saw this huge white pointer on the surface in the same spot i last saw my dad, i nearly S#@t myself, but lukily five minutes later i saw a seal and i thought he was safe again, which he was.
Posted by: bigwilly

Re: sharks - 05/07/2004 17:45

Hey Guys,

I haven't been fishing for ages, must get down to the coast again soon with a rod and reel.
Anyway. My uncle, a bit of a renogade hippy lives up the NSW N coast, near Casino I think, and he's a pretty avid surfer. One day as he was sitting on his board waiting for a set, he noticed his shadow below him but didn't take much notice, until it started moving while he wasn't lol.
He leant down to block out the glare, and sh@t himself as he made out the pec fins of a grey nurse he thinks it was. He bolted, understandably and made it back it into shore without any contact with the shark.
When he was telling us this story, he said that at first he thought he was dreaming, but had been off week for years and couldn't understand why he was having these halucinations lol.

:cheers: Will

Blue Mountains Photography
Posted by: ctr001

Re: sharks - 07/07/2004 10:42

grey nurse = harmless. Seen them plenty of times on the mid north coast of NSW.

Also, the georges river has seen 10 recorded attacks of the 12 total for the sydney regions eastuaries. Plenty of sharks there.
Posted by: Deeman

Re: sharks - 08/08/2004 22:44

The Grey Nurse isn't a threat. Went diving with them at Julian Rocks off Byron in May. wink

I did have a bad experience last December surfing at Phillip Island. Two of us were out at Magiclands (near Woolami) sitting out the back when a 6-8ft Bronze Whaler surfaced about 10m directly behind me heading in our direction. My mate said "get your feet up" because it slowly submerged as it got closer. I think I kicked my legs in a mad panic to get moving and it was startled or something and it just went under us and didn't attack. eek
I can tell you that you go from thinking you're in the best place on earth to suddenly thinking it is going to be your last moment on earth. We paddled our guts out (typically there was a lull) for what seemed forever until the shorey picked us up. That's when we noticed the Westpac plane doing circles & dives right where we were.
It hasn't put me off, that's my first encounter surfing like that in over 25 years and you take more of a risk evey time you climb into the car..... cool
Posted by: Mudfreak

Re: sharks - 29/01/2011 23:09

Wobbeygongs arnt a risk either grin
Posted by: Krissyistormy

Re: sharks - 30/01/2011 00:11

Im a shark fanatic, i can name just about every species of shark there is

A. Because they are facinating
B. Because they scare the absolute bejesus out of me.

The grey nurse, wobbeygong lol, and whale shark are 3 of the most placid sharks there are, the grey nurse is often mistaken as a fierce predator because of its size and teeth, in actual fact they do not attack unless provoked or scared, theres a school of them at Hyams Beach at Jervis Bay, they swim around along with pods of dolphins, they dont worry me and it was one of my favourite swimming areas.

The Bullshark is responsible for more deaths than any other shark, its a pack shark and has a tendency to play an "alpha" type role due to having too much testosterone making it more aggressive, the bullshark will attack unprevoked, for the thrill, the kill and to eat. They are often found in fresh water and inlets more so than any other waters and go up river to have their young, they have been found as far inland up to 120kms. The movie jaws was based on the Jersey shark attacks which is believed to have been from a bullshark as the inlet was fresh water, but theres nothing scarier than a great white to knock your socks off. Alot of deaths go unreported in India as their cannals are full of these monsters who prey on their human supply, to the bullshark we are a food source.

The most deadliest sharks in the world are

Bullshark
Tiger shark
Mako Shark (the cheetah of the shark world being able to launch itself at 50mph and jump over 9 meters in the air)
Great White Shark
Reef Shark
White tip Shark
Hammer head shark
Lemon Shark
Blue Shark

Below is a picture up close and personal with a bullshark
Posted by: lightning chaser

Re: sharks - 30/01/2011 23:28

Originally Posted By: Krissyistormy

the grey nurse is often mistaken as a fierce predator because of its size and teeth, in actual fact they do not attack unless provoked or scared, theres a school of them at Hyams Beach at Jervis Bay, they swim around along with pods of dolphins, they dont worry me and it was one of my favourite swimming areas.
The most deadliest sharks in the world are
Bullshark
Tiger shark
Mako Shark (the cheetah of the shark world being able to launch itself at 50mph and jump over 9 meters in the air)
Great White Shark
Reef Shark
White tip Shark
Hammer head shark
Lemon Shark
Blue Shark


Hi Krissy,

Have you personally seen those sharks you refer to as grey nurses at hyams beach? in my several sightings of grey nurse sharks while spear fishing i have never seen them in water less than 10m deep or more than about 2 metres of the bottom, meaning they are extremely unlikely to be seen from a beach or by a swimmer in general(sharks seen from a southern nsw beach are generally bronze whalers or hammerheads). also grey nurse sharks are quite uncommon so there are only a few places in nsw to see a "school" of them - magic point at cronulla and fish rock/julian rocks in northern nsw are the well known ones.

you have some good points there though it does sound as though you have been misinformed on some of the sharks listed. i agree with bull sharks and tigers as the two most frequent attackers however i would place great whites at no. 3. While makos and blue sharks are fast and have large teeth, they primarily live in the open ocean so present little danger to swimmers. Lemon sharks are completely harmless, while the only danger reef sharks pose is a bite on the hand if feeding them. Large hammerhead sharks are certainly dangerous, they have been known to be very persistent in aggressive behaviour towards spear fishermen. The only hammerhead shark i have seen in the water was about 1.5 metres long and was scared of me so was clearly not a threat at that size.

the only time i have ever been in a dangerous situation with a shark was one night when i was fishing with a friend out of a 16 foot boat. Hoping to catch either snapper or smaller sharks we had suspended some kingfish frames off the back of the boat, and were also pouring tuna oil into the water. Eventually what looked like a submarine swam just under the boat, it was an enormous tiger shark about the same size as the boat - luckily it did not ram or bite the boat or we would have been in real trouble!

if you get the chance to do some snorkelling or scuba diving it will greatly increase your knowledge of shark species and their habits, and you will come to realise that 99% of the sharks just want a feed of fish and are really not interested in removing your leg wink
Posted by: Krissyistormy

Re: sharks - 31/01/2011 08:47

Hi hun

Yes indeed i have seen them in that area, im not your regular beach goer, I like to know whats below me and have been known to use a snorkel on many occassions, they also used to take tourists there as well. The last time i went in at Hyams was back in 2003 so perhaps the school has moved on I wouldnt know at this point in time. Seen some amazing creatures in the bay, especially on the rocks at the bottom of the cliff face below the old lighthouse.

I should have pointed out that the list i made was just a general list and not a given of which species is the most likely to eat you haha.

Ive heard the stories about the trollers/fishing boats being circled by monsters, i would crap myself if that ever happened to me. My great grandfather had trollers my nan always used to tell me about the time they harpooned a great white that was bigger than the "25 foot" boat, pops that saying out of jaws into my head "we need a bigger boat" They used to launch from Tassie in the colder waters and I guess back then before everyone went on a Kill all Great Whites crusade they did get to grow old
Posted by: lightning chaser

Re: sharks - 31/01/2011 09:30

yes there's some great diving around point perpindicular, i've seen lots of kingfish there and one of my dive buddies saw a marlin there once. you certainly don't have to swim far from the cliffs before it drops into some very deep water (20 metres plus about 50 metres out from the cliff). The 2 places i have seen grey nurse sharks were near currarong just to the north of jervis bay, the largest one i have seen was around 3 metres long and for a brief moment i thought it could have been a great white (similar profile when viewed from above) until i noticed the second large dorsal fin and the brown spots on it's skin. I would certainly rate that as one of the best experiences of my 15 years of diving but wish i had a camera with me.

and yes after that run in with the tiger shark it felt like we were fishing off a bodyboard lol eek
Posted by: Mrs Doc

Re: sharks - 01/02/2011 12:05

There's a great book called Shark! Killer Tales From the Dangerous Depths by Robert Reid, ISBN 978-1-74175-902-0 which is a relatively new release and contains information on Shark Attacks around Australia with very good and accurate descriptions of sharks, both dangerous and harmless. There's another book called Shark, In Peril In the Sea by David Owen which is a more scientific catalogue of sharks.

The Bull Shark is the 3rd most dangerous shark found in Australian waters. Partly, as stated earlier, because it can live in fresh water for extended periods. It is responsible for probably the highest number of shark attacks out of all the predators (1st most dangerous istThe Great White and 2nd is the Tiger Shark). Dr John Stevens from the CSIRO says of Bull Sharks, "It is a very dangerous shark, perhaps even more so than the Tiger Shark and White Shark because of its extremely aggressive nature, powerful jaws, broad diet, abundance, and its preference for shallow, murky inshore habitats". (from his book Sharks and Rays of Australia)

A Bull Shark is believed responsible for the last fatality recorded in Sydney Harbour, 28/01/63, actress Marcia Hathaway was attacked off a small beach in the Harbour while with friends looking for oysters.

Several people were attacked in and around Gold Coast canals during a particular few months recently and some lost their lives because of the Bull Sharks that inhabit the area.

The Bull Shark is an entirely frightening animal, there is, almost beyond belief, what's called a "shark Listening Station" in a Northern NSW town called Tabulam. It's approx 100km from the coast. The Clarence River runs in from Yamba-Iluka and the sharks hang around Nymboida and Tabulam. Scientists have electronically tagged the known sharks in the river and use the listening stations to monitor their movements. There are lots of listening stations around rivers and estuaries up and down the east coast.

Read this article for more info...
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/na...r-1225961188123

I have always been fascinated by Sharks. I also have a very healthy fear of them and don't particularly enjoy swimming in water potentially inhabited by sharks. I just don't want to be eaten alive. If I go to the beach I will only enter water when I can see the bottom and don't go in more than knee deep in some cases.

btw, on the subject of Wobbegongs and "harmless" sharks. There are certainly recorded attacks precipitated by these sharks. Particularly Wobbegongs. Funnily enough, they are one of the most common to bite people, mostly because they get stepped on or picked up. There is a story in the Robert Reid Shark book about a guy who was surfing I think and attacked by a Wobbegong which latched onto his leg and would -not- let go. He walked along the beach for a couple hundred metres til he arrived at a surf club, the staff there were astonished to see the shark still hanging off his leg. They couldn't get it to open its jaws at all so they stuck a hose down its mouth, not liking the fresh water, it let go and the surfer promptly drove himself to hospital!

Sharks are very interesting creatures!!
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 04/02/2011 20:46

I and an unknown number of other banana benders/QLDer`s enjoy the odd bit of smaller river flake,called the bull shark.
below is my understanding of the "bullie"

Bull Sharks

. The Great White, The Tiger Shark and the Bull Shark are the sharks commonly quoted as being the most dangerous sharks. The Bull Shark is said to be the less aggressive of the three, but the Bull Shark’s environment has it living/roaming in areas close to populated shoreline areas making it extremely dangerous to humans.It has a number of different names both in Australia and around the world and so people think they are a different species of shark.

Coloured grey (to a pale brownish) above and off white underneath. The Bull Shark has small eyes and very powerful jaws. The upper teeth are broad, serrated and triangular, while the lower jaw has more pointed teeth.

They have a large triangular dorsal fin and a medium large second dorsal fin.The first dorsal fin is more pointed than the second.

The Bull Shark is heavy bodied with a short nose. The shark is wider in comparison to its length than most other sharks of comparable length. They grow to about 3.5 metres and 230 kg.

Known by the scientific name Carcharhinus leucas, in Australia,the Bull shark can be known as an Estuary Whaler, River Shark, Freshwater Whaler,as well as a number of local names eg:Swan River Whaler.
Note that many of the Bull Shark s` local names include the words estuary and river.

Bull Sharks tend to stay close to shore and frequent estuaries, rivers and lakes. One of the most distinctive features of the Bull Shark is the ability to live in fresh or salt water

The Bull Shark is found in most Australian water systems including Brisbane and Bremer Rivers,Mary and Burnett Rivers,Fitzroy and Herbert Rivers in Qld, Swan River WA, Clarence River and other NSW rivers, Daly River and other NT rivers.Many “shark experts”believe that the Bull Shark is responsible for most of the attacks that have occurred in and around Sydney Harbour .

The Bull Shark is certainly related to the whaler family and is commonly confused with the Bronze Whaler.

The shark favours murky water for hunting. The sharks diet includes fish, sharks, turtles,dolphins,sting rays, birds, and even swimming dogs have been included in its menu.

So the Bull Shark is just :a common, aggressive, meat eating(usually white but will partake in red if offered)reasonably large sized shark that frequents the shallow coastal waters, river mouths, estuaries, harbours and rivers,around almost, the entire Australian coastline.
Most keen fishermen/women are aware of this shark in the water ways, others are not as aware of these silent lurkers.

Many anglers in Qld do fish for them,the legal keep size in Qld is 1.5metres or less with a limit of 1 shark per person.

Bull Sharks are a really good reason to Not swim in river mouths,and murky waters.
Posted by: WelloMeteo

Re: sharks - 05/02/2011 10:38

This site describes various accounts of a bull shark attack that occurred on Stradbroke Island in 2006 at Amity Point. I was there that day, and remember it well. That same week, I was in waist deep water (at a different part of the beach) with a number of people and saw a shadow about 100m to my left near the shore. I got out of the water to look and saw it was a large bull shark swimming in thigh deep water. This was in the middle of the day in clear water. I got everyone out of the water as calmly as I could, and it continued to cruise up and down - but just goes to show they aren't always the aggressive monsters they are portrayed to be - it could have attacked any one of us and we wouldn't have stood a chance.
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 05/02/2011 12:56

when areas of Ipswich and Brisbane were flooded in January this year,the flooded waters of the Brisbane River engulfed large parts of the Ipswich suburb of Goodna.
The Ipswich motorway (to Brisbane)in that area was covered in many metres of water bull sharks were seen(confirmed reports)swimming in the motor way waters.

A Goodna member of a fishing online site I use actually had a bullie swimming in swollen waters in his yard(confirmed report.

In January/February each year schools of bait fish travel up the coast and go past the Gold Coast area and go into areas of Moreton Bay,these schools are attacked as they travel along the coast by packs of bullies,whalers and I would guess the odd tiger shark.
This scene goes on,sometimes only a few hundred metres,off the Gold Coast beach`s.

Each year this event is covered on the regional TV news.

This year,so far there has not been any mention of this event occuring,so I am wondering if the massive flooding of SEQ and parts of northern NSW has affected the usual migration of these bait fish schools.Time will tell
Posted by: SBT

Re: sharks - 07/02/2011 12:56

I do a lot of fishing around Havanah Island, part of the Palm Island group, yeah i know, tough job but somebody has to do it. 3 of us where fishing off the beach on the north western point of the island when several giant trevally of around 6kg beached themselves like a bait school being chased by something huge. Grabbed a couple before they could get back into the water and then saw a fin I estimated to be just under a metre high followed by the huge head of a hammerhead almost breaching out of the water. Almost crapped myself as it was less than 20 metres off shore. We don't nowmally go swimming over there due to various large beasties but that one put us off ever going back into the water. Plenty of cranky tiger sharks around as well and they do grow very big. About 10 years ago we got shadowed by one while in 14 foot barra punt fishing about 3 klm off shore at the Paluma Shoals. It was longer than the boat.

I grew up in PNG and started diving on teh reefs off Port Moresby/Taurama Barracks as a 9 year old with the native kids and didn't have a fear of sharks. The other kids were not scared of teh reefies or tigers but we all left the water when being investigated by sea snakes. lol
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 11/02/2011 07:44

Some awesome photos in the Daily Telegraph today & a lucky escape for a photographer.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/ns...i-1226004017898
Posted by: lightning chaser

Re: sharks - 11/02/2011 09:52

i wouldn't consider that photographer to be taking a big risk photographing that mako shark, the water is crystal clear and the shark is already feeding on an easy meal. If the guys in the boat wanted to be a smartass they could have lifted the marlin onboard before the shark got a bite, then things could have got interesting hehe
Posted by: malcom

Re: sharks - 03/06/2011 19:06

What is the difference between a bull shark and reef shark or any other?
Posted by: Big_Pete

Re: sharks - 04/06/2011 14:35

A bull shark has a more distinctive curve at the the end of its tail compared to a reef shark. Otherwise they look pretty much the same, I reckon. smile
Posted by: ozthunder

Re: sharks - 05/06/2011 15:42

Surfed the shallows last Monday, it was small but very 'fishy'. Later I was told that there was a 14ft tiger shark out the day before, supposedly verified by some fishermen in a bost as well.
Posted by: soda

Re: sharks - 06/06/2011 17:07

Now sharks targetting golfers!

http://www.carbrookgolfclub.com.au/default2.asp?page=sharks

I'm tipping the kids aren't getting balls outta this lake.

Posted by: MC Thomas

Re: sharks - 06/06/2011 20:14

That is very cool! And I used to dislike the eels when seaching for golfballs!

I have always liked sharks. I caught (and released) a shark this summer for the first time. Only a small one but on 6 lb line it really gave me a hard time.
Posted by: stormymick

Re: sharks - 07/06/2011 08:16

a baby grey it will die soon as theres no fresh saltwater entering the lake
Posted by: Simmah

Re: sharks - 09/06/2011 19:05

Stormy, I've been doing some "research" aka googling and youtubing, and it seems that the shark is actually sharks, and they have been there for a number of years, since the early 90's apparently, when that area was under water for a number of weeks after flooding. And looking at the numerous videos it/they appear to be Bull Sharks, which don't need salt water to survive.

I believe near map may have caught it in a recent pass over the area, http://tinyurl.com/3h8kcjf (nothing like that in that area on previous images)

and they've also opened up a small channel between the 2 lakes (compare to previous images) where another small object can be seen in the smaller lake.
http://tinyurl.com/3us4xaj (again, nothing in the previous images in that area)

And as for a food sources, well apparently the lake is very healthy and they hold annual fishing comps on the lake.

Quite a few clips on youtube, like http://youtu.be/n9mzz_vJgPQ

Simon
Posted by: Big_Pete

Re: sharks - 14/06/2011 22:26

I wonder what it would be like to punch a shark on the nose . . . laugh
Just kidding, I respect sharks. Leave them alone and they'll leave you alone. smile
Posted by: Sara B

Re: sharks - 17/07/2011 14:55

Other than morphological differences... the bull shark and reef shark differ in their niche habitat requirements, ecology & behaviour.

Bull sharks will forage well inshore up creeks, rivers, in mangrove habitats and will take whatever prey they can- given the opportunity. Their territory & ecological niche has a significant overlap with the urban /human environments and thus they represent more of a risk /hazard to waterloving humans. They are highly territorial and will attack any other large competitor. They are highly opportunistic- having all the tools required to take large prey. Humans definately trigger their prey stimulus - so we are on their menu as a food. They spend a lot of time in shallow in-shore waters and waterways. Land-use changes (urbanisation) are probably exerting a big influence on the evolution of Bullsharks - just think that here in Australia at least - Bullshark habitat remained virtually unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years and that in the last 300 or so years we have dramatically changed the face of the coastline & inshore areas.

The reef shark occupies a slightly different niche environment that provides less overlap with human environments (rocky reefs near swimming beaches or other reef habitat closer to the inshore /beach areas). For example the Blacktip reef sharks (C. melanopterus) are highly territorial and will patrol their reef and will show site fidelity (returning to the same 'home' ranges). They will hunt in packs and also alone, whereas in comparison the bullshark is a solitary hunter. Reef sharks might spend a lot of time in-shore- occupying sandy ledges, rocky reefs and will also spend time in deeper waters around reef edges & drop-offs. They spend less time in urban waterways or entering brackish waters than the Bullshark. Humans are not their target prey and generally these sharks are considered harmless unless feeding or provoked.

I expect that the mode of attack would be very different too - (any experts should correct me If I am wrong to think) a Blacktip reef shark will make it's presence known first, being a skittish, nervous sort of shark, it will suss you right out, circle you and show obvious signs of aggression such as jerky, bucking, tailwhipping action before attacking... Just as with a dangerous dog you should not turn your back to it as it circles but maintain eye contact - thats if you are scuba diving.

whereas a Bullshark will ambush you, come in hard & fast for a bite- WHAM -you won't know what even happened (similar technique to a Great White) you would take a massive hit and then hopefully it would spit you back out...
Posted by: sang

Re: sharks - 01/09/2011 01:17

i had tis same experience before a year..its dangerous..



regards,

siberian husky puppies for sale | beagle puppies for sale | golden retriever puppies for sale | bullmastiff for sale | chihuahua for sale | french mastiff puppies for sale
Posted by: Sandfly

Re: sharks - 01/09/2011 15:07

Originally Posted By: chunkyluxtrax
I expect that the mode of attack would be very different too - (any experts should correct me If I am wrong to think) a Blacktip reef shark will make it's presence known first, being a skittish, nervous sort of shark, it will suss you right out, circle you and show obvious signs of aggression such as jerky, bucking, tailwhipping action before attacking... Just as with a dangerous dog you should not turn your back to it as it circles but maintain eye contact - thats if you are scuba diving.

whereas a Bullshark will ambush you, come in hard & fast for a bite- WHAM -you won't know what even happened (similar technique to a Great White) you would take a massive hit and then hopefully it would spit you back out...


I think you observations may have more to do with the enivronment, the clarity of the water than actual attack style.

I have spent many years fishing in creeks and rivers for bull sharks and I can tell you that they are a very cautions and shy predator.
Posted by: Sara B

Re: sharks - 23/10/2011 11:31

Yesterdays fatality due to shark attack has some of the less informed populace calling for a shark cull off WA.
It seems that this is mankinds answer to almost every 'wildlife conflict' But will not reduce the potential risk to divers, surfers or anyone that chooses to swim in the ocean. Sharks live in the ocean and perform important functions maintaining ecosystem balance - clearing the ocean of dead animals, picking off the sickly and weak individuals in marine animal populations etc. On the rare occasion a human is attacked and more tragically this ends in fatality. Why is it such a difficult reality for humans to face up to? Sharks live in the ocean and can be extremely dangerous predators. When you snorkel, scuba dive, surf, spearfish or do anything else in 'their habitat' you place yourself at risk! Culling is just a way to appease fear in the minds of the ignorant - it will not reduce your risk if you choose to enter the ocean.
As for nets and baited hooks - their whole purpose is to reduce shark numbers. Sharks swim around or under nets and some will have learnt how to take bait from the hooks without being hooked. I have seen this with my own eyes (using binoculars of course) as I live on the headland... often have observed medium sized sharks coming inshore to the baited hook /drum line just after it has been baited (by the guy in the tinny). Following a bit of a commotion and movement (drumline and buoy bobs up and down a bit) the shark then swims off back out to sea. Thankfully we do not have nets on our beaches as yet.
Posted by: SBT

Re: sharks - 24/10/2011 13:27

If you dress like a seal, act like a seal and get eaten by a shark who thinks your a seal how the hell can it be the sharks fault?

If you want a safe sport take up tissue paper folding.

If you want to dive you must be prepared for the risks of diving.

Hunting down and killing the shark isn't the answer.

Who is to say they get the right shark or should they just kill every shark in sight in the vain hope that they get the right one?

It could be a couple of hundred kilometers away by now anyhow ahnd taking revenge on an animal just because it obeys it's instinct to feed isn't going to help anyone now is it?.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 24/10/2011 15:33

Originally Posted By: Sir BoabTree
If you dress like a seal, act like a seal and get eaten by a shark who thinks your a seal how the hell can it be the sharks fault?


Yeah look I have to agree with you SBT. Black wetsuits are not helping your chances. A shark patrolling 500metres offshore within 5-6kms of a seal haul out area would be on the look out for a ambush attempt on a seal looking object. This poor fella just happenend to be in the wrong spot. A Great white hitting at high speed is always going to be damaging as that is what they are designed to do.

If I was a commercial wetsuit manufacturer I would be doing some research into shark's colour preferences. A bright yellow wetsuit vs a black one although surfers and divers may not like it would definately decrease the likely hood of an attack purely out of the fact that a big yellow object is not normally on their menu.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 24/10/2011 15:40

To follow up on my previous post. A good kayaking friend of mine here in Broome who has been kayaking fishing for the last 25 years was attacked by a big tiger shark in his early days. His kayak was a green/silver colour and he put the attack down to the shark thinking his kayak was a large marine animal/fish etc. He still has the kayak in his back yard with the teeth marks and all. The bite was across the front metre of his kayak as if the shark was going for the head of the animal.

He has been using a yellow plastic kayak for years now and he says he has never had any bad encounters and he puts it down to the shark not being interested in a big yellow object. The sharks no doubt are still interested in his fish which he catches though just he feels safer with the bright colour of his boat now.

We have been kayaking the waters here in Broome commercially for 10 years on a daily basis with big yellow boats and have never had an issue with sharks either (touch wood) and from all accounts from fisherman there are hundreds out there.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 24/10/2011 15:53

WA does have an issue on its hands I have to agree. I have swam and paddled a kayak in close proximity to all of of the sites of Attacks over the last decade in WA. Margaret river area X 2 fatal attacks, Bunker bay/dunsborough X 1, Cottesloe X 2, Safety Bay X 1, Abrolhos Island X 1 and now Rottnest Island X 1. They are all areas where the general public and tourist visitor are swimming on a regular basis and its not nice to see people getting eaten by sharks. Prior to these attacks in WA there was a period of many years with no fatal attacks in WA so why in the last 10 years has there been so many?

I'm just glad that my application to run kayaking tours on Rottnest this summer was rejected by the Rottnest Island Authority otherwise we would have been setting up our operations down there this week.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 24/10/2011 16:10

6 out of 8 of those attacks the people were all wearing a black wetsuit. 8 out of 8 attacks were in in near vicinity and feeding grounds of either Australian sealions and NZ fur seals and there haul out areas. Most attacks were probably mistaken identity from the Great White. Like I say. If you wear a black wet suit in the southern waters of Australia your fair game to a big shark. Buy a yellow one. Pink one if you really need to. lol. Just dont look like a seal.

Anyway enough ranting on. Sharks play a significant role in my interests and previous work so it gives me the shivers thinking these attacks are happening so regularly. I honestly think WA is not out of the news yet on this topic. It wouldn't surprise me if there were a few more this season. It just seems like its on a role and there will be more bad publicity for WA and for visiting and swimming off our beautiful beaches.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 24/10/2011 19:17

It would be an interesting exercise to see how many of those attacks also happened during the humpback whale migration Popeye, specifically the later half of it when they're making their way back down the coast with new calves. Certainly these last three recent ones fit that time frame, and with another couple of months still to go, I tend to agree with your final remarks.

Another point worth considering is the increased pressure on fish stocks by humans - just maybe the sharks are starting to get a lot hungrier than they have ever been before. Fishing comps, commercial catches, an exploding amateur fleet, commonwealth netting practices out deep - it all has to affect the balance.

Hmm, another thought that comes to mind is that most shark attack victims get bitten and spat out, not eaten - my theory for that is because most people's personal care products and diets include some pretty unnatural stuff (eg, medications and vaccinations; aluminium antiperspirants; a cocktail of muck in sunscreens; chemical preservatives, colourings and "flavours" in food; alcohol; maccas..) which surely wouldn't be all that agreeable to a shark. I imagine most humans would be a pretty toxic tasting mouthful once the blood starts flowing. That might be another interesting study to undertake - what is the typical diet of the bitten but spat out victims, and what was the typical diet of the eaten ones.
Posted by: Sara B

Re: sharks - 24/10/2011 19:44

Popeye, it sounds like you operate in the thick of shark infested waters (lol- just sensationalising) cool but no seriously, do you see many sharks around, would it be seasonal? Have you had any encounters, particularly of late? In your opinion, based on your observations, is shark behaviour /population changing or do you think increased visitation/ use of marine areas by increasing numbers of humans is a factor?

Originally Posted By: Popeye
6 out of 8 of those attacks the people were all wearing a black wetsuit.
Sounds like you are onto something and I agree that wetsuit manufacturers should be looking into shark 'repellent' designs - there is definately a market out there for them!

I agree with the mistaken identity theory. Spearfishermen in particular should take care (for obvious reasons - sharks powerful sense of smell, lateral line system means it can sense struggling, stressed creature from miles away... and all the other attributes that make sharks a formidable predator in their habitat).

Interested to hear whether people think shark attacks can be prevented using means other than culling? Do you suppose that an education campaign would help?
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 24/10/2011 20:41

Hey Chunky and Jax. In 10 years of operating kayaking tours in Broome I have mainly seen hammerheads 8-12ft. Most have been in full chase on stingrays in the shallows. Its a pretty amazing sight to see. They have huge dorsal fins that are sickle shaped and are sleek through the water. Got circled by something big a few years ago up the peninsula north of Broome maybe big Tiger shark. He was just curious and came within 1-2 metres of the kayak. Our kayak was 5 metres and he went close to the length of the boat. That had me rushing a bit.

We used to operate kayaking tours down in Perth at Penguin and Seal Islands near Rockingham and within a few KMS of where that Saftey Bay guy got taken a few years ago. As the name of the place says theres heaps of animal life in the waters but never saw any sharks there in 6 years of operating on the islands. I have to admit operating in the Great white territory had me more nervous compared to the tropics of Broome which I feel pretty safe on the water. Great whites are just the ultimate in predatory animals and deserve the respect.

Once back in Tassie back in 99 we were on a 5 day kayaking trip down in Freycinet peninsula with a company down there and they had a big white sighted by a tourist boat and the photos from the boat had us in the background. That freaked me out a bit.

We get heaps of smaller shark sightings but just little 1m reefsharks that are fun to watch. Wet season tends to get more sightings as the waters are warmer and they seem to come into the shallows more.

Stuart Trueman who just kayaked around Australia finishing in Broome in July said he only encountered bumps etc when in really murky waters. Didn't have any sightings across the southern Ocean but was on his mind a fair bit especially around the neptune islands etc off SA. Bloody amazing trip that would have been.

I honestly think sharks are evolving to suit their rapidly changing environments and food supplies. Humans are also evolving to become water lovers with more and more water sports and activities available, more people participating and an ever increasing coastal population especially in WA. Combine the two and it is understandable that more people are being taken.

Anyway another long rant. I might have to focus my thoughts now on that CROC sign down on the beach I just saw an hour ago. MMMMMMMMM lol.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 24/10/2011 21:12

As tragic as it is(and I would not wish it on anyone), what is an average of 1-2fatal attacks per year.Are we going to cut down all the trees because a few people get killed when they fall down. And god forbid the road toll. It seems ironic that we don't care about somethng being extremely dangerous as long as it seems conveniant to ignore it but if something can be sensationalised and the average joe is nnever affacted by the culprit then it is all about Kill, Kill, Kill. Sharks operate on instinct. We are supposed to be smart. If you don't want to be eaten by a shark, don't go in the water. It's as simple as that. If you choose to go in, you choose to take the risk. KNOWINGLY!
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 24/10/2011 22:19

From memory ( excluding Abroholos Islands attack May or June ? ) most of the GW attacks have happened between Aug-Nov . And to shorten that , mid to late sept through to mid October really stands out . I don't need to look it up they stand out in my life as reminders for caution , but if interested please do and correct me if I'm wrong . I too like Popeye , have hung around many of the attack sites for many a unnerving time , but with a lot less protection ( surfer ) .
I can say that people i've shared time with in a close knit community of ocean lovers ( surfers, divers , fisho's , and the like ) have shared many a haunting story around fires or at sunset on boat trips . Nearly all don't let it affect them , and even most fisho's are against flat out culling . It seems its joe Bloggs that already has a fear for them and maybe goes to the beach for a swim 3 times a year is the one bayying for Blood .
I can also see a direct corellation between a recovering whale / seal population proliferation , and the number of people in the water . As for black wetsuits , in places you really need them East of Augusta , and Sth + West of Ulladulla , I can tell you this is where most suits are designed for . Especially for surface dwellers ( the people most at risk ) , the need for black is purely a warmth thing as any sunlight helps the user stay warmer . Now only the coldest of Vicco/Tas waters will not need that for maybe 3-4 mths of the year . But who's gonna buy a year round wetsuit that doesn't cover most of the year " especially cheap skate surfers !!

I myself have never actually seen a white in the ocean close up , and some ( especially close non water friends ) would scratch their heads at .? It seems I've always had an affiliation with " lack of crowds " as i always seeked solace & solitude for my own reasons as opposed to some who just do cause they enjoy it with mates . I have seen Tigers and many reef sharks , in warmer climates . But as an ab diver once told me , don't worry about a shark that you can see . Cause the one that'll have your number will be the white you never see .....
Hence people like myself , even with close links to some of these victims still overcome trepidation to continue . Crazy , people will say at bobbing at the surface 100-sometimes 500M offshore waiting for waves . And yes maybe a little, but even the most dodgy/ sharky places can be enjoyed , the only hard thing is sitting alone on the edge of really deep /dark water and a ( 5+ mins ) long lull lets your mind wonder .

With time and many horrific stories shared comes a learning of when not to go in the water .
And classic symptoms of an " unlucky day " can co-incide with the above mentioned time of the year . Which itself can have allsorts of links to their prey's movements , tides , weather related phenomena including water temps , cloud cover , after a blow or large rough swell . These latter effect visibility , and sometimes school fish moving into turbulent waters near shore . I would say that where possible these are the days to avoid , and sometimes the said school fish can leave a stench in the air . ( or maybe I'm overly sensitive ) . With every this and that of science and what not ( including rambling idiots like myself ) having an opinion , the cold hard reality of this is that not even so-called experts know why .
But when you speak to witnesses who still many years later break down at the gore of an attack or worst still the lack of , when something the size of a minibus inhales victim, (atleast once including board) and a couple of hundred litres of water in one foul mouthfull . One near Elliston SA with board and the other Abroholos WA , was described as the surface / ocean just disappeared below them , and then the familiar colours and shape of a flank or dorsal or tail . Then nothing , or in SA case a surf board shooting out of the water on its own 200-300 metres away.
When your committed to something its hard not to want less of a fear , but in all reality it continues to not stop people . Until actual numbers are known , i think comments from both sides should be taken with a dose of salt (pardon the punn ). I clearly believe that politics has taken hold in regards to Rottnest ( but thats another matter ) .
Posted by: ant

Re: sharks - 24/10/2011 22:50

I vaguely remember something about big sharks liking cold currents?
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 24/10/2011 23:13

Good to hear your stories Southern Oracle. Black wetsuits for warmth. Yeah OK. Makes sense. Not being a surfer I didn't know that. I don't know how surfers do it to be honest. The addiction of the wave I guess.

Yourself having lived on Rotto for a few years must make this latest attack a bit of an eye opener. I have heard mixed reports from a few sources as to whether he was spearfishing off Rotto at the time it happened. If so, spearfishing, overcast conditions, whale migrations, diving solo. That poor bloke just had too much going wrong for him.

We did that Rottnest island eco boat adventure this time last year which circumnavigates the island. Whales, dolphins awesome trip and deep water drop offs off the western end with that Seal colony at Cathedral rocks?? That place looked pretty sharky to me.

The Sharkiest place I have ever been was down off Cape Naturaliste NZ fur seal colony. We had an awesome paddle out there and snorkelled with the seals there. It was very shallow water so felt OK (less than 1metre). Spoke to a few locals about that area and it was renowned as a big great white location. Apparently a few kids in a tinnie had there motor attacked off Bunker Bay which was the Sept attack location and local fisherman and surfers knew of particular sharks that resided there for periods of time (probably again during whale season). Surfers must know the risk but the attraction of the wave is too much.

Image below is a pic I googled which shows the Cape Naturaliste NZ seal colony below. That little rocky outcrop in the water would have to be one of the scariest places to be a seal. Every shark that travels the WA coast would visit past that point on their journey north or south. Beautiful spot though and very memorable visiting there.

Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 25/10/2011 00:08

Yeah , Rottnest has been claimed to be sharky ,especially west end . When i was there , i reckoned i did my fair share of " shark baiting " as my grandfather used to dismay as he described my activities . In the late eightees a commercial fishing boat with a full load of frozen fish ran aground at Cathedrals ' and people stopped surfing their for a while . at that time the seals were hangin 500 m's away . As time went by people returned , and after the last pieces of the hull disapeared maybe around 2005 the seals returned into the cathedral inlet .

A few whales have washed up over the years , one exploded on purpose by fisheries ( a mess ) a long time ago . The other in Late 2005 ?/ Early 2006 ?? landed right in the middle of the popular Strickland surfing reef . They chopped that one up and buried nearby in dunes at " the spit " . a few days later i was one of the first to start surfing there . the smell was horendous and the water slimy for weeks . Strangely i was more worried about the oils effect on my expensive wetsuit .

To me even the deepest drop offs of rottnest was a walk in the park , as compared to VIC and SA , the warm clear water was not in my opinion a likely hotspot . The attack in the Abroholos ( ex islander ) was a wake up call . That and Smithy at Noisies near Gracetown .
But this has changed it , a bit . Not Good ......
Posted by: SBT

Re: sharks - 25/10/2011 00:29

When the conditions are righ you can indeed smell chopped up fish as an oily note to the air. We sometimes use it to track Tuna and mackeral feeding on bait schools. Mk 1 eyeball followed up by the MK2 nose. With very flat seas and no breeze the smell can be detected about a kilometre away from the source and this is from a bloke who smoked for 32 years but gave up 7 years ago.

I will never forget the smell of whale oil, we used to use it for burley off the old military jetty on Rotto back in the 60's (the wooden one before they pulled it down and buit the rock groyne)trying to catch Herring and yes it did bring the men in grey overcoats (Sharks) around to play but even then people wheren't as scared of sharks as they are now.

We have a rule when out fishing on the GBR - No Tiger sharks or Hammerheads in the boat and we won't swin in their sea.

But we still find fwits spear fishing up to a kilometre off the islands (Palm Group off Townsville) too busy watching all the pretty fish to see how far away from land they are. We had one scare the crap out of us by climbing aboard without any warning. 8 metre boat so no danger of capsizing us but fair dinkum he almost got the sharp end of a Mr Lee and Mr Enfield (shark detering device) right bewteen the looking gear. He was pretty game to as we had a burley trail out looking for MR Monster Spanish Mackerals. he would have been a certainty to be made into shark pharts if we hadn't been there. Idiot.
Posted by: AKM80

Re: sharks - 25/10/2011 16:12

As someone who has spearfished all my life (at least since I could swim properly) I have a very good respect for sharks. I have been bitten once or twice, mostly curiosity from the sharks themselves. An 8ft Tiger gave me a little more than a love bite around 14 years ago on the GBR and I still have one of its teeth (that I removed from my right calf muscle) on a necklace at home. However, saltwater is in my blood and even though the odd person does meet their maker through shark attack it wont stop the majority of the population who were brought up in and around the ocean.

Statistically you have more chance of being run over by a bus than killed by shark attack.

SBT, next time I'm in Townsville waters I'll be sure to pop up beside the boat and say G'day, LOL.
Posted by: Sandfly

Re: sharks - 25/10/2011 16:48

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
If you don't want to be eaten by a shark, don't go in the water. It's as simple as that. If you choose to go in, you choose to take the risk. KNOWINGLY!


Well said, agree 100%.
Posted by: Markus

Re: sharks - 27/10/2011 19:12

Near where I live there is a gulf known as spencer gulf. The northern end of this gulf is full of large snapper and cuttlefish and so on and therefore you would expect there to be sharks about.

Quite a few years ago they caught a 6 or so metre great white in netting which is now in Port Piries tourist centre. Having had a look at it I must say they are damn scary looking things and I can fit half my body inside its mouth.

Since then there has been quite a few locals from this area claiming to have seen an even bigger great white than this with estimates of it being up to 7 meteres. Some people have even claimed to have seen it swim between posts under Port Germain jetty. Stories like this really make you think before getting into the water!!!
Posted by: Max Record

Re: sharks - 06/11/2011 21:04

Always when I hear of sharks and shark attacks, arguably the worlds most famous shark attack survivor comes to mind, Rodney Fox:

https://www.rodneyfox.com.au/
Posted by: Sara B

Re: sharks - 22/11/2011 04:15

The Splashing Experiment
Posted by: Cliffhanger

Re: sharks - 05/12/2011 17:08

Some kid was taken by a shark just of our beach about 10 or so years ago. He was sailing a little cat by himslef, and the ruddy thing just tipped him over and killed him.I have had a fear of going near that stratch of beach ever since, but it still doesnt stop the crew from surfing when there are waves.!!
Posted by: windblown

Re: sharks - 08/12/2011 09:31

I lived for many years in Portland on the very south west coast of Victoria. Off the coast is an Island called Lady Julia. The fishermen always said there was a local shark out there that was longer than their boats..it was resident there I believe (or the family was)

I have no problem with sharks..swam in the waters there for many years. The waters were so thick with other food I guess the sharks weren't that hungry.

But...one day a friend and I were swimming out on our daily swim and I had a 'funny feeling' I felt like something had come up behind me really fast and then turned away at the last minute. The hairs on the back of my neck stood up. I said to my friend "I dont want to panic you but I think there is a shark in the water"

Well my friend did a Jesus Christ act and broke the olympic record for getting to the beach...I quickly (very quickly) did breast stroke to the beach which I might add looked ages away. We got back to the beach safely. I went home and was talking to my hubby about it and he was pretty concerned (being a die hard fisherman) In the early morning my hubby came home and told me they caught an 8 foot white pointer just where we had been swimming !!

I felt pretty sorry for the shark. But as it was a popular swimming spot for the town, and he was still hanging around hours later I guess fair is fair. But I still felt sorry for the shark.
Posted by: Winnyhair

Re: sharks - 18/12/2011 20:14

Originally Posted By: EmeraldLecky
As someone who has spearfished all my life (at least since I could swim properly) I have a very good respect for sharks. I have been bitten once or twice, mostly curiosity from the sharks themselves. An 8ft Tiger gave me a little more than a love bite around 14 years ago on the GBR and I still have one of its teeth (that I removed from my right calf muscle) on a necklace at home. However, saltwater is in my blood and even though the odd person does meet their maker through shark attack it wont stop the majority of the population who were brought up in and around the ocean.

Statistically you have more chance of being run over by a bus than killed by shark attack.

SBT, next time I'm in Townsville waters I'll be sure to pop up beside the boat and say G'day, LOL.


With all due respect, statistically...based on the facts here...this is not quite correct...EL...if you have been bitten once or twice, how many times have you been run over by a bus?
Posted by: pogonantha

Re: sharks - 30/12/2011 17:45

I took a couple of Wwoofers out fishing and snorkelling a few weeks back...we found a nice 15m drop off/wall and I was cruising along in the deep water when I saw a reef shark lazily cruise by 10m below ..I followed along until he seemed to become a bit agitated and changed direction by zipping up above the wall and heading along the reef flat in a bout 3m of water..after kicking along trying to keep up with him I saw that he was headed straight towards the female wwoofer..he went in quite fast and then just 3m from her veered off and returned to the deeper water once more ...the male wwoofer jumped back in the boat soon after as the shark attacked and killed a fish close to him..he panicked and bolted..lol ..
Later on the female wwoofer mentioned that she was menstruating and had just pee'd in the water not long prior to the shark investigating her...

Hmmm...There might be something in that for the ladies to take on board...
Posted by: pogonantha

Re: sharks - 30/12/2011 17:51

Originally Posted By: Winnyhair
Originally Posted By: EmeraldLecky
As someone who has spearfished all my life (at least since I could swim properly) I have a very good respect for sharks. I have been bitten once or twice, mostly curiosity from the sharks themselves. An 8ft Tiger gave me a little more than a love bite around 14 years ago on the GBR and I still have one of its teeth (that I removed from my right calf muscle) on a necklace at home. However, saltwater is in my blood and even though the odd person does meet their maker through shark attack it wont stop the majority of the population who were brought up in and around the ocean.

Statistically you have more chance of being run over by a bus than killed by shark attack.

SBT, next time I'm in Townsville waters I'll be sure to pop up beside the boat and say G'day, LOL.


With all due respect, statistically...based on the facts here...this is not quite correct...EL...if you have been bitten once or twice, how many times have you been run over by a bus?


He said you would have more chance of being KILLED by a shark than being run over by a bus..he has only had a couple of nips...anyone that has speared or fished the GBR or elsewhere will have been hasseled by sharks to some degree...mostly however they are just after your catch..I still dont trust the big Tigers and Hammers though...
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/01/2012 19:26

I guess EmaraldLecky was lucky that 8ft Tiger only bit him on the Calf. A bit higher up on the thigh and a severed femoral artery out on the GBR would have a lineball survival scenario unfolding. I reckon I would prefer to get hit by a bus than bleed out on the back of your mates tinnie as he races you the 50kms to the nearest hospital.

Scarey thought that. I have been spearfishing up here over the last few years in the Nwest and it scares the crap out of me some days. Some places just seem a little isolated and sharkey not to mention croccy up on the peninsula. One trip up near Middle lagoon we kayaked around to out favorite camping spot and had a 4m tiger shark swim past and circle us twice before moving on. 20 min utes before that I was in the water. I havn't been back to that spot since even though I know it has the biggest Coral Trout and Bluebone just sitting there for the taking.
Posted by: pogonantha

Re: sharks - 16/01/2012 20:16

I took my 10 yr old son on his first open water scuba dives at the reef last week..
was surprised at how fearless he was around the reef sharks..dont know whether thats a good or a bad thing..he also found a monster moray eel and wanted to get some pilchards and hand feed it...maybe next time son..
Posted by: Kev86

Re: sharks - 16/01/2012 20:30

Caught a 6ft bronze whaler on the beach Christmas weekend near Esperance, took 4 hours - Didn't realise they could swing their head so far behind them..

Have learned lesson.
Posted by: Manta

Re: sharks - 16/01/2012 21:19

Sharks are pretty cool when you are swimming with them. Having dived all over the world I have had many encounters including a swim by from a 3.5m Hammerhead. Carying dead fish when diving or spear fishing makes them look at you a bit differently as you have food. Just like a dog looking at your snag. Some dogs are gentle and some go beyond the snag and get your fingers. Moray eels are almost blind and when you feed them they often cant tell where the fish ends and your fingers start. Be carefull if you intend to feed them.
Posted by: boomer

Re: sharks - 21/01/2012 19:09

If you are going to feed a moray keep your fingers and thumbs as close together as possible.
Posted by: pogonantha

Re: sharks - 22/01/2012 09:35

Originally Posted By: boomer
If you are going to feed a moray keep your fingers and thumbs as close together as possible.


Thanks for the advice...my missus would never forgive me if I bought our 10 yr old back from a moray feeding session and had to re-name him stumpy.
Posted by: duckweather

Re: sharks - 24/01/2012 21:50

Quote:
my missus would never forgive me if I bought our 10 yr old back from a moray feeding session and had to re-name him stumpy.

This made me chuckle. Maybe your new name would be 'Lumpy' - after being bopped on the head for bringing your son home re-modelled.
So....the new family photo could be tagged Mrs. Grumpy (no disrespects to your wife smile ), Mr. Lumpy and Master Stumpy.
......ok, that was a bit silly.... smirk
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 01/04/2012 17:34

Sharks again hitting the headlines in WA. Another fatality off the Swest with a 33yo fella cray fishing from his boat taken by what is thought to be a 4metre great white. That is now the 4th fatal attack in the region over the last 7 months. Those numbers just seem too high. I spoke to someone about shark attacks today and he was saying that he read a report on shark attacks over the last 12 months and worldwide there have been 5 fataliltes, 4 of which were in SWest WA.

Edit, Just found this article which has WA now the world's deadliest shark attack region.

WA DEEMED WORLDS DEADLIEST
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 01/04/2012 18:40

He was not actually taken was he. I thought they got his body back. Problem with a shark is they don't have hands. When they make the descision to see what you are they only have one way of doing it. A little grab in the mouth(or a big grab if they are in a feisty mood).
4 in 7 months is certainly a bad run though. Gotta feel for the victim and those affected.
However I do get sick and tired of the calls to kill the shark(as if they would know which it was).
It's not as though you hear everyone calling for all trees to be cut down when someone is killed by a falling branch.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 01/04/2012 19:53

Yeah they got him back. I heard somewhere seals had been seen in the area in the days/weeks leading up to the attack which you kind of expect along alot of that coast. I am not sure if he was wearing a wetsuit but no doubt the Shark may have thought he was a seal and went in for a surprise attack.

I understand that black wetsuits are used for a reason ie attracting sun and warmth whilst in the water but it must confuse the buggery out of those sharks to suddenly see a black object freediving/diving for crays right in front of it. I wonder if the initial brain response and reaction of a shark would be different if divers wore different coloured wetsuits, red, yellow, light blue, hot pink (lol). Sharks know what their prey looks like and they are usually pretty good at getting it. Why make yourself look like their prey.

Another possibility may be the distress noise that a crayfish could make when being handled and the attraction of nearby predators to investigate. I remember once we went fishing but we had no bait so I snorkelled out and harrassed an octopus with a spear. The noise that thing made under water drew every big NWEST snapper in a 500m radius towards the distressed octopus. It was amazing to see. The same as when you spear a fish everything comes in for a look. Wouldnt be nice though for a 4 metre hungry great white to be the thing that comes in for a look.

Great whites freak me out. I have gotten used to Tiger sharks and hammerheads and feel OK near them but the big whites just sit that higher up on the amazing predator scale that I dont want to be in the water with.
Posted by: SBT

Re: sharks - 04/04/2012 12:40

Knee jerk human reaction is to destroy something that causes death. In this case the hunt would more than likely be pretty pointless as the shark that bit him was probably 30 klms away by the end of that day and a couple of hundred away the next day.

If you dress like a lettuce and lie down in a field expect to be eaten by a rabbit, same thing in the water
dress like prey expect to be treated as by sharks.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 16/07/2012 10:13

Another fatal attack over the weekend. Its getting pretty regular now. From nothing in decades to 5 fatalities in 10 months. Something has shifted the balance down in SW WA. Sharks are hungry, more seals around, more surfers in the water. Scarey stuff. What are peoples thoughts.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 16/07/2012 19:57

Deal with it. Everyone knows the potential risks. No shark deserves to die because someone thinks they have more right to the water than the sharks.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 16/07/2012 22:48

Yeah I agree that we should deal with it for now and see how the next 12 months pans out. BUT.... If the spate of attacks continues through this season now onwards then there will come a time when some form of action will have to be taken. Rogue crocodiles are removed from areas in the interest of public safety. Great whites are not as easy to trap as big crocs so I guess the issue of a Big Great white lurking or frequenting a popular area is that the only way to effectively deal with the situation is to shoot on sight, set lines and destroy.

Whether this stops the attacks is the big question. Check this footage out from last week in WA. INSANE!!!

GREAT WHITE FOOTAGE LAST WEEK OFF GERALDTON WA - WATCH THE MOVIE
Posted by: MC Thomas

Re: sharks - 17/07/2012 15:35

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
Deal with it. Everyone knows the potential risks. No shark deserves to die because someone thinks they have more right to the water than the sharks.


This my feeling too. However, the number of fatal shark attacks in WA is quite concerning.

Something I wonder about though, we have great whites along the east coast of Australia yet the number of fatal attacks by great whites is much lower. I wonder what the reason for this is? Number of great whites? Distance from the coast? Diet?
Posted by: LQQKN

Re: sharks - 19/07/2012 06:46

I feel safer being around sharks then people and with all this overfishing of course there is goen to be more shark attacks on humans
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 19/07/2012 14:25

About 10 years ago I kayaked around that Wedge Island near where the last fatal attack took place. Beautiful spot, Shallow sand bar heading across to the island with 3/4 of it having a sheltered lagoon area around the back. From memory there were Australian Sea lions and NZ fur seals in the water and a couple on the beaches on the northern end of the island. In the lagoon it felt safe but if you were to head out the back of the reef into the open waters I reckon it would feel a bit more unsettling. I reckon Surfers have guts hanging out there on their boards waiting for waves and I can understand fully how anything resembling a seal floating on the surface would get attacked.

To the North of Wedge is Cervantes/Jurien Bay and that is the breeding sites for the Australian Sea lions, Off Perth you have Carnac, Little, Rottnest, Garden and Seal islands which are all popular haul out areas for seals. Busselton, Bunker Bay and Margaret river all the places where fatal attacks have taken place are also big seal and sea lion areas.

WA has some pristine wild places and I believe the big increase of seal numbers in the waters off the South West has resulted in an associated concentration of Great White sharks who's primary source of food is Seals and sea lions. Throw in a few thousand surfers, spear fisherman, swimmers, body boarders, divers etc on any given day of the week and the law of averages is saying that there will be mistaken attacks by the great whites and if they happen to be hungry they may decide to eat their kill human or not. The days of Whites biting and letting go once they attack are less with the sharks actually consuming their prey these days.

Scarey stuff but I don't see an end to this issue any time soon. South West WA and South Africa are big white country and with the Great white and seals protection and an ever increasing population who are water based it will only mean one thing. More attacks.
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 20/07/2012 00:33

Even though the West is a little less environmentally conscious ( as a whole , the population on average ) it will be interesting when this recent proliferation of Seal numbers and add to that whales , sees increasing number's of GW population slowly spread East . And when you see regular attacks in the South and Eastern states , and more so ( NSW/QLD ) . Will be interesting to see people's responses change .

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
Deal with it. Everyone knows the potential risks. No shark deserves to die because someone thinks they have more right to the water than the sharks.


this is a bit insensitive .....

Especially considering some " Nth Qld Cowboys " approach to Croc' activities . I can bet you a Zillion dollars that if a large aggressive resident Croc was to anchor itself along the coast around a few of Cairns Nthn Beaches like Palm Cove & Trinity Beach , that they would be " quietly relocated " with something resembling wood & metal stick that goes Bang .

Lets not forget we're talking about WA here . If the water wasn't so beautiful , essentially there would be no point living there .....Apart from the SW corner lushness , the rest of the State is one big Sand Pit ( with obvious exclusion of a couple of Iron rich ore deposit's and maybe a Gold mine or two ;-)
Hence they actually use their water , Cane Toads don't swim , do they ????? lol ( tongue so firm in cheak that there is now two Chins parallel to each other. )
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 20/07/2012 08:54

I agree a croc would be quickly relocated or potentially killed annd I am completely against that as well. Mind you capture and rlocation is a hell of a lot better than killing and you cant capture and rlocate a great white. Humans have the ability to make an innformed descision to go into a peotentially dangerous situation. I choose not to swim in croc water but plenty of people do and when they get grabbed it is the croc that is blamed. How does that work? Those who get grabbed have made the choice themselves and by doing so have accepted responsibility for the consequences. I believe it is fine for humans to kill animals for the right reasons. eg catching fish for food. Why then is it wrong when an animal does the same thing. And when you think about the numbers it really isnt an issue. 5 or so in ten months. Think about how many sharks people have killled in the same period.
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 21/07/2012 00:05

Brett ,

I don't particularly want to kill any animals unecessarily . And i haven't called for any culling either . I just feel that something needs to be discussed .
But i do get over all this Hug the Animals stuff . We the Human race are here because WE are the Prime Killers . Not the Sharks. Although Sharks are formidable hunters , i think the Numbers are squarely on the board for the Human race . I don't gloat in this , but if forever was your theory that wherever is whatevers domain . Then we wouldn't be here discussing this as educated Homo Sapiens . We'd be the extinct archaeological bones found in Some cave in Africa or whatever , because we were too scared to leave the safety of its Shelter .

Survival of the fittest , and as i said above . People who aren't really into swimming in Beautiful but dangerous waters don't .
But others that do , then all power to them . The only problem is , there isn't too many places along the world's shorelines where the GW won't frequent at some time . So unlike some muddy mangrove waters , that most humans aren't keen on enjoying . Defining where the Sharks belong and the Humans don't , will become blurred when the Number of Sharks ( in all waters , not just the pristine ones that encourage Whale Migration ) return to levels that they would have been found in Before the Start of the Whaling / sealing days . I have the feeling that the numbers increase in these waters is due to the Warmish and unpoluted waters compared to the east coast . Remembering , that with the exception of the Gascoigne River , there aren't too many large river over there that have been flushed out of late with Flooding Rains . As opposed to this side of the Continent . So clean waters can have a bad outcome .?!
There's no easy answers , you can't have large numbers of Seals and Whales without their Scavengers . So the same people who " LOVE " the Ocean and also all the animals that inhabit it , can't have their Cake and Eat it too .....
Posted by: pogonantha

Re: sharks - 21/07/2012 09:47

Originally Posted By: Popeye
the law of averages is saying that there will be mistaken attacks by the great whites and if they happen to be hungry they may decide to eat their kill human or not.


Mistaken attacks...Hmmm..I'm no expert but I am of the opinion that if a large shark is hungry,angry ,bored or whatever than a human is just as at risk of attack as any other similar sized animal in the sea...

Particularly in regards to the Great White ...with no arms or hands to investigate or feel with, they tend to use their mouths to test,feel or taste all manner of objects... so unfortunately even if they are not even hungry just an inquisitive nip can be disastrous for a human..

5 deaths in almost a year...compared with over a 1000 road deaths a year and 40000 cancer related deaths in Australia each year I say the ocean is a pretty safe place to be....unless of course you happened to be one of those very unlucky 5...
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 21/07/2012 11:25

If the spots where attacks occurred in WA were isolated areas and once off's I guess the public would feel the ocean is fairly safe place to be but in reality the attacks over the last decade Cottesloe beach - Perth's premier beach, Gracetown/Margaret River/Bunker Bay/Busselton - The Southwests premier holiday areas, world class surfing destination and one of the states leading tourism areas, Rottnest Island - Perths premier island holiday destination for families and visitors which is a swimming, snorkelling and diving mecca in WA, Abrolhos island - beautiful offshore islads off Geraldton, crayfishing snorkelling and now Wedge island - Perths premier Northern Beach drive famous for locals wanting to escape and seek a beautiful wild and free spot.

So the issue is, the attacks are occuring where any everyday average joe and his family will no doubt visit at least once a year if you live in WA. Which when all your favourite places to visit in the state people are getting snapped up by great whites it does create a feeling that the ocean isn't all that safe a place for your self and family.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 21/07/2012 11:31

Originally Posted By: pogonantha

Mistaken attacks...Hmmm..I'm no expert but I am of the opinion that if a large shark is hungry,angry ,bored or whatever than a human is just as at risk of attack as any other similar sized animal in the sea...


Yeah I tend to agree. Literature on attacks over the years has lead us to believe , or at least tried to alleviate our fears by saying that most attacks from Great whites are probably due to mistaken identity. It does raise the question in my mind whether their is a shark out there that is responsible for more than one attack and they don't mind the taste of humans. A bit like 'MMM I ate one of those things last month, was OK might have another one'. Brings images of the movie JAWS to mind.

I guess we will have to wait and see what the next few months brings for WA and possibly even other states as well.
Posted by: david frank

Re: sharks - 17/01/2013 15:39

Sharks are mainly recognized from its head where five to seven gill
slits are shown. Sharks skin is protected as they are covered of
dermal denticles.
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 09/10/2013 08:52

Diver attacked by shark near Esperance on Western Australia's south-east coast 8-10-13

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-08/diver-attacked-by-shark-near-esperance/5009228

A professional abalone diver who survived a shark attack in 2004 has been seriously injured in a second encounter off Western Australia's south-east coast.

Greg Pickering was attacked on Tuesday while diving in remote waters off Poison Creek beach, 160 kilometres east of the town of Esperance.

Mr Pickering, 55, has serious injuries in what is his second shark attack experience

The diver was bitten by a bronze whaler off Cervantes, north of Perth, in 2004.
Posted by: pogonantha

Re: sharks - 09/10/2013 09:45

It might be time for Mr Pickering to take up Lawn bowls..

I spent the last couple of days at the reef and had problems landing fish ..lost so many to the sharks..
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 09/10/2013 11:41

Youch. I heard on the news this morning he sustained injuries to his face, head, chest and stomach areas. He is a very lucky man. We have now got discovery channel and National Geographic channel on our TV/Internet deal and the latest Australian series to be produced is 'Abalone Wars' which calls it one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. No doubt this latest attack gives the series a bit more credential.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 09/10/2013 13:07

And now there is a catch and kill order on the shark(or in relity any random sharks that the revenge bound happen to come a cross). The lack of intelligence in society is mind boggling.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 09/10/2013 13:08

Other news article says head, face, chest and back. Also they showed an interview of his attack from back in 2004 and it has him saying, 'One incident in 34 years (of him being in the water) its a very isolated case'. Now you can add another to that isolated case. 2 cases in 43 years. Shark magnet!!

Like Poganantha said. Time for him to take up another hobby/job I think.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 09/10/2013 13:17

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
And now there is a catch and kill order on the shark(or in relity any random sharks that the revenge bound happen to come a cross). The lack of intelligence in society is mind boggling.


Yeah I found it a bit strange for them to jump all over this catch and kill order especially considering its a very isolated remote beach with only the hardiest 4WD's gong out there. Fair enough if its in a major city like Perth and its cruising around and it can be seen from a helicopter and the community goes into panic. Maybe do something about it. But not down there.

I guess it wasn't that long ago when 4-5 attacks occurred in quick succession and WA was seen as the most dangerous place to swim in the world for fatal shark attacks. Authorities may be trying to alleviate any fear that the tourist/public have.

With the humpback whales returning down the West coast over the next 2 months its prime time for big Great Whites to be all over the SWest WA coast. In all honesty if WA can get through the next 2 months without a few more attacks I would be surprised. Watch this space as I think we will be returning to this forum regularly between now and December with more attacks potentially on the cards.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 09/10/2013 13:25

I am not sure if anyone watched the shark tracking story on Sunday Sunday night Feature article - Tracking the Great white.

These guys have tagged a bunch of Sharks throughout the world to better get an understanding on their movements and also possibly to warn areas of big sharks entering waters where people are swimming. The Australian Government doesn't want a bar of it which is a pity. I think it would be interesting to get an idea about their movements. It is a bit strange though catching these wild animals and attaching a big SAT tag on them. I guess if it does no major harm to them its OK. Bit of Human control over animals really.

WA's response to them in a letter from Troy Buswell explains a few things I guess.

'In recent years the WA Government has made an unprecedented investment in shark research and has formed a dedicated shark response unit for the tagging and tracking of sharks. WA’s shark monitoring infrastructure is unprecedented and under the guidance of our scientists, it is unlocking unknown knowledge of white sharks.

The tagging program, which extends from South Australia to WA, has more than 130 tagged white sharks and about 320 receivers embedded in WA’s seabed up and down our coast. On top of this we also have 20 satellite receivers that can give real time information on the presence of a tagged white shark, which can be monitored 24 hours a day by the public.'

So I guess its already covered.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 09/10/2013 13:50

Wow 10 hours of surgery to stitch him up. The poor bloke. Latest reports are saying the catch and kill order was not well liked. I guess its easier to speak up in opposition to a topic like that rather than support it and look like the aggressor who wants them all killed.
Posted by: SBT

Re: sharks - 09/10/2013 21:42

Pretty silly idea trying to find and kill the shark.

If it isn't hanging around then every minute that goes past it is moving away from the area and that alone would make it damn hard to find let alone catch. 24 hours x 4 knots potentially means it could be up to 170+klm away (you could probably halve that as it wanders along though).

What it boils down to is if you dress like a seal and get bitten who is really at fault? The bloke for just trying to earn a living or the shark who just wants a feed and mistakes the bloke for a seal? Leave it alone.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 09/10/2013 21:53

Yeah that catch and kill order was cancelled this arvo. They called it at the time apparently cause it was school holidays and there were quite a few campers in the immediate area and it was a potential risk.

The bloke bitten will have a good story to tell. Ab divers are gutsy in my opinion. I thought they used those dive cages with the little motors on them? If your exposed with no cage and wearing black you look like a seal or sea lion searching the rock crevices for crayfish. No wonder the Shark came in for an attack. It no doubt would be repeating previous responses that resulted in a successful kill of a seal only this time it was a poor Ab diver.
Posted by: pogonantha

Re: sharks - 10/10/2013 09:46

I also wonder about the mentality of wearing black wetsuits..particularly during the early morning and late afternoon and in limited visibility situations..

Here's an old article with some interesting theories..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...ue-wetsuit.html

And I do agree, popeye, that ab divers are very gutsy individuals...diving in cold, murky water in rough seas full of toothy predators is a hell of a way to make a living..
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/10/2013 23:22

Abalone divers know the risk. They have done for decades. The shark was there first and the fact he survived means it was barely interested. We are not their preferred food source. Just mistaken for it. In this case it probably tasted but didn't like what it bit as is often the case. Unfortunately a taste can mean a fatality with the world's strongest bite coupled to incredibly sharp teeth.

I watched that segment on 7 Popeye. Excellent research. Makes you wonder though. They can issue a kill order but then in the next breath say that tagging sharks on a dry dock is a risk to the shark . It smacks of hypocrisy. They could save lives and these divers could be fore warned of a shark in the area.

The end result is safer waters and these magnificent creatures being less likely to fall victim to knee jerkers. Don't be surprised if the diver demanded they called off the kill order.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 26/10/2013 18:09

A reported attack on a diver/snorkelers fins off Hillary's Boat Harbour in Perth. Little Island is a known haul out area for Sea Lions and has great snorkelling. Have been out there quite a few times over the years. Surf break off the back is known to be a bit sharky.

The West Shark attack news
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 27/10/2013 09:05

Have you seen the picture of his fins. Doesn't look like a shark bite to me.
Posted by: pogonantha

Re: sharks - 27/10/2013 09:19

This photo shows it better..

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-...3-1226747291071

I agree Brett..they look broken rather than bitten...maybe as suggested it could have been a seal messing around..
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 27/10/2013 10:32

Yeah I reckon that fella is full of it. Little island off Hillarys is a sea lion haul out area. Some of those animals are big. I've seen a few in the water there snorkelling. If you have a couple of crayfish hanging off your waist then no doubt a sea lion would be interested in you and a little bitey. A great white biting fins would have made a lot more of a mess. Sea lion with smaller mouth biting would have been more likely to break the fins in the manner shown. Hysteria here it comes Perth. With some reason though OCT/NOV is big great white season off the Perth coast with all the whales now migrating south past. Watch out!!!
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 29/10/2013 21:11

Even the blacktip/whitetip reef sharks are getting in on the action here in WA.
Ningaloo reef shark attack
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 29/10/2013 21:17

Unprovoked is a terrible description in my oppinion. There is always a reason and in the case of inexperienced snorklers(as I guesss this was) it usually comes down to the chaotic flapping they generally use to propell themselves. It is a great way to attract and exite such a sensory predator.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 29/10/2013 21:33

There are heaps of little reef sharks around Ningaloo. Like the article says it one of the reasons you go for a snorkel or dive there. I find Reef sharks can be a little inquisitive at times, circling in closer and having a look. It doesn't surprise me that there was an attack. Coral Bay had a reef shark bite someone on their calf a few years back and also a tiger shark bit onto a snorkelling guide's arm in 2012. Coral Bay Tiger shark attack. .

I always give them a little respect when out there.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 17/11/2013 23:23

Originally Posted By: Gad
Diver attacked by shark near Esperance on Western Australia's south-east coast 8-10-13

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-08/diver-attacked-by-shark-near-esperance/5009228

A professional abalone diver who survived a shark attack in 2004 has been seriously injured in a second encounter off Western Australia's south-east coast.

Greg Pickering was attacked on Tuesday while diving in remote waters off Poison Creek beach, 160 kilometres east of the town of Esperance.

Mr Pickering, 55, has serious injuries in what is his second shark attack experience

The diver was bitten by a bronze whaler off Cervantes, north of Perth, in 2004.


This guy was on "Sunday Night" tonight. Pretty amazing survival story couple with plenty of luck.
Posted by: Locke

Re: sharks - 18/11/2013 10:20

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
Unprovoked is a terrible description in my oppinion. There is always a reason and in the case of inexperienced snorklers(as I guesss this was) it usually comes down to the chaotic flapping they generally use to propell themselves. It is a great way to attract and exite such a sensory predator.


I suspect your spot on Brett.

I just returned from a trip to Osprey Reef where a shark feed was conducted which involved these types of sharks. I've viewed a number of these feeds now and never felt threatened even when the sharks are in close proximity.

There is a marked difference in the way a shark moves when it goes into attack than how it normally swims. During shark feeds I have had sharks swim directly at me and turn away at the last moment but again never in a way that I felt it was coming in to attack.

It might be a different matter I suspect if I was to madly thrash my limbs about whilst the shark feed was occurring.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 18/11/2013 17:35

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
This guy was on "Sunday Night" tonight. Pretty amazing survival story couple with plenty of luck.


WOW. Yeah amazing story. Pretty down to earth guy. Lucky man.

Sunday Night - The Lucky One
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 23/11/2013 16:24

Sad news today of another fatal shark attack off the SWest WA coast around Gracetown/Margaret River area. Not great news.
The West Shark attack - Gracetown
and Family arrives at the scene of attack.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 24/11/2013 12:37

It's no surprise this is happening with more frequency - whites used be culled and they no longer are.
It's also no surprise these attacks all occur during the months of the humpback whale migration. All of them.

Very sad for the friends and families.
Posted by: adon

Re: sharks - 24/11/2013 13:51

And the calls to cull sharks has already started. Annoys me really. I am an inland boy but I would not for a second enter the sea without thinking that there could be danger out there. I know the family would be saying things out of grief and so on but geez people are entering a wild environment with wild animals in it. It has risk attached. Same as if a person walked through an African game park without support. Just because it's the sea it doesn't make it ok to kill what may cause harm. We are in its backyard not the other way around.

Would be interesting to know how many shark diving tours are in the area
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 24/11/2013 14:54

It has very little to do with the numbers of white sharks in the area. It is more down to the number of surfers and the number of whales and seals. If we want to stop the shark attaks we should kill the humpbacks and seals. That'll put and end to the fatalities because the sharks would no longer be attracted to the area.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 24/11/2013 14:56

Yeah I don't think there are any shark diving tours down that way but the a cool documentary on TV the other night said that great whites from the Neptune Islands SA which is cage dive tourism area have been sat tracked to venture around the WA coast for the whale migration as Jax said.

As for culling. I am not for it but.... if there was ever to be a big great white take some one and hang around harassing the same area for a while then maybe there could be a call to cull that individual shark. They never seem to hang around that often. Well not that can be easily seen anyway.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 24/11/2013 15:11

Thats because as most of us know they are not interested in eating people. They mistake people for seals. PLain and simple. Lets face it. If the actually wanted to eat us what would be the chances of getting the body back as they always seem to do?
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 24/11/2013 16:58

I wasn't suggesting they should be culled. I was just stating the fact that after 17 years as a protected species there are increasing numbers of whites; and increasing numbers of people entering the water; and increasing numbers of humpback calves along with the odd tasty sick or damaged adult. It's only logical that the risk of people being attacked is growing, and not surprising that it is happening.

They mature around 15 years and live to around 30 years. So there are now an increasing number of mature whites around. And in another 15 years, there will be an increasing number of very big and very mature great whites around. Abalone will soon become a pretty expensive delicacy I reckon.

Adon, how would you inland boys react if there were growing numbers of say, wild dogs attacking stock, let alone if they started targeting humans?
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 24/11/2013 20:39

Originally Posted By: Jax
They mature around 15 years and live to around 30 years. So there are now an increasing number of mature whites around. And in another 15 years, there will be an increasing number of very big and very mature great whites around.


That's a scary thought. Only going to become a more frequent event as the ocean environment down around the southern coastline is relatively untouched compared to a lot of places in the world.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 25/11/2013 13:08

It sure is a scary thought Popeye. Did you see the documentary on ABC a few weeks ago about the hunt for whatever it was that chased and ate a tagged 3 metre great white down off Bremer? Probably an even bigger great white as it turns out, but the story leads to the discovery of a "hot spot" of marine activity that is pretty mind blowing.

What started it though was the electronic tracking device attached to its fin recording a high-speed underwater chase before the shark and its tag are suddenly in a much warmer place than where they had been seconds before deep in the Southern Ocean. Two weeks later the still functioning tag is excreted back into the cold water and washes ashore. Fantastic story, well worth watching if you can find it.

Here's a trailer for it: http://vimeopro.com/ultramarinefilms/ultramarine-films-1/video/41924684
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 25/11/2013 13:44

I don't see how it is a scary thought. You have far more chance of dying in a car accident or having a tree branch fall on you and crush your skull. Why is no one talking about the fact that there are too many trees in the country? If the thought of getting killed by a shark scares you there is a VERY simple solution. Stay out of the water. It's really not that hard is it.
On the subject of that doco though. Wasn't it interesting. Just the thought that there is a Shark out there big enough to contemplate eating another 3m long shark(that is not emitting signs of distress) is such an awe inspiring concept. I love it.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 25/11/2013 13:51

Yes of course Brett, we should just all stay out of the ocean now that it is filling up again with giant man eating predators. And if some giant land based predator starts attacking people, should we just all stay off the land too?
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 25/11/2013 13:53

Its scary enough. Whilst I don't live anywhere there are Great whites, I work on the water with tourists 300 days a year and when you spend that much time on the water you come across things you don't want to see.

I would imagine keen surfers would be out there at every chance they get down south. So if the numbers of Big Great Whites are on the increase it only increases the chances they are going to encounter things they don't want to see as well. Yeah its a scary thought and no doubt a lot of the crew that a regular surfers down there are questioning things now. Its only human to be scared of getting eaten by something in the ocean.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 25/11/2013 13:54

Yeah that Doco was awesome Jax and Brett. Well filmed, great story and very interesting to watch.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 25/11/2013 14:42

Originally Posted By: Jax
Yes of course Brett, we should just all stay out of the ocean now that it is filling up again with giant man eating predators. And if some giant land based predator starts attacking people, should we just all stay off the land too?


That sort of respose is one of our biggest problems. Juvenile and condecending. I never said we have to stay out of the water. Just stay out of it if you are overly concerned about beinng grabbed by a shark. Apparently humans have a really large brain and apparently it gives us the ability to make informed descisions... Apparently. My point stands though. Do you think we should do something about all the horribly dangerous trees that are contantly attacking and killing people in this country? Becasue they are far more dangerous than sharks and when they kill thhey do it for absolutely no purppose whatsoever.Going surfing or diving for abalones or having a swim is not sommething we do for suurvival. It is something we do for recreation. Should we be killing animals like this just so we can enjoy our recreation and lesuire time?
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 25/11/2013 20:23

Call it what you will, I say it's sarcasm well deserved.

"Do you think we should do something about all the horribly dangerous trees that are contantly attacking and killing people in this country? Should we be killing animals like this just so we can enjoy our recreation and lesuire time?" [sic]

Yes Brett, absolutely we should do something about the horribly dangerous trees. In fact someone ought to be employed full time teaching them to behave in a more passive and socially acceptable fashion; And absolutely not Brett, indeed, we mere humans should expect to be killed by animals while we enjoy our recreation and leisure time...


Seriously though, the regularity of attacks here in WA is unprecedented, and it is partially the result of the ban on killing great white sharks. Researchers say their diet doesn't include mammals until they reach around 3 metres, something to do with the lack of strength in their jaw cartilage. They also say that means it's unlikely that juveniles are implicated in attacks on people.

However, employ logic and you have to assume the ban has resulted in many more great white juveniles surviving over the past 15 years than otherwise would have. And that they are all reaching maturity, now. As in now literally, now this year and now last year and now next year. And they will now begin breeding, that's what reaching maturity means. So, well yeah...interesting times ahead.

I'm all for a healthy respect for the ocean and its inhabitants. But it's becoming obvious that there needs to be discussion about how to deal with the consequences of that ban. The 'just stay out of the water if you're overly concerned' lot might rethink when the attacks are weekly and not monthly. Maybe they simply don't realise that WA is pretty much a vast, hot sand dune with an amazing water attraction at it's edge. Staying on the dune isn't really an option for most people.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 25/11/2013 23:58

I just read a reader response to "should the WA government kill the shark?" on the ABC news site.

Out of all the responses only one said yes. Here's her response.

"Like dogs, once they have a taste for blood they have learnt something. They must be killed before they teach the rest of the pack."

Proof that sharks are smarter than certain people.

Pack of sharks? If this silly cow did her research she'd know great whites are solitary until after the kill is made. One of those who commented was a previous shark attack victim and gracefully took full responsibility for his own actions.

The shark attack was the second fatal attack in WA this year. Perspective is a wonderful thing (for those who grasp it). I wonder what WA's road toll is so far this year?

Calls for a cull are nothing more than alarmist crap. Just as is the suggestion that one must stand on a sand dune to avoid shark attacks. Great Whites do not attack in 2 foot of water which is more than enough depth to cool the numpties down whilst maintaining a vigil.

If you swim in deeper water you accept the risk. It really is that simple.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 26/11/2013 00:24

Lol, are they putting something in the Cairns water supply? You lot seem just a bit confuddled.

Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 26/11/2013 00:45

Quick Jax jump in here....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-25/your-say-shark-catch-and-kill-policy/5114738 .....and support the redneck standalone and preserve those burning dune feet (thongs might work too wink ) because WA is the only place that has heat apparently .



We manage up here despite estuarine crocodiles (no Jax they don't just live in rivers), box jellyfish cone shells, stonefish, irukandji, tiger sharks and tropical cyclones. Must be something in the water smile


Pssst your road toll stands at 144 (Nov 17th) What, no outcry from the public? Because dying to a natural predator is so much more horrendous than being cut from the wreckage of a motor vehicle after being taken out by a drink driver or some silly twat sending a text.

http://www.police.wa.gov.au/ABOUTUS/Statistics/FatalCrashStatistics/tabid/1073/Default.aspx

Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 26/11/2013 01:19

CF, I lived over your way for a while, I know about your creatures. Although back then the government wasn't taking a zero tolerance of crocs and searching for and removing them from areas humans use. Do you support that action they are now taking?

Did I even say WA had the monopoly on hot? No, I didn't think so. I know how utterly pleasant your clear inland tropical rainforest pools can be on a hot day though, Mossman Gorge was delicious. This is clearly becoming an apples and oranges conversation where the point is being lost, completely. Road toll...that is relevant how? Oh, people dying? So why not chuck in medicine gone wrong/shooting accidents/wars/obesity/rampaging rhinos ..... These things are no more relevant than Brett's falling trees or your road toll. Sticking to the issue will be useful, yes?

This is only the beginning of the apex predator in the ocean eating human problem. It will get worse, it is already getting worse. Maybe your kid or granny or parent or sibling or friend or workmate might be the next victim.

Holy crap, I'm calling for a discussion. Is that so terrible?
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 26/11/2013 08:44

Originally Posted By: Jax
Do you support that action they are now taking?



Absolutely not. If they fed Newman (our useless dictator) to one I'd be a very happy man.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-08/50-years-on-rodney-fox-reflects-on-a-life-changing/5080574
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 26/11/2013 09:03

Originally Posted By: Jax
Do you support that action they are now taking?



I have voiced my disgust on this issue too. We all know they are there. There have been two fatal attacks in Qld in a decade. Again perspective please. One was a child who's parents owned a home on the Daintree and actually fed the crocs off their boarding jetty to promote their croc tour business. When the river flooded above the height of the jetty one of their two children decided to go for a walk to the end of it .At their request the crocodile was left alone.

The other was a man named Arthur Brooker. Google it. He made a major mistake of returing to the same spot on the bank to cast out a crab pot 5 days in a row and opted to go in waste deep to retrieve it on his final day of camping because he wanted an early start. If he'd waited until the tide went out like on previous days he'd still be with us now. His family requested the croc be spared.

...in case you missed the link

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-08/50-years-on-rodney-fox-reflects-on-a-life-changing/5080574

This guy has devoted his life to saving these creatures after being all but ripped in half by one. Good enough for him, good enough for me !

Originally Posted By: Jax
Sticking to the issue will be useful, yes?



...and the issue is that people need to take responsibility for their own actions. The sharks have been there for millions of years as have the crocs and Brett's trees and my cars are relevant .

For people who get taken out by a falling tree or wiped out by a drink driver the choice was removed from them. For people who opt to swim where there are great whites the choice is their own.

There should be no discussion. If you don't want to be eaten by a shark stay in the shallows. It is absolutely that simply. If not then man up and accept the consequences of your actions. The area where the latest attack happened has seen 3 attacks in 10 years. On those odds even I'd surf there but then I'd be requesting that should I be that bloody unlucky that they leave the shark alone !
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 26/11/2013 09:14

No, the issue is that this is a problem that is only just now beginning and is going to get worse. The next decade will see more numerous attacks and deaths, and the decade after that even more again. Perhaps a law will be passed to ensure humans are only allowed to wallow in the shallows like toddlers.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 26/11/2013 12:38

I reckon we put a few in Aquariums and bait the rest with poisoned seals. lol. poke wink
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 26/11/2013 12:51

I know that surfers sitting on the surface look a bit like seals and that's why a lot of people think it is a reason they get attacked. Mistaken identity.

If you read the story linked below. Surfers saw shark on bottom, it then surfaced, came at him, attacked, circled, attacked again and ate him. The latest attack from eyewitness accounts (the guy out there) said something similar. Shark nudged him, on surface then went over and attacked other surfer.

They certainly don't sound like mistaken identity. Almost like its happening quite casually and the shark is focused on eating something. That's a scary thought. Seals don't behave like a surfer. They would be fast, agile trying to escape.

Coroner Ruling from July 2012 Ben Linden attack
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 26/11/2013 15:05

Originally Posted By: Jax
No, the issue is that this is a problem that is only just now beginning and is going to get worse. The next decade will see more numerous attacks and deaths, and the decade after that even more again. Perhaps a law will be passed to ensure humans are only allowed to wallow in the shallows like toddlers.


Perhaps that law should be passed because if these people are too stupid to weigh the risk and accept it they should be treated like toddlers smile

By all means go out and surf but accept the risk. There is no reason to be there other than for self serving interests. Deal with it !

As Popeye's article says they attack from beneath and this had been known for some time now. You need to be in at least moderate depth to be attacked from beneath. It still leaves plenty of room for bathing. Alternatively go and surf in areas that haven't recorded shark deaths and reduce your risk wink
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 26/11/2013 15:37

The attack that set this run of fatal attacks going was in 2001 - Ken Crew off Nth Cottesloe Beach got taken in waist deep water. Probably in waters were tens of thousands of beach goers happily swam with toddlers, kids and probably people who were cautious with what depth they swam in. Whilst depth does increase your chances of attack, sharks and big sharks are free to swim where ever they want. If there is food be it fish, seals, rays, dolphins and if a shark is hungry then shallow water wont stop them.

I have seen some good shallow water sharks sightings here in Broome this year. Mostly big hammerheads but up to 3-4metres in length. The missus managed to film one in the shallows. The bloke on the stand up paddle board would have been having a wild experience.

Broome Hammerhead feeding.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 26/11/2013 17:01

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensla...1126-2y7dx.html

Cull them all?
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 26/11/2013 18:19

"Keep that on the shy I reckon"...Lol, classic comment in your line of work Popeye. Next stop Divers Camp for that paddle board guy no doubt.

It's amazing how the ocean seems to almost melt the uptight out of people. Swimming/surfing/diving/paddling around - a lot of calm, sane, balanced and happy people walk among us thanks to doing those things regularly. I say that it benefits society, and honestly don't understand the negative attitude that judges them self-serving toddlers.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 26/11/2013 21:03

No one is saying going for a swim makes you a self-serving toddler. What makes self serving toddler is the inability to accept the consequences of ones actions. Everybody knows full well the ocean is a sharks habitat. If you then decide to enter it you do so at yoour own risk. Would you go to Iraq for a holiday? If you did I don't think yoou could really complain if something bad happened. Back to the 'tasted blood and got a taste for it issue' and 'targeting humans for food' concept. I said it before, if these sharks actually wanted to eat the victim then there would be no bodies to retrieve. The grab them and wind up rejecting them. Unfortunately for the victims sharks don't have hands.
Yes Jax, there are more mature Whites around than there used to be. That was the idea of protecting them in the first place. Doesn't mean we should reduce their numbers. Why don't we start culling dirnk drivers while we are at it. If we killed them whenever they were caught then there would be far less chance of being killed by one wouldn't there? Same concept. And so what if the next victim is a relative of ours. Why should that mean I care more. As much as I love my family and friends they are no more or less important than any potential victim.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 26/11/2013 21:35

I personally am not for culling but at the same time they don't inhabit the waters where I live and work. They have in the past down off Perth where we ran kayaking and snorkelling tours to Seal and Penguin Island of all places lol. Looking into that deeper water down there did send shivers down my spine some days and to be honest I am glad I don't have to operate in waters where Great Whites live.

Prior to 2001 I think it was many years since the previous fatal attack. Its been a procession ever since. You have to agree that since protection the numbers of dangerous sized sharks has increased as has 3m+ crocodiles in the Nth of Australia. Hasn't Nth Qld Cairns and surrounds just introduced a trapping and removal program for dangerous crocs over 3m+. Which a lot of the Nth Qld community is supportive of and will no doubt encourage tourism and safer waterways for public use.

Although there is a lot of anti cull attention bought to alot of forums/feedback etc, it is easy for those people to comment from their armchairs and feel like their comments are the right thing to say in a world where everyone flicks off a comment at the touch of a phone/spur of the moment. I am starting to see a feeling in the communities where these attacks are happening that it's freaking them out. Making them scared. The Margaret River community and to a lesser degree the entire WA community must be feeling the pressure of wanting something to be done. What that is I don't know. Culling? Not sure.. but as Jax said I honestly think its only going to become a more regular news headline. Better stop drinking Coronas now lol.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 26/11/2013 21:48

Most people up here DO NOT support the croc removal program. Newman's popularity is plummeting and that is but one reason why.

The crocs are a tourism draw card.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 26/11/2013 21:55

Again I say "it is easy for those people to comment from their armchairs and feel like their comments are the right thing to say" When realistically deep down are thinking "Yeah get rid of those F#%^$@$." Its easy to be supportive of something when it doesn't a/effect? them personally.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 26/11/2013 22:32

I see they've had a visual from the air of a 5 metre shark in the same area today.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 26/11/2013 22:47

Well I just did a search on Shark news to find info JAX on that 5metre shark and Breaking news mentions a change in shark protection laws.

Shark protection laws to change.

Another pretty heart wrenching story here too.

News that every West Australian fears
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 26/11/2013 23:05

Life, Death and Sharks in WA
Posted by: Ms Milo

Re: sharks - 26/11/2013 23:42

Shark sightings are relatively frequent around these parts, more often than not Tigers but during the whale migration Great Whites are known to edge their way closer ugh keep it further south would you guys.

The water at the point was cleared out just this Sunday gone. To my amazement the local crew will mostly paddle out again seemingly unfazed by the earlier confirmed sightings. My friend 'surfer' went out and told me on the beach later she saw a baby seal out there (not too common) but no shark, I just nodded & continued drinking my beer from the safety of the shore.

I surf every other day at beaches around here & I think about sharks at least 1-2 times every session, I know it's not conducive to a relaxing surf but it's reality - there are WAY more sharks out there than you would like to believe. Sure the odds of getting attacked a very very low but if you want to dance you gotta pay the band - right?

It still blows my mind that someone was killed at Amity on Nth Stradbroke Island and Amity was the fictional town in the Jaws film.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 27/11/2013 01:37

Thanks for that link Popeye, Life Death and Sharks in WA. The standout comment I must quote comes from the comments section, by Sean, brother of Wayne Murphy:

"Where do you draw the line on culling? I don't know but if we can successfully
manage the fish stocks we eat surely we can mange the ones that eat
us."
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 27/11/2013 01:54

WOW that response in the comments section from Wayne Murphy was full on I just read it. Insane. I love reading peoples stuff when they can write like that. This issue is going to be big news for some time to come.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 27/11/2013 20:04

I certainly don't agree with croc removal up here. For a couple of reasons. One is that as CF said they are a tourism draw card and secondly by removing I actually believe there is more chance of attacks. If the local waters were riddled with crocs then no one would ever contemplate going in but if there is only the odd one here and there then people are more likely to take chances.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 27/11/2013 20:17

Exactly, which is exactly what croc experts are warning about.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 27/11/2013 22:28

Hey Popeye, here's a site you might be interested in. http://sharkattackfile.info/shark-attack...king-sharks.asp
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 27/11/2013 22:42

Yeah cheers JAX. Looked up to see if a mate of mine was on it. Yep Broome 04/03/89.
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 30/11/2013 16:20

Another attack led to this kids death
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/ns...2-1226771985175
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 30/11/2013 16:43

First in 5 years in NSW.
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 30/11/2013 17:13

I also saw a segment on sharks on the Today Show this morning, but cant find the vid on their website, but im sure i heard them say that the odds of being eaten alive by a shark is 1 in 264 million?
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 30/11/2013 17:22

That doesn't stop the bleeding hearts calling for culls though.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 30/11/2013 20:21

Wow another fatal attack. Poor kid. I wonder what type of shark it was? White, Bull, Whaler. Not great news leading up to the eve of summer in Australia.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 30/11/2013 22:18

I read an article saying it might have been a suspected Bull shark responsible for the attack. The poor kid would have died due to huge loss of blood and heart failure. What a terrible way to go. Its times like that you want your mates to have done a first aid course and be a bit inventive with trying to stop the flow of blood. Tourniquet cranked tight until an ambulance arrived.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 01/12/2013 11:49

They can't always be saved. It depends on where he was bleeding from. Some survivors of shark attacks report that they feel little pain whilst in the water. It's once the air hits the nerves that it starts to register and even if they are in shock they don't feel much either apparently. Just a tearing sensation during the attack.

I'd like to think he didn't feel too much pain.

I'd be surprised if this was a white. They don't usually stray that far north after the whales have gone back to the southern ocean.
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 01/12/2013 12:21

Most kids that bodyboard generally dont take a beach towel down to the beach its either left in the car or at home, so they would be limited with what they could use for a tourniquet.

Here is an article that is in the Sunday Tele.
Tracking of the Great White!!
Very interesting the miles they can do!!
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/secret-life-of-a-great-white/story-fni0cx4q-1226772287998
Posted by: Crookhaven River

Re: sharks - 01/12/2013 12:39

Quote:
Most kids that bodyboard generally dont take a beach towel down to the beach its either left in the car or at home, so they would be limited with what they could use for a tourniquet.


You can use a wrist leash,most bodyboader's have them.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 01/12/2013 12:49

Another article I read said it was some time before the 3 mates could get him out of the water. I would have been a pretty horrendous experience having to help your mate to shore. The news footage is a bit 'in your face' with resus being attempted on the beach with the mates sitting near by in shock.

Yeah a wrist leash would be good to use but I guess if someone has had a main artery severed in their leg its going to be a hard bleed to control especially for the young fellas involved. I often think of scenarios in first aid you could be faced with in life and what you could use. Leg rope/Wrist leash was always one in mind for a shark attack. No doubt a lot of surfers would have contemplated scenarios of what to do.
Posted by: Ms Milo

Re: sharks - 01/12/2013 14:21

Originally Posted By: Ms Milo
Shark sightings are relatively frequent around these parts, more often than not Tigers but during the whale migration Great Whites are known to edge their way closer ugh keep it further south would you guys.

The water at the point was cleared out just this Sunday gone. To my amazement the local crew will mostly paddle out again seemingly unfazed by the earlier confirmed sightings. My friend 'surfer' went out and told me on the beach later she saw a baby seal out there (not too common) but no shark, I just nodded & continued drinking my beer from the safety of the shore.

I surf every other day at beaches around here & I think about sharks at least 1-2 times every session, I know it's not conducive to a relaxing surf but it's reality - there are WAY more sharks out there than you would like to believe. Sure the odds of getting attacked a very very low but if you want to dance you gotta pay the band - right?

It still blows my mind that someone was killed at Amity on Nth Stradbroke Island and Amity was the fictional town in the Jaws film.


I posted the above last week. Yesterdays shark attack at Coffs Harbour is about 1.5 hour south of here by road, much closer by sea ughh
Posted by: Ms Milo

Re: sharks - 01/12/2013 14:24

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Wow another fatal attack. Poor kid. I wonder what type of shark it was? White, Bull, Whaler. Not great news leading up to the eve of summer in Australia.


Interesting the media hasn't released the type of shark it was yet. My money is on a White! The kid at Coffs was a body boarder too, I've no doubt they're more likely to be hit than a surfer or swimmer, of course I have no statistical evidence whatsoever to back that comment with.
Posted by: Ms Milo

Re: sharks - 01/12/2013 14:40

Duh just realized it was a Tiger. Lucky I'm not a betting woman
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 01/12/2013 16:07

Like I said last page the whites are usually further south by this time of year.
Posted by: pogonantha

Re: sharks - 01/12/2013 18:55

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Like I said last page the whites are usually further south by this time of year.


But back to the real point..Having encountered a crazy pair of 3.5/4m tigers while spearfishing I'm not a fan of them at all..they scare the crap outta me..and i would not trust them a bit..

Anyway,its just a very sad situation and just so incredibly unlucky and devastating for the young fella and his family and friends....

Shame for the Coffs harbour region also..might cause a few tourists to think twice about going in the water coming up to the Xmas holidays..I've done some lovely scuba dives around a couple of the solitary islands and its really beautiful, the only sharks I encountered were the very placid Grey Nurses..

Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 01/12/2013 19:36

As it turns out it was well founded. There's a reason they head south in summer womble. They don't like warm water and head back with the whales at the end of winter .

One of those "rules and regulations" is millions of years of living in cold water.
Posted by: Ms Milo

Re: sharks - 01/12/2013 22:34

The ocean temp isn't exactly warm here now, but since I originally hail from Noosa it's no shock that I'm not fully ( & may never be) acclimatised to it over the border.

I still reckon you could find the odd White not too far out. Maybe not in full Summer though. Off it. Tigers can get f**ked too.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 01/12/2013 22:38

They go up as far as the Whitsundays in winter MsMilo but run south as the current turns and runs south again along with the whales and Schnapper.

Water temps are near 24 degs off Coffs atm. Better suited to tropical species like tigers which also move south in summer. Tigers are responsible for far more human casualties than whites are.

http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/forecasts/idyoc14.shtml?region=14&forecast=1
Posted by: Ms Milo

Re: sharks - 01/12/2013 22:52

Yeah I know what the water temps are I'm just a wuss and prefer a super warm sea with no wind chill. In socks and pj's here, unheard of attire on the 1st day of Summer up north.

Thanks for the info re: whale migration & whites but I knew that anyway. Never say never though
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 01/12/2013 23:02

Coffs Harbour sea wall temps are currently 22.4 degrees. That's at the surface. Deeper waters offshore would be colder. While it was unlikely this attack was from a Great white due to eyewitness accounts/no announcements saying so, you cannot say that a Great White wouldn't inhabit waters at 22.4 degrees dated the 29th November. Its an ocean they can go where ever they want to within reason. OK the big whites follow food sources but juvenile Whites are known to inhabit areas along the NSW coast. To say so confidently that they have all gone south is a bit doubtful. Even scientist would have to question a statement like that.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 01/12/2013 23:08

Other than the young fella saying it was a Tiger shark that attacked his mate there is no evidence yet to say it was other than his word. I have a feeling it would be more likely to be a 3metre+ Bull shark. Experts will come out with the real shark that did it. I know that Tigers and Bull sharks have similar teeth patterns so it might be hard to say. Tigers seem to be more morn/evening/night predators. Scavengers that will swim around something for a while before attack. Bulls will just go in and bite, shallow waters, murky surf zone. It just doesn't add up to be a Tiger shark attack. Anything is possible but I reckon Bull Shark.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 01/12/2013 23:11

Originally Posted By: Ms Milo
Yeah I know what the water temps are I'm just a wuss and prefer a super warm sea with no wind chill. In socks and pj's here, unheard of attire on the 1st day of Summer up north.

Thanks for the info re: whale migration & whites but I knew that anyway. Never say never though



True. Never say never.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 01/12/2013 23:57

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Coffs Harbour sea wall temps are currently 22.4 degrees. That's at the surface. Deeper waters offshore would be colder.


Not according to that link I put up. The water is warmer just off the coast than right on the coast. No doubt due to the effect of night time temps on the shallower water and adjacent land/mixing etc. It's logical. According to BoM's color scale it at or near 24 degs just offshore .
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/12/2013 03:20

I am glad you have such a fine eye to distinguish between shades of orange on that SST map Coldfront. Anyway orange is more in the 22-23 temp range anyway. 24 is getting into the red mate.

Try this one instead CSIRO SST

Like I say I don't think it was a Greta white in this latest attack but...
Coffs Harbour has a similar latitude to some fairly sharky waters in the West. I don't see why they wouldn't be potentially anywhere along that coast. Just like there is no reason why they wouldn't still be anywhere along the more Northern parts of their Spring/Early Summer range on the WA coast from say Perth to Kalbarri. They also get Tigers, hammerheads and more of the tropical species intermingling in those waters.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/12/2013 08:28

LOL. That still shows 24 degs just off the coast.

Pssst I've sold oil paintings for up to $1500. Distinguishing between color shades is critical.

I'm glad your fine eye allowed you to see the attack from Broome. It may well turn out to be a bull shark but you're is an assumption . Even scientist would question a claim like that.
Posted by: pogonantha

Re: sharks - 02/12/2013 08:39

As for the sharks,well, I'm still of the view that there is no black and white and they still dont always follow the "rules"









Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/12/2013 09:03

As for the sharks there is a very outside chance it might be a great white but Ms Milo like so many instantly assumed it was due to media sensationalism. Every time there is a shark attack the great white is implicated and labelled a "rogue maneater" despite mounting evidence that great whites don't actually enjoy eating us and most deaths occur from "tasting" .

Anyway, I didn't set about to squabble whilst some family mourns their child. Just to bring some fact to the content. Have a nice day.
Posted by: pogonantha

Re: sharks - 02/12/2013 10:03

I also wasnt aware that a great White is implicated "every time" there is a shark attack..read that on facebook I bet..

I dont see why any number of sharks couldn't be responsible for an attack off Coffs harbour this time of year..lets wait and see before too much presumption..
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 02/12/2013 10:53

Originally Posted By: Popeye
.
Coffs Harbour has a similar latitude to some fairly sharky waters in the West. I don't see why they wouldn't be potentially anywhere along that coast. Just like there is no reason why they wouldn't still be anywhere along the more Northern parts of their Spring/Early Summer range on the WA coast from say Perth to Kalbarri. They also get Tigers, hammerheads and more of the tropical species intermingling in those waters.


There's no reason they wouldn't potentially be there along that coastline Popeye, oh, except for the nets and drum lines that catch them before they get close. If you can believe these figures:

Quote:
In NSW between 1950 and 2008, 577 great white sharks and 352 tiger sharks were caught in shark control nets. Over the same period 15,135 other marine animals were caught and killed in nets, including turtles, whales, dolphins, rays, dugongs, and harmless species of sharks. This figure includes 377 of the now critically endangered and harmless grey nurse shark, a number which threatens their future survival.

In QLD, between 1975 and 2001, 11,899 great white sharks, tiger sharks and bull sharks were killed in nets and drumlines. In 2008, 578 sharks were caught in shark control equipment in Queensland and 505 sharks were caught between January and 20th November 2009. Less than half of those sharks caught were considered the dangerous or target species.
http://www.hsi.org.au/?catID=116



I came across another site while looking for info about the netting and baiting over there. Check out the logic...


Quote:
Baby Humpack killed in New South Wales' waters after becoming entangled in shark nets. Enough is enough, it's time to end, once and for all, the indiscriminate slaughter of marine life in shark nets and baited drum lines.

The Australian states of New South Wales and Queensland operate the Shark Meshing Program (SMP) and Shark Control Program (SCP), respectively.

The SMP, introduced in 1935 and the SCP, introduced in 1962 are outdated programs which do not achieve their identified goals of protecting bathers from sharks.

According to Taronga Zoo's 'Shark Attack File' Queensland and New South Wales lead Australia in terms of the number of human/shark interactions, despite these murderous programs having been in their waters for decades.

The already miniscule risk of a bather losing their life to a shark (according to Taronga Zoo's 'Shark Attack File', one person has died on average in Australian waters over the last 50 years due to an unprovoked shark interaction) is no justification for governments to persist with these programs that do nothing but kill, injure, maim and stress marine life.



"Humpack" must be related to humpback I guess. Not a good start.

The next two lines establish that culling of sharks (and other life) began 78 years ago in NSW, and 50 in Qld.

They then say that despite these measures, these two States have the highest incidence of unprovoked shark attacks on humans.

Then state the reason this practice should stop because there's such a low incidence of deaths caused by shark, 1 in 50 years they say. Which falls within the time frame of the practice they're aiming to stop.

Do they teach stupid at school these days??





Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/12/2013 11:43

Next time you watch a news story on a shark attack take note of the file photo used.
Posted by: Ms Milo

Re: sharks - 02/12/2013 13:37


I never assumed it was a great white due to media sensationalism but rather the fact there have been reliable eyewitness(respected local fisherman and surfers) accounts of whites sighted in this area( Angourie to Brooms Head )in recent times. I believe I can distinguish between a 'fishy tale' and genuine account of white sightings. The crew around here don't bother clearing the water for no reason and there are no nets either.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/12/2013 15:39

Originally Posted By: Ms Milo
I never assumed it was a great white due to media sensationalism but rather the fact there have been reliable eyewitness(respected local fisherman and surfers) accounts of whites sighted in this area( Angourie to Brooms Head )in recent times. I believe I can distinguish between a 'fishy tale' and genuine account of white sightings. The crew around here don't bother clearing the water for no reason and there are no nets either.


This wasn't levelled at you specifically MsMilo, but was a reference to how people automatically assume whites are responsible. 100% of the time there is a shark attack whether the shark has been seen or not the news will run a file photo of a great white.

It often cops a bad rap despite the fact that many attacks on the east coast are bulls and tigers. At this time of year with those ocean temps it is probably least like to have been responsible for that Coffs Harbour incident. It's possible but unlikely.

Posted by: Lindsay Knowles

Re: sharks - 02/12/2013 15:42

Ok lets try again. Let this be a warning that if there is any personal attacks etc I will put forward to admin than bans are put in place without any further notice given. I still cannot believe a thread about Sharks could get as messy as it did.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/12/2013 21:13

From the link below

"Because shark bites are so rare anything you do will look like it works, but nothing you do will prevent the next one,"


http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking...9-1226773147146

It was a Tiger Shark.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/de...ong-tiger-shark

I read last night that most attacks globally each year occur against scuba divers and the odds are 3,000,00 to 1.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 03/12/2013 02:41

Thank you Linsdsay.

"I read last night that most attacks globally each year occur against scuba divers and the odds are 3,000,00 to 1."

Not according to this fairly comprehensive list they don't. http://sharkattackfile.info/shark-attack...king-sharks.asp
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 03/12/2013 09:08

Yes you're right, It was poorly worded. The odds overall are more like 1 in 11.5 million.

http://www.theinertia.com/surf/australian-diver-survives-his-second-shark-attack/
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 03/12/2013 10:06

Just like the odds of being fatally attacked in WA by a great white over the last 10 years is 1 in 190,000.

2 million people : 11 fatal attacks.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 03/12/2013 12:24

The odds are that most odds you read about shark attacks are not even close. Anyway, Greg Pickering wasn't using scuba, he uses a hookah, as you will find most ab divers do.

Popeye your odds are closer to the mark. Imagine narrowing them down to remove landlubbers and the only-ever-on-a-boat-never-actually-get-wet crowd.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 03/12/2013 14:00

I think you'll find hookers are still put in the same class as scuba. "Hooker diving" may be deemed inappropriate.

That was a global figure in that link and Australia unfortunately does have a higher instance of attacks than the global average. However unless you've been to an AFL grand final and seen a crowd of 100,000 people you can't truly appreciate just how high the odds even at 190,000 are of being taken. Though latest stats (March 13 do have it at 2.47 million) excluding transients.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 03/12/2013 23:31

sorry guys , have been busy and didn't see this thread when i daily look at charts .

i have also been involved in another sites ( WZ affiliated ) shark discussions .
When comparing statistics to car deaths , people must remember the regularity that entire regional populations spend in cars each day , and how often .

In realistic comparison you would have to level the stats out and only include people who frequently put themselves in harms way . Other wise , time of use and prevalence needs to alter car odds UP .

But getting back to it to even the odds , i would suggest that there would be less than 5000 people that regularly put themselves at a real risk of attack . Be location , depth , light levels and then decreaseit substantially more to say two months either side of the local migration period ( ie different for different location / lattitude ) ....

Any way , i have possibly one degree of seperation to nearly all of these attacks in WA , even though I'm now back in Vic . Perhaps its a reflection of the circles i travel in .
I don't support culling , however i totally agree with locals concerns and actually support their calls for some form of control or interaction to reduce risks .
The SW WA region is the west coasts " Gold Coast" but in reality the actual number in the water on any given day would probably mirror somewhere like one town Wollongong or perhaps as low as Ulladulla for daily participation .

Talking of the future , you only have to look at Reunion Island ( east of Mauritius ) , where it is now illiegal to enter the water , and you incur a e50 fine for doing so . Such is the crazy number of incidents in their waters . most of this was created some 15-20 years ago with multiple exclusion zones and marine parks created .
Anyway people talk about govt ' policy and its effect on global warming worldwide . Well since sharks do cover these southern distances infrequently , then this is an international problem that will only get worse . Again its Human interference that has created this . Be it us taking out predators that prey on young shark pups ( large pelagics like tuna ) , us putting pressure on stocks of GWS amongst others prey , and then also protecting there number one & two target species ( whales and seals ) that are the prime feed for adult >3m fish .

like the other thread i speak of its an emotional issue , that has no winners .
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 03/12/2013 23:57

WOW I didn't realise Reunion Island was so bad for attacks. Did a quick search on it and it seems almost as bad as SW WA. The old Indian Ocean is full of big sharks by the sounds of it.

Reunion shark attack article
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 04/12/2013 00:08

Interesting thought by one of the comments to that article:

"Who says that human life is more precious than animal life?" OK. Let's see how this plays out in a real-life, 'push comes to shove' scenario.

Someone is swimming in the ocean, (let's say it's your good friend, your child, or your sister, brother, mother or father). A shark approaches, and is poised to attack, circling the human.
[Hit the pause button.]

Whose life is more valuable in this situation? What would you choose to do if you had the power to either: 1. kill the shark and save the life of the human, or 2. Choose not to act and therefore allow the shark to attack, kill and eat the friend/child/relative?

You're kidding yourself.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 04/12/2013 00:27

I am an ex Perth girl. After the guy was killed at Cottesloe Beach, it scared the crap out of me. So I took the following precautions when swimming. I never swam at dawn or dusk. If the water was murky, then I didn't get in. Swimming in the migration whale months was a no no. Even though I took these precautions, if a shark did attack me, I knew I was in it's territory. I have been one of the lucky ones to have swum in some of the best beaches of Australia.
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 04/12/2013 01:19

Popeye , try the comments on this article .
" http://www.surfermag.com/features/reunion-island-bans-surfing/"
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 04/12/2013 15:38

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/prog...erstood/5128194

Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 04/12/2013 17:40


Quote:
'Killing off sharks is going to tip the scales and throw the oceans into chaos.'

'You’re not going to sterilise the sea without killing ourselves.'



That's a quote from the article CF linked above.

Who is talking about sterilising the sea? No one is, that is who.If this is the theory people want to put forward in order to save sharks then whey don't they insist we stop killing EVERYTHING in the ocean? We are stealing literally mountains of food every single day from sharks for our own eating pleasure, how come that's okay? We are directly competing with the sharks people are lately viewing with such reverence - why is that okay? If people are so concerned about balance, why don't they started jumping up and down and arguing that humans should just stop interfering totally, get back onto the land upon which we belong and leave the oceans alone to re balance themselves? Hypocrites much?

Sharks are not out to eat us, they're just shy and curious the article tells us. Yeah, and anyone who dives will tell you some fish have personalities, groupers, cod, coral trout, moray eels, sharks, whatever - some are shy, some are inquisitive. So what?? Because of this they should be allowed to have us on the menu if they are big enough and it pleases some curious urge?

Sharks are fish. We eat fish, it is not okay for fish to eat us, or to attack us so that we die. If you think that it is okay, well I'm sorry, have a look at yourself, because you can't get more hypocritical - all fish are just fish, or all fish are special, you can't have it both ways. Even vegetarians who don't eat meat because animals were once living creatures will still eat fish, that's how highly fish are actually regarded!

If people want to get stuck in to some emotive arguing in favour of improving the ocean, they need to look at what is going to tip the scales and throw the oceans into chaos, has already started tipping, and that is the craploads of radiated muck STILL being spewed from Fukushima into the Pacific. Go ahead and research melting jelly fish and bleeding tumours on fish and sick dolphins and sick turtles and and and, the list grows every day.

Human perspective is going down the crapper. Seriously.
Posted by: Seabreeze

Re: sharks - 04/12/2013 17:49

An article from the Coffs Coast Advocate suggesting a Salmon school might have prompted the attack, along with the sudden/steep slope of the beach, and overcast weather.

http://www.coffscoastadvocate.com.au/news/salmon-school-might-have-prompted-attack/2103192/

I noticed under one of the tips to avoid shark attacks was 'avoid beaches after heavy rain'. 42.6mm fell at Coffs Harbour the day before the attack (in a wet month of 302.4mm).

I also recall seeing a rocky outcrop near shore in the footage/pictures, I wonder how close they were to it?
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 04/12/2013 17:52

Originally Posted By: Jax

Who is talking about sterilising the sea?


I don't agree with all that's written there Jax however as already pointed out it is impossible to catch the guilty shark . The guy is taking about where we are heading ,not where we are now.


Surfers will be taken from time to time and there is plenty of evidence that we are not their preferred food source. They like blubber. Unfortunately we enter their environment and behave like and mirror their prey and then expect them to behave a certain way. Given our own behaviour that is certainly hypocrisy. We kill for fun. They don't.

Maybe some decoy seals floating around tethered to the bottom where people surf may be worth trying? They attack the shape. This has been proven time and again with towed decoys.

Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 04/12/2013 20:19

Originally Posted By: Jax

Quote:
'Killing off sharks is going to tip the scales and throw the oceans into chaos.'

'You’re not going to sterilise the sea without killing ourselves.'



That's a quote from the article CF linked above.

Who is talking about sterilising the sea? No one is, that is who.If this is the theory people want to put forward in order to save sharks then whey don't they insist we stop killing EVERYTHING in the ocean? We are stealing literally mountains of food every single day from sharks for our own eating pleasure, how come that's okay? We are directly competing with the sharks people are lately viewing with such reverence - why is that okay? If people are so concerned about balance, why don't they started jumping up and down and arguing that humans should just stop interfering totally, get back onto the land upon which we belong and leave the oceans alone to re balance themselves? Hypocrites much?

Sharks are not out to eat us, they're just shy and curious the article tells us. Yeah, and anyone who dives will tell you some fish have personalities, groupers, cod, coral trout, moray eels, sharks, whatever - some are shy, some are inquisitive. So what?? Because of this they should be allowed to have us on the menu if they are big enough and it pleases some curious urge?

Sharks are fish. We eat fish, it is not okay for fish to eat us, or to attack us so that we die. If you think that it is okay, well I'm sorry, have a look at yourself, because you can't get more hypocritical - all fish are just fish, or all fish are special, you can't have it both ways. Even vegetarians who don't eat meat because animals were once living creatures will still eat fish, that's how highly fish are actually regarded!

If people want to get stuck in to some emotive arguing in favour of improving the ocean, they need to look at what is going to tip the scales and throw the oceans into chaos, has already started tipping, and that is the craploads of radiated muck STILL being spewed from Fukushima into the Pacific. Go ahead and research melting jelly fish and bleeding tumours on fish and sick dolphins and sick turtles and and and, the list grows every day.

Human perspective is going down the crapper. Seriously.


Yes we eat fish. Can't see why fish don't have the right to eat us if they so choose. There is also a big difference between sustainably harvesting fish species(which is not always what happens unfortunately and this needs rectification) and revenge killing of extremely slow growing and maturing sharks that have few offspring and are extremely veneruble to hunting.
And by the way. Anyone that eats fish is NOT a vegetarian annd needs to seriously face reality. Vegetarians don't eat meat. That is the definition of a vegetarian.
Back to the topic though. Saving th oceans and restoring balance are a completely different arguments. What we are discussing are fear motivated revenge killings that are highly likely to drive a species to a bad state in order for people to be able to have a quick frolic at the end of the week. In order to have any real effect as well you would have to take out the food sources that attract the sharks to the area-mostly whalws and seals for the whites and al manner of fish species and turtles etc for other species of sharks. May as well go all the way hey? Good money selling whale meat to the Japanese market I hear.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 04/12/2013 21:27

Here is a good article in regards to avoiding sharks.

http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/why-sharks-attack-and-how-to-avoid-them.htm

The article that S.O posted pretty well sums it up that culling is not going to be the answer in reducing shark attacks. They already culled twenty sharks in the area, yet they are still getting attacks.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 04/12/2013 22:42

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
Yes we eat fish. Can't see why fish don't have the right to eat us if they so choose.


LOL. I must say actually agree. Though sharks would need to kill 10's of millions of us each year to balance the scales .
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 04/12/2013 23:40

Adele ,

the comments section was more relevant than the article i linked to .

As for the list , there are some generalisations there that are true and can reduce risk .

But Surfing itself is prone to actually be focused at the places and times of day that they say not .

And nearly all of the attacks that have occured in the last ten years in WA have bucked the trend when it comes to light levels ( time of day ) , water run off ( its a dry place ) and the attacks including the last have occurred less than 50 M from shore .

But they all have one thing in common ( apart from the wedge Island incident ) , they were in close proximity to large drop offs in the ocean floor .

As for you guys argueing about environmental policies . You should go out into the middle of the pacific ( micronesia ) and sea the large commercial fisheries that are raping the ocean . I've never seen anything like it . The ships are usaually pandering to the large Nthn Asian market , and are typically owned by big multi nationals and captained and ran by Europeans .
They go to small island nations and give the locals monetary offers they can't refuse to take on their fishing rights and marine boundaries . Slowly one by one they are fishing out each area . Thats the crime here , what Australia does is a drop in the ocean in comparison , but until there is international aggreeance and policing , then this imbalance will continue .

Sharks will eat themselves out of existance eventually anyway , if their natural juvenile prey is fished out . And in time the current crisis ( yes its serious in many places like Reunion and , SWA ) , and this will eventually effect everywhere .
Its time controlled fisheries are brought back . With NO , exclusions to species . It just needs to be policed better .
The top of the food chain doesn't really matter if the entirety of the remainder gets wiped out anyway .
Natural selection , as in Humans haveing the right to catch all but the most endangered ( and i mean by real observations , not rubbish extrapolations that SOME groups are claiming ) .

Anyway thats my bit .
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 06/12/2013 15:13

Another attack in NSW. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-06/sh...ach-nsw/5139108

Gentler type of attack than some have though, lucky man.

Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 10/12/2013 16:23

Looks like it's all happening today with big announcements being made in regards to Managed Shark Zones.

Shark Zones established

WA sets up Shark kill zones.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 11/12/2013 00:30

If this is not culling then what is it?

How can they say they are only targeting three metre sharks...Are they going to kill some seals or whales as bait,to minimise the risk off killing other marine creatures.

The other major question is what happened to great white sharks (as they are the shark responsible to the latest shark attack fatalities )being a protected species????

Controversy to their decision is an understatement.
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 11/12/2013 00:51

Adele ,

I think you'll find the size of the hooks they'll use will big enough that only large sharks could get hooked . If they hook a Killer whale then thats a totally different scenario .

Not sure i would want to be hanging in the area where a bait is attracting the sharks to ?????

As for the protected species , i believe they are protected due to the " alleged , bordering on endangered " . When many local accounts say that they are extremely prevalent in the last 10 years .

Many ocean users that feel they want to protect the species , and or not create a big Hooplar , DON"T report sightings . Sadly this only adds to peoples perception that they are rare , ( sightings that is , as opposed to attacks ) . As in reality the attacks are rare , its just that most encounters are fatal . Even if they mistakenly bite people , most " mouthings " result in huge blood loss , and most definitely death .
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 11/12/2013 13:16

It's localised removal Adele, and only of sharks large enough to be fatal to humans. This isn't an all out cull, relax.

Do you swim over there in the waters off Queensland, where your government has been protecting you by baiting and netting thousands and thousands of sharks for decades, since before you were born? Oh, hang on, no, you're in coalmine country 200 kms inland.

Seriously, if this all happened minus the media coverage, none of you speaking up so loudly for saving your pet sharks would even know they were missing. Most east coasters don't seem to get that they enter the water with HUGELY lower odds of being eaten than we do over here. Yes, it can still happen, but the risk is greatly reduced. We'll soon be in a position where yes, it can still happen, but the risk will be somewhat reduced. Right now we're in a position of, yes, it can happen, and it's happening a lot more than it has, ever.

Stay up there on your high horses, but focus your attack at your own government about their nets catching all manner of things as well as the sharks. This has been happening for 75 years in NSW and half a century in Queensland you know...

S.O. - re the bait areas, they've said that will be approximately 1 km offshore, so unless people are diving out there, they'll be unlikely to be hanging around the baits. Cray pots are baited. Burly is readily spread around. The baits are unlikely to attract more sharks to the areas than are already around.

Good on Barnett, the money they've already spent over the past couple of years hasn't made any difference, so at least they've reassessed before blowing the lot and are aiming to try another tactic to improve things. And good on him for not going the net option - much much less collateral damage with just the bait lines.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 11/12/2013 14:23

Pet sharks? That's pretty desperate even for you. Nice to see your redneck hick state leader has his priorities in order.

I had an encounter with one of these almost 31 years ago to the day when diving a ship wreck in Bass Strait so spare me the "you Queenslanders" rubbish.

This article at the ABC sums it up perfectly. Commercial interests want this to happen. Money must come first.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-11/shark-catch-kill-attack-surfer-policy-beaches/5148520

The wider community over there in WA don't want them culled and I can see the redneck pros already rubbing their hands together with glee.

"oops it looked 3 mtrs before I shot it" !! Victory for the selfish.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 11/12/2013 14:24

From that article by one of the sane surfers.


"I'm going into their home and I know that I would never want to kill them for it. That's the risk you take when you go in the water; you know that's their home and you can't take that away from them."

Ellen D'Cruz

So they're not all rednecks over there it seems.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 11/12/2013 14:28

Originally Posted By: Jax


Most east coasters don't seem to get that they enter the water with HUGELY lower odds of being eaten than we do over here.


Oh dear !

http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/map-of-shark-attacks-worldwide.htm
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 11/12/2013 19:03

Save your huffy Oh dearing CF, it really is hard to take you seriously on this issue, particularly considering where you live.

Yes, I have a problem when people from the east coast take the moral high ground while totally ignoring the fact that their governments are actively culling (killing / murdering / thinning out / managing / reducing numbers of...) sharks every day and have been actively doing so for 50 (Qld) and 70 (NSW) years. Calling us rednecks makes you look like a sadly delusional hypocrite. Maybe you should focus your energy on lobbying to save sharks on your side of the country? And don't forget all the other creatures getting caught up in the nets while you're at it.

And yes, regarding your news article, for some balance, ABC found one young girl who was happy to say she surfs in the sharks' home and accepts the risk and so on. There are also surfers only three hours south of where she surfs who have lost three friends in recent years. They've also held the same peace-and-shark-loving attitude as Ellen in the past, but to quote from the same article, "We don't expect not to have any attacks but the frequency is just ridiculous". They really are starting to change their tune, hardly surprising really.

And so what if you had an encounter in the Bass Straight? ...Struggling for useless page filler??
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 11/12/2013 19:10

Originally Posted By: Jax
it really is hard to take you seriously on this issue


Originally Posted By: Jax
Most east coasters don't seem to get that they enter the water with HUGELY lower odds of being eaten than we do over here.


Fatal attacks

Western Australia 28

Queensland 104

NSW 116

LOL. Oops a daisy.

http://sharkattackfile.info/shark_attack...ls_location.asp

...and it's hard to take me seriously.... ROFL.

Automatically assuming I am somehow happy with these rednecks killing sharks here in Queensland makes you look like a fool . Not to mention your attack on Adele for living inland. Does that mean she can't swim or can't travel? Nice form either way.


Only a page or so back I told everyone what I think of these dickheads removing crocs from our water ways. wink They are no better than that clown running your state.

...and many Queenslanders want those nets gone too cheers

Pssst. I'm from Victoria and they don't do it smile
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 11/12/2013 19:36

This isn't a pissing contest you twit.

Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 11/12/2013 20:09


Originally Posted By: Jax
Most east coasters don't seem to get that they enter the water with HUGELY lower odds of being eaten than we do over here.




You made an uninformed claim . I simply supplied evidence to the contrary which previously you demanded. No need to get personal.

You seem to think WA is the only place there are shark attacks and made several baseless assumptions about other posters and where they live. Extraordinary.

Originally Posted By: Jax
Oh, hang on, no, you're in coalmine country 200 kms inland.



What did Adele do to deserve your abuse?

Originally Posted By: Jax
.

And so what if you had an encounter in the Bass Straight? ...Struggling for useless page filler??


crazy This is a thread about sharks!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 11/12/2013 20:52

I guess the issue at hand is the high number of recent fatal attacks in WA. Lots, regular, more frequent than ever before. I don't agree with culling but who am I to say what can and cannot be done.

If people are getting plucked out of the water going about their everyday life then authorities have decided to manage it the best way possible. I have no doubt authorities will be managing and monitoring things very carefully. Taking note of catch rates, issues that arise etc. Just like they have had to manage and monitor the fatality rates from attacks. This is obviously just a response that was required in the current circumstances. They may even be able to learn more about the species as I would imagine research would be conducted along the way.

I think it is worth trying in the current situation to see what happens. No doubt everyone will be questioning the use of the 'thinning' of the Great whites off the SW of WA especially when the next attack happens, and the next and so on. I think its just something that WA will have to deal with. Regular Attacks in our waters.

As for QLD?? It would be good to hear about some of QLD's shark stories, issues, attacks, encounters etc. That way we can learn about what's happening over in your part of OZ.

Its a big issue in WA and there are a lot of people scared, unsure, freaked out about it. I live in Broome and work in tourism on the water every day and I hear peoples fear every day. I have a respect for sharks but don't feel a threat by them. Imagine what it must be like in the SWEST for all those people that recreate in the ocean who have a respect for sharks also but know the threat is real in regards to being eaten. I feel sorry for the people that now are apprehensive to go in the water. But its only natural for humans to fear Sharks.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 11/12/2013 21:05

Originally Posted By: ColdFront

Originally Posted By: Jax
Most east coasters don't seem to get that they enter the water with HUGELY lower odds of being eaten than we do over here.




You made an uninformed claim . I simply supplied evidence to the contrary which previously you demanded. No need to get personal.

You seem to think WA is the only place there are shark attacks and made several baseless assumptions about other posters and where they live. Extraordinary.

Originally Posted By: Jax
Oh, hang on, no, you're in coalmine country 200 kms inland.



What did Adele do to deserve your abuse?

Originally Posted By: Jax
.

And so what if you had an encounter in the Bass Straight? ...Struggling for useless page filler??


crazy This is a thread about sharks!!!!!!!!!!


I wasn't uninformed CF, I supplied that link if you look back. You are just ignoring context, history, population, so on.

Don't put words into my mouth, I know it doesn't only happen here. Read Popeye's post, he gets it.

I did not abuse Adele, I drew attention to the fact that she does not live in the area under discussion, and in context, was pointing out that it so often is the way that people who are anti-culling usually don't. Usually, not always. And no, I don't insinuate that only people from here should discuss it.

Didn't there used to be an ignore user button here somewhere? I can't find it.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 11/12/2013 21:29

Yes Jax, I do live in a coal mine 200 km inland off central Queensland NOW. However, as I have stated before on this thread I am from Perth WA. Maybe you should read the posts before jumping down peoples throat in the future.

I have a lot of friends and family that enjoy swimming in the beaches of South West WA, who like me feel it is wrong to kill a shark when we are going into it's territory in the first place. If you don't want to take the risk of a potential shark attack then don't get in the water.

I miss not being able to swim at the beaches in QLD. But with stingers, sharks and crocodiles the beaches here are a lot less safe.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 11/12/2013 21:48

I remember snorkelling with my husband in Hamlin Bay, and seeing a large grey shape swimming quickly in front of us. Let me say I turned quickly around and nearly ran on water. We were lucky that it was only a dolphin, and can laugh about it now. At the time I had brown stains in my bathers.
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 11/12/2013 22:13

Just to put it out there, i live in a tourist destination, we go from a town of about 2500 population to about 30,000 people over the Christmas holidays, we are well known area for sharks and as far as i know (the last 30 years) there have been no fatalities.
Just about every day during the Xmas holiday the shark alarm goes off just about daily, it has absolutely done no harm to tourism over the past few years. Our biggest problem is drownings in NSW.
Here is a link to an article that was documented off the beach of Hawks Nest!!
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2816558.htm
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 11/12/2013 22:24

Even with the population you are using the numbers are still firmly in favour of attacks on the east coast Jax. Your original comment was baseless. NSW has less than 3 times the population but nearly 4 times the fatal attacks.

Popeye's right. It is because there have been a couple of recent attacks in WA and emotions are getting in the way of facts. Sharks are in THEIR habitat and we should respect that.

People who have devoted their lives to studying these animals are telling that halfwit premier this won't work but he knows better. Anyone stopped to consider that shooting a shark would put blood in the water? Real smart! The sensible option would be to do the same thing they are doing in the USA and tag them so they can be monitored and their movements better understood.

People have a choice .The sharks don't That is why this is wrong!
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 11/12/2013 22:26

Interesting link Eddy. I wonder what draws the juvenile Great whites to that area. Fish stocks and food source? I remember reading somewhere that Whites feed off fish and smaller stuff up to when they hit the 2.5-3metre size when they start going for Marine Mammals. I wonder if there is a Great white Juvenile area in WA. I think The SW with all its Seals, Sea Lions, Dolphins, rays and whales is just a prime location for the big mummy and daddy's to hang out.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 11/12/2013 22:47

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
The sensible option would be to do the same thing they are doing in the USA and tag them so they can be monitored and their movements better understood.


I think the tagging program is pretty big in WA. A bit different to the methods used in the States. Maybe the data they are getting from the tags is one reason why they have decided to do something.

The Sensors off the Perth Beaches go off like buzzers some days apparently. I spoke with a lady from one of the well known Surf Clubs in Perth and they have access to the data. In the waters off Cottesloe some days she was amazed at the frequency of the shark tags being detected. I am not sure if it was the one shark but throw in a water loving nation on a nice arvo and its going to end up in attacks.

It is a real risk. We are a water loving nation. We do use the water more and more but knowing what is occurring with such regular frequency would be hard for people to deal with. While I think there are a lot of people opposed to killing Great Whites there is probably an equal amount that think its worth doing.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 11/12/2013 22:48

Originally Posted By: EddyG
Just to put it out there, i live in a tourist destination, we go from a town of about 2500 population to about 30,000 people over the Christmas holidays, we are well known area for sharks and as far as i know (the last 30 years) there have been no fatalities.
Just about every day during the Xmas holiday the shark alarm goes off just about daily, it has absolutely done no harm to tourism over the past few years. Our biggest problem is drownings in NSW.
Here is a link to an article that was documented off the beach of Hawks Nest!!
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2816558.htm


That's an excellent link.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 00:14

Popeye an Jax, do you think the general public is being educated that there is an increased risk of shark attacks in Western Australia, other than media hype after an attack?

This decision to cull the sharks in my opinion is to appease the current public reaction, rather than trying to find a solution. From what I have read. More scientific research, and educating the public of risks associated with going into the water is a better long term solution.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 00:18

Originally Posted By: Adele
educating the public of risks associated with going into the water is a better long term solution.



Good luck with that.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 00:51

Just being optimistic ColdFront :-) Although, it has been done in Queensland. We are all well educated about stingers, crocs and sharks. Some people will still take the risk,but they are aware of the consequences.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 02:01

My apologies Adele, I missed that you were from Perth. I also apologise that you thought I had jumped down your throat.

To answer your question about whether the public is being educated apart from all the media hype. No, and yes. You have pointed out how the "education" is sometimes quite flawed in saying when you avoided the water. If you look into the actual events when people have been taken, none were at the well advertised scary dawn and dusk times. As you would know from the locations and weather over here, run off from recent heavy rains played no part. Murky water certainly wouldn't have been the order of the day for the ab divers, pretty unlikely for scuba divers, can't say for the surfers, but I know Lefties/Umbilicals/The Womb etc on a gorgeous spring day with the right conditions for a surf are generally crystal clear and quite delicious. Much like Hamelin really, although as you would know, that can get pretty horribly choked up with seaweed sometimes. Like Injidup was, when I paddled out there on a surfboard late one afternoon. Not nice.

You and I are both very lucky to have used the beaches and ocean in the south west of WA. I also had quite a fright, although not at Hamelin Bay, mine was at Eagle Bay, I saw an orca. I didn't see the great white that scared my dive buddy when we were scuba diving off Naturaliste though, so I was pretty happy about that. I do know the daughter, wife and many very close friends of someone who was taken by a shark. They are all still very deeply upset every time the anniversary comes around and every time it has happend since then. That would be 12 more times now I think, close to that anyway. Um, yep, guess we're both qualified to be part of this discussion. Yay.

Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 02:19

Originally Posted By: Adele
Popeye an Jax, do you think the general public is being educated that there is an increased risk of shark attacks in Western Australia, other than media hype after an attack?

This decision to cull the sharks in my opinion is to appease the current public reaction, rather than trying to find a solution. From what I have read. More scientific research, and educating the public of risks associated with going into the water is a better long term solution.



I disagree. I think they've been throwing money at a solution that clearly hasn't been working all that well, so they're trying a different approach, a little more hands on and outcome driven. Thing is, when only four people are taken in the fifty years prior to this decade long run that has just been escalating, you have to concede that there has been time a plenty while the last 12 victims were taken to talk and research and educate.

Maybe if it is a sweet little 7 year old girl next time public opinion might swing a little more.

Late edit: ^^ Which isn't to say the victims weren't all sweet too. Sadly, they all would have been. Most people who embrace the ocean and accept its risks usually are...


Later edit... CF, just so you are aware and to save you bothering, I won't be responding to any more of your posts.
Mods, my ignore button seems to have gone missing. If anyone sees it, please return it in good working order ASAP.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 02:57

Found it...stop looking smile
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 09:11

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Originally Posted By: Jax
it really is hard to take you seriously on this issue


Originally Posted By: Jax
Most east coasters don't seem to get that they enter the water with HUGELY lower odds of being eaten than we do over here.


Fatal attacks

Western Australia 28

Queensland 104

NSW 116

LOL. Oops a daisy.

http://sharkattackfile.info/shark_attack...ls_location.asp

...and it's hard to take me seriously.... ROFL.

Automatically assuming I am somehow happy with these rednecks killing sharks here in Queensland makes you look like a fool . Not to mention your attack on Adele for living inland. Does that mean she can't swim or can't travel? Nice form either way.


Only a page or so back I told everyone what I think of these dickheads removing crocs from our water ways. wink They are no better than that clown running your state.

...and many Queenslanders want those nets gone too cheers

Pssst. I'm from Victoria and they don't do it smile


These figures are as useful as road statistics .... ie ( NOT useful , in fact misleading ) atleast in the topic of what they are talking about controlling .
GREAT WHITE SHARKS ....

If you want to show a comparison , maybe you can get the figures for GWS attack FATALITIES in QLD & WA and compare the two only after you adjust the figures for relative daily water users ......

Lets remember that , this needs to be monitored heavily by government authorities . I doubt its a free for all .

Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 11:03

I find it strange how there is a lot more information given out to the public of the data available from the research into sharks so far on the east coast. Surely if they have been researching in the waters off Western Australia, that there would be more data as well. Yet this hasn't been disclosed to the general public. The radical approach that the state government is taking, suggests that there is a greater underlining issue. Are they withdrawing this information for economical reasons, like tourism. The public should be made aware of the facts, so they can make an informed decision as to whether to get into the water.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 12:02

Good questions Adele. While I disagree that the government is taking a 'radical approach', I think you've answered them yourself. And that is probably why they've decided to do something about it now, before the masses take to the water over summer while the end of the humpback migration is still taking place. Mothers and calves are still around in Geographe Bay until late December, sometimes stragglers can be seen into January.

Thanks S.O., it's a relief to see that someone else also gets it.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 12:39

S.O you might want to go back and read Jax' original post. He claimed there are more fatal attacks in WA than there are on the east coast. Twist it how you like. The fact is there are not! Not even close!

A shark attack is a shark attack is a shark attack is a shark attack. Demonising one particular species is even more foolish than culling them. Leave that to the media. Particularly when bull sharks are known to be a more aggressive species than great whites but the media always use a great white in their file photo "scare the crap out of the public" news headlines. Suggesting those figures are useless because it doesn't suit a certain agenda is extraordinary. They are what they are.

We don't adjust the road toll because one state had more pedestrian deaths. Unbelievable !

You're right Adele. It's a radical knee jerk approach.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 12:57

I remember having a friendly banter with someone here in regards to which state had the better beaches QLD v's WA. Of course they said QLD and my reply was, "They look beautiful, but what's the bloody point when you can't swim in them". They brought up the shark attacks, and said there was no way they would be swimming in the water over there as well. To win the argument I threw the normal statistics at them that there was more chance of getting hit by a bus, than getting attacked by a shark. However, unfortunately times have changed in Western Australia and people need to be aware that it isn't as safe as it used to be, and they are putting themselves at risk.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 13:12

And by no means do we as a species, have any rights to kill another animal because we choose to endanger ourselves when entering into their habitat.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 13:42

Originally Posted By: Adele
And by no means do we as a species, have any rights to kill another animal because we choose to endanger ourselves when entering into their habitat.


...and that is why all of this is wrong.

I've found your view point quite refreshing Adele.

Thank-you.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 14:11

Originally Posted By: Adele
And by no means do we as a species, have any rights to kill another animal because we choose to endanger ourselves when entering into their habitat.


Says you. Are you okay with people eating fish?
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 14:13

Originally Posted By: Adele
I remember having a friendly banter with someone here in regards to which state had the better beaches QLD v's WA. Of course they said QLD and my reply was, "They look beautiful, but what's the bloody point when you can't swim in them". They brought up the shark attacks, and said there was no way they would be swimming in the water over there as well. To win the argument I threw the normal statistics at them that there was more chance of getting hit by a bus, than getting attacked by a shark. However, unfortunately times have changed in Western Australia and people need to be aware that it isn't as safe as it used to be, and they are putting themselves at risk.


You do understand that it used be safer because we used to kill them, don't you?
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 14:20

That's an awesome analogy of Jax' . Let's kill all the people and make the world a safer place.


Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 14:59

Of course I am aware that we used to kill them. We also used to kill whales and seals as well. Through human intervention we had changed the whole ocean ecosystem. By no longer killing,it has created a new change. Maybe not to our advantage, but we are not the only animals on this planet. It may take many years for it to balance out again. Yes, I eat fish sometimes, but I don't agree how we rape and pillage the oceans for own human needs. Whether it be for food, or for our pleasure in water sports. As humans we need to adapt to these new changes. How many animals have become extinct due to human intervention. Do you think this is fair?

I understand that we all have different opinions. God it would be boring if we all did agree on everything. But please don't make this personal. Lets discuss it as adults.
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 16:02

If you love fishing, you will love this!
These guys are mad!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4bc-Cv9C-E8

I think these guys sum it up quite nicely!!!
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 16:09

They sure did!
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 16:18

From memory i think the minister for Primary Industries at the time ended up putting a ban on these guys from catching these GWS.
To me i think this was a total shame, they were'nt hurting anyone and secondly it was good research being provided at no cost at all, only theirs of course!!
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 16:28

Dead right we have changed the whole ocean ecosystem, but you're avoiding the fact that we are still killing lots of things left in it, in greater quantities than ever. But no amount of protecting white pointers to ease our conscience is going to balance it back to where it was before we floated our first boat. We don't need to adapt to 'new changes', we need to set the odds back to where it best suited us for our own safety. Like we have done before.

Did we lose a species? No. Did we gain 100 years of relatively safe swimming at the very edges of the ocean? Yes. Was it perfect, with no deaths? No, and nor could it possibly ever be. No one expects it ever would be.

You say you eat fish sometimes, which shows support of the rape and pillage of the ocean, but you don't agree with it. But you're okay with fish sometimes eating humans? I think your intent is noble but a little contradictory. Unfortunately for many species, we are the apex predator. To willingly put us second is a de-evolutionary, really.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 16:42

Originally Posted By: EddyG
If you love fishing, you will love this!
These guys are mad!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4bc-Cv9C-E8

I think these guys sum it up quite nicely!!!


No, those guys don't sum up anything nicely. Commercial fishermen will be given the okay to take great white sharks under certain circumstances. One of those circumstances would be that they are over 3 metres. These guys are tagging babies.

Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 17:04

Originally Posted By: Jax
Dead right we have changed the whole ocean ecosystem, but you're avoiding the fact that we are still killing lots of things left in it, in greater quantities than ever. But no amount of protecting white pointers to ease our conscience is going to balance it back to where it was before we floated our first boat. We don't need to adapt to 'new changes', we need to set the odds back to where it best suited us for our own safety. Like we have done before.

Did we lose a species? No. Did we gain 100 years of relatively safe swimming at the very edges of the ocean? Yes. Was it perfect, with no deaths? No, and nor could it possibly ever be. No one expects it ever would be.

You say you eat fish sometimes, which shows support of the rape and pillage of the ocean, but you don't agree with it. But you're okay with fish sometimes eating humans? I think your intent is noble but a little contradictory. Unfortunately for many species, we are the apex predator. To willingly put us second is a de-evolutionary, really.




LOL.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 17:11

Please find the attached article, "Proof still required that shark culling works".

http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/12/12/3909790.htm

As it states better research into sharks in their habitat and behaviour. As well as educating people would be a more beneficial solution than culling.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 17:24

They need to start culling the gronks that think we are the almighty and no other species has any purpose. If they die we die too .
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 17:35

From the ABC "Opinion" article Adele linked above:

"Removing these predators, known as a 'top-down effect', can change the balance, and have unknown or unpredictable consequences on those ecosystems. Because of this role, again, we need to be cautious about introducing a culling program."


This is the most laughable of the reasons we should be so cautious. We've done it before...what exactly is unknown about the effect that that had that we are so cautiously trying to avoid tipping the balance of again?

This time we are leaving more whales in the mix, and seals, but less fish, and krill, and crabs, and prawns, and octopus, and sea slugs, and and and. God, we're messing with the balance already, how is saving the great white apex predator supposedly going to sort everything out?
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 17:38

So the solution is to make it worse ? GOLD !!

Up there for thinking. Let's throw in the towel. crazy
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 17:51

Cmon Coldie. Are you going to contribute to this thread with something intelligent or just throw in the one liners and put downs or spit out your statistics that you believe must be right cause you found it on Google. Bit of thought provoking input on your behalf might add to this thread and give us a reason to entertain any of your ideas.

You yourself have told me you have done much research on the subject due to your close encounter in Bass Straight so cmon where is the educated input?
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 17:55

Here is another article that adds to the current debate.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/12/11/strong-reactions-wa-shark-kill-plan

In this article it questions whether the WA state government is putting people further at risk with their bated shark line plan.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 17:58

I've put up plenty and you and your maybe there don't like the offering so set out to make it personal.

The suggestion that we should simply keep doing things wrong because other things are wrong is so stupid it's insane.

I told of my experience with one of these creatures 3 decades ago and your mate there responded with this

Originally Posted By: jax
And so what if you had an encounter in the Bass Straight? ...Struggling for useless page filler??


I've watched countless documentaries on these magnificent sharks over my lifetime and not one of them outside of a fiction movie has given me a single reason to believe these are somehow ruthless killers.

Anyone that doesn't support your cull call is not contributing anything of value. I must say I find it confusing that you are in the ecotourism game and are wanting them culled.

Research is what is needed first. Too many times man has set out to cull his threats at the expense of everything but logic. The last time these dickheads in Queensland cleaned all the crocs out of local rivers the catfish took over and preyed on all the other species that start life in the creeks before heading out to the reef. It all has a consequence.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 18:01

Are people over east more at risk due to baited shark lines? Are baited cray pots a problem? Are burleying amateurs on boats?

This problem has been talked about for over a decade. How many people do you want to chat through the deaths of while you decide what is the best way forward?
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 18:12

It has been proven in Hawaii that culling does not necessarily reduce shark attacks.

" Hawaii shark control programs of the 1960s and 1970s, for example, were not demonstrably effective. These programs were expensive, culled 4,668 sharks and yet failed to produce measurable decreases in shark bite incidents.

The challenges of reducing shark bites at specific locations were clearly illustrated by the events at Barbers Point on the Hawaiian island of Oahu. The 1967-69 shark control program removed 33 tiger sharks at that one location alone, yet soon after the program finished a shark bite occurred at Barbers Point."

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/12/12/western-australias-shark-culls-lack-bite-and-science

It is very sad that people have died from shark attacks. A solution does need to be found to reduce the number of fatalites, but is culling the right way.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 18:18

...and when all else fails against mounting evidence use what's happening elsewhere as some ridiculous counter.

When that fails use emotional blackmail instead.

I suggest you get out from behind that computer and get down to your local cop shop and demand we start culling the drink drivers, wife bashers , child sex offenders , rapists ,murderers and armed robbers because unlike the great white they are actually aware they are doing something wrong.

People are going to get taken by sharks but ultimately it is their choice to go surfing. If these sharks were dragging them off their lounge I'd be backing the calls to control them 100% but the simple FACT is they are not.

They are doing what they have done for millions of years and only in very recent history have we decided to put on a pair of fins and lay on a board to do our absolute utmost to look like their prey. They need to hunt to survive and we are wanting to cull them for doing it. The concept is twisted and backward just like the clowns introducing it.

Maybe Barnett should spend the $20 million on a wave machine? WIN, WIN. But no, people will still demand their right to surf a wave in the ocean knowing the risks and take ZERO responsibility for their own actions.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 18:18

I'm on the fence Coldie. I'm not calling for culling but at the same time believe it has got to a point where such frequent fatalities has me and a lot of the public questioning things. Yes I am in Eco tourism but isn't it amazing that I can actually see both sides of the argument. I believe this issue is a bit different to the norm. I have no doubt there are a lot on people who care and showcase our beautiful environment here in WA are also fence sitters.

Like I say its one of humans greatest fears is being attacked, dragged down, lose limbs, slowly watch yourself fade out due to massive loss of blood. Cant be a nice experience and its happening at a higher frequency than ever before so that's were people start questioning things, locals, conservationists, rednecks you name it there is a lot more consideration to the issue.

Those who just sit back and retaliate with save the sharks etc are not considering the whole picture and the intricate patterns that have occurred over time for this to happen. You know I think fence sitters have a more rounded understanding on things.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 18:21

Ahhh the old lets go down the cop shop and cull drink drivers, wife bashers, murderers. Cmon Coldie that's such an old repetitive approach. Its focused on sharks mate. There is a million and one ways to add to that approach. But that's just sidetracking the focus.
Posted by: Markus

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 18:23

Originally Posted By: Jax
From the ABC "Opinion" article Adele linked above:

"Removing these predators, known as a 'top-down effect', can change the balance, and have unknown or unpredictable consequences on those ecosystems. Because of this role, again, we need to be cautious about introducing a culling program."


This is the most laughable of the reasons we should be so cautious. We've done it before...what exactly is unknown about the effect that that had that we are so cautiously trying to avoid tipping the balance of again?

This time we are leaving more whales in the mix, and seals, but less fish, and krill, and crabs, and prawns, and octopus, and sea slugs, and and and. God, we're messing with the balance already, how is saving the great white apex predator supposedly going to sort everything out?


This isn't laughable, there is substantial scientific literature that shows significant impacts on ecosystems as a whole can occur when the top predators are removed. From the brief read I've had of this webpage it seems to illustrate the point well.

http://rewilding.org/rewildit/the-scienc...rge-carnivores/

I think I read before that actual shark numbers are very much unknown, as is the life cycle of them. It is a hard thing to measure, with fish stocks we can get a general idea of the numbers remaining from the catches that fishers report, sharks not so much. I think it is better to be safe than sorry rather than going out guns blazing, it's still an area that needs much research. Numbers may have come through in the past, doesn't mean they necessarily will in the future.

Also "Unfortunately for many species, we are the apex predator. To willingly put us second is a de-evolutionary, really."

I also have to disagree with this. Yes we have the capability to be the apex predator, but we also have the gift of logic and reasoning on our side. To take that approach when we know that it has the potential to threaten our future food stocks isn't very wise for our long term survival.

And please guys can we keep the insults out of this, there is some good discussion going on here, but the one-liners and trolling needs to stop.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 18:26

I think I might take a holiday down to Exmouth and go and snorkel with some sharks. See you in a week. Hope I don't get eaten. lol
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 18:27

Originally Posted By: Markus
[ but we also have the gift of logic and reasoning on our side.


Not everyone does.

Originally Posted By: Popeye

I think it is worth trying in the current situation to see what happens. No doubt everyone will be questioning the use of the 'thinning' of the Great whites off the SW of WA especially when the next attack happens, and the next and so on. I think its just something that WA will have to deal with. Regular Attacks in our waters.





This is where you got off the fence Popeye. When you challenge the views of one side of the debate and not those of the other you are no longer sitting on the fence.

....and Markus you are right, there has been some great discussion.
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 18:29

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Research is what is needed first.


Exactly!!

Scientist & governments need to find out how many GWS are actually out there first.
And what is the estimated number of Great whites anyway?

Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 18:32

Originally Posted By: Markus
To take that approach when we know that it has the potential to threaten our future food stocks isn't very wise for our long term survival.



It hasn't worked so far either. 7.5 billion and counting with less and less of EVERYTHING to go around. It has all the makings of a slow motion mouse plague where they eat everything and then die out.

Only when we adopt the realisation that we are not the most important species on the planet but merely one of them will this madness stop.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 18:33

Hey look if I had the time to go back and pull quotes from way back all the time I would but I couldn't be bothered. Like I say Im a fence sitter. I can say what I want either side. I don't agree with one or the other but it still comes down to the fact that I cringe at the thought of being eaten by a great white. I love em but I also hate em/fear them. I am a water person and have swam, snorkelled, kayaked in every location except Abrolhos islands over the last 13 years that fatalities have occurred. Its places that everyone here in WA can access easily and it s putting doubt into a lot of people going anywhere near them unless in knee deep water.

Edit: and that sucks that you have to have doubt in such beautiful places
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 18:38

....and that doubt is part of that "reasoning" touched on on the last page. We still have a choice. Humans don't need abalone. The lure for the guy who got grabbed on the head ab diving was the $7 million a year quota. We can function perfectly without eating abalone. We don't need to surf, we can function perfectly with out doing it. It is our choice.

I doubt there is a single person in here who'd like to be taken by a shark and I have dived throughout Bass Strait in some pretty murky water amongst the kelp forests and on the reefs up and down Queensland's coast but unlike some I have accepted the risk as my own. It's always in the back of your mind and after my encounter I was told be my dive partner to get back in the water later that afternoon or I never would again. And so I did.

You can't say "this is worth trying" and then say you're on the fence. You committed yourself to that side of the debate.

That region where you do your kayaking has a healthy population of tiger sharks and you're out there a hell of a lot. It's the drive to and from your business that is the real risk. Just as it is for surfers.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 18:41

I have never seen a tiger shark in 13 years of kayaking everyday. And yes the drive to and from work is the most dangerous part of my day. but what has that got to do with anything.

ahh the ole drive to work approach..lol
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 18:43

Originally Posted By: Popeye
but what has that got to do with anything.


You have accepted the risk.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/latest/a/14787966/


...and this one wasn't even proven but they blamed the Great Whites anyway.

"Monday, Oct 10, 2011

Bryn Martin, 64, was likely taken by a great white shark after he was last seen about 350m from the shore heading out to sea on his daily swim at Cottesloe Beach."
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 18:57

I think I find the argument about 'we have a choice not to be there', 'You have accepted the risk by being in their water' 'humans don't need to surf, snorkel, swim kayak' is a strange argument and I struggle to follow this line of thought in an island nation surrounded by water, with people who grow up recreating in the water, spending large amounts of time near and in the water. It makes it sound like its coming from someone who is the complete opposite who is a land lover and has a huge fear of water and maybe sharks. Its got to be a realistic argument and approach to a water loving nation.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 18:58

I think they found his budgie smugglers washed up with tears in them similar to tears from teeth of a great white.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 19:29

Originally Posted By: Markus
I think it is better to be safe than sorry rather than going out guns blazing, it's still an area that needs much research. Numbers may have come through in the past, doesn't mean they necessarily will in the future.

Also "Unfortunately for many species, we are the apex predator. To willingly put us second is a de-evolutionary, really."

I also have to disagree with this. Yes we have the capability to be the apex predator, but we also have the gift of logic and reasoning on our side. To take that approach when we know that it has the potential to threaten our future food stocks isn't very wise for our long term survival.


No one is proposing to go out guns blazing Markus, it's not right to use language that promotes that image. The reality is far from it; the only sharks of interest are the great whites hanging around popular swimming and surfing beaches; and only those over three metres long.

The response will be immediate for the ones that do attack humans. A number of professionals will be ready to react when (not if...) it happens. Further, the only people involved will be professional fishermen in conjunction with Fisheries. This is a management plan, just as saving snapper stocks, and mackerel, and crays and even other sharks have been management plans. Sharks are fish.

Our future food stocks aren't in peril if some great white sharks are taken. Historically we took a hell of a lot more than is being proposed now, and here we and they and most other fish still are.

Sadly, the gift of logic and reasoning has led to a sudden end to some people's long term survival.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 19:58

As for research, we actually know a lot more now than we used to, it's not the great mystery people make out it to be. Say it often enough though and people will believe it.

What we don't know is why they eat us sometimes and not others. Really that is the important thing yet to be discovered. Catching the next ones that do it will certainly help...
Posted by: Markus

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 19:59

Originally Posted By: Jax
Originally Posted By: Markus
I think it is better to be safe than sorry rather than going out guns blazing, it's still an area that needs much research. Numbers may have come through in the past, doesn't mean they necessarily will in the future.

Also "Unfortunately for many species, we are the apex predator. To willingly put us second is a de-evolutionary, really."

I also have to disagree with this. Yes we have the capability to be the apex predator, but we also have the gift of logic and reasoning on our side. To take that approach when we know that it has the potential to threaten our future food stocks isn't very wise for our long term survival.


No one is proposing to go out guns blazing Markus, it's not right to use language that promotes that image. The reality is far from it; the only sharks of interest are the great whites hanging around popular swimming and surfing beaches; and only those over three metres long.

The response will be immediate for the ones that do attack humans. A number of professionals will be ready to react when (not if...) it happens. Further, the only people involved will be professional fishermen in conjunction with Fisheries. This is a management plan, just as saving snapper stocks, and mackerel, and crays and even other sharks have been management plans. Sharks are fish.

Our future food stocks aren't in peril if some great white sharks are taken. Historically we took a hell of a lot more than is being proposed now, and here we and they and most other fish still are.

Sadly, the gift of logic and reasoning has led to a sudden end to some people's long term survival.

Yeah that's my bad in terms of the language, it certainly isn't how I intended to come across. I brought up these points mostly in regard to your post about the top-down effect, rather than the new shark control measures, for the most part I can't disagree with what you have written here. Having said that, I personally don't support these new measures, I guess time will tell whether they are actually successful, my gut tells me no.

In addition to that I'll be interested to see how many sharks actually get taken, I truly hope it isn't many, would be a shame to kill an animal for no real reason, in my opinion.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 20:00

Originally Posted By: Popeye
I think I find the argument about 'we have a choice not to be there', 'You have accepted the risk by being in their water' 'humans don't need to surf, snorkel, swim kayak' is a strange argument and I struggle to follow this line of thought in an island nation surrounded by water, with people who grow up recreating in the water, spending large amounts of time near and in the water. It makes it sound like its coming from someone who is the complete opposite who is a land lover and has a huge fear of water and maybe sharks. Its got to be a realistic argument and approach to a water loving nation.


I believe wholeheartedly in that argument and I have spent my entire life diving, fishing kayaking, boating and all sorts of other leisure activities based aroun the water(both fresh an salt). If anything had ever happened to me it would have been my responsibility. Plain and simple. I knew the risks and made the choice to place myself in potential danger. It is a very realistic argument even for a water loving nature.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 20:05

Originally Posted By: Jax
Originally Posted By: Markus
I think it is better to be safe than sorry rather than going out guns blazing, it's still an area that needs much research. Numbers may have come through in the past, doesn't mean they necessarily will in the future.

Also "Unfortunately for many species, we are the apex predator. To willingly put us second is a de-evolutionary, really."

I also have to disagree with this. Yes we have the capability to be the apex predator, but we also have the gift of logic and reasoning on our side. To take that approach when we know that it has the potential to threaten our future food stocks isn't very wise for our long term survival.


No one is proposing to go out guns blazing Markus, it's not right to use language that promotes that image. The reality is far from it; the only sharks of interest are the great whites hanging around popular swimming and surfing beaches; and only those over three metres long.

The response will be immediate for the ones that do attack humans. A number of professionals will be ready to react when (not if...) it happens. Further, the only people involved will be professional fishermen in conjunction with Fisheries. This is a management plan, just as saving snapper stocks, and mackerel, and crays and even other sharks have been management plans. Sharks are fish.

Our future food stocks aren't in peril if some great white sharks are taken. Historically we took a hell of a lot more than is being proposed now, and here we and they and most other fish still are.

Sadly, the gift of logic and reasoning has led to a sudden end to some people's long term survival.


That is exactly what is being proposed Jax. You say they are just going to kill the ones that are seen near popular swimming beaches an those over three mt long. Wow. Does it really take a genius to figure out that at some stage EVERY 3m plus white will at some stage hang around a popular beach. Which means that the idea is to kill EVERY mature great white in WA. Don't know if you realise but that means they don't breed and eventually you kill EVERY White in WA. Very intelligent that.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 21:03

With so much information saying culling hasn't reduced shark attacks. I am concerned that if they do start culling sharks, people will be misled to believe that it is safe to be in the water. With an increased numbers of people doing water sports, this may increase the chances of another fatality.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 21:48

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
I believe wholeheartedly in that argument and I have spent my entire life diving, fishing kayaking, boating and all sorts of other leisure activities based aroun the water(both fresh an salt). If anything had ever happened to me it would have been my responsibility. Plain and simple. I knew the risks and made the choice to place myself in potential danger. It is a very realistic argument even for a water loving nature.


That's great for you to believe that Brett. I don't think people process their choices and acceptances of risks before they enter the water. Its almost a life learned enjoyment. Its natural, fun, relaxation, fitness, recreation and wind down time. Things that people have been doing for a lifetime. Now that enjoyment is more at risk and limited. OK you take the choice and accept the risk but that doesn't help when your getting your arm ripped off by a big white and bleed out in front of your missus, mates or kids.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 22:43

If people think that way Popeye then they definitely need to be educated that there is a risk when they go into the water. People need to be informed so they can evaluate what they are going to do. In the end it is their decision as to whether they get in or not and need to consider the consequences.
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 23:27

We need to take the emotion out of this arguement .....

As a surfer , i feel we are at greatest risk .

Although the latest GWS ( and i'm only referencing these as this is where the current discussion is centred around :- WA control program ) attacks have mainly been in good light ( not at dawn and dusk ) .

1 : The best conditions are invariably early morning and sometimes late in the arvo. . Also there is a greater populace participating at these times ; as strangely these days surfers tend to work more than they stereotypically used to . Diver's (the next biggest target ) like good vis. which requires close to the middle of the day light levels .

2 : We can often use rivermouths , and bomboras near to deep drop offs . Personally i surf some distant offshore reefs regularly which increases risks as access is a slow retreat if targeted by " the men in grey suits " ....

3 : When we aren't paddling around and playing like dolphins and seals in the waves , we are sitting still and basking in the sun , just like sea lions and elephant seals or a dead seal etc etc ..... Divers are usually on the bottom or atleast mid water column , have goggles on and actually see whats going on even on bad days a few meters away into the water , and in deep water always have a silhouette above to help increase their safety . Surfers on the other hand pretty much can only sea the surface , and usually only 30 % of that as the waves they are targeting hide the other 70 % as the unevenous of the swell tends to make it hard . And pretty much when its deeper than 3 M then we may as well be blindfolded as you can't see nothing below unless over sand and clear water .

4 : This hasn't been mentioned anywhere else that i have read and i've read and listened to alot of first hand experiences .
But places like the SW of WA and the west coast of SA , the areas that are surfed are often at their best and most regularly surfed on a rising barometer ( in the SE- E offshore winds that follow fronts that have provided the swell ) . I know personally that most fishing is better in a rising barometer in these parts especially VIC ( esp. Snapper ) . Now this maybe more to do with water turbulence , and then settling Vis or even more of things stirred up after strong onshore blow which inturn gets the fish feeding . But if GWS in their adolescence chase Snapper and other fish then they learn to hunt in these times .
Habits are hard to break .......

Now i could probably go right down to atleast 10 reasons , but I'll save your eye sight and boredom .


I have surfed ALONE hundreds of times ( literally ) and often within close proximity of Seal colonies . I have continued this Dangerous behaviour for close to twenty years . There isn't a moment I'm not paranoid ( especially if there is long lulls to let the mind wander ) , I know all the risks , and I'm within atleast one degree of seperation from every attack thats happened to others in the ENTIRE southern Australian coastline from Sth of Sydney up to Exmouth in the last ten years . The alarm bells should be ringing , but still i continue to put myself at risk .
WHY you must ask ....

Because its a part of me , it balances me out . I don't function well , when i can't get time to go out longer than a month or two apart at the worst . Thats why people look at this , their life is already gone if they can't get wet regularly . Controlling numbers or not this will continue , others are in similar circumstance . Its their families and friends that are the ones that suffer most after these tragic events .

I Fish , I hunt Mammals , I hunt Foul . All of which i can butcher and do eat .
I hate waste , and i openly condemn people who take more than they need . Be it Hero " fisho's " talking up their catch , ethic minorities who have no concept of " tomorrow's catch " & size limits or Huge Multinational fishing enterprizes that pretty much sweep the ocean clean of everything .
I'm a Homosapien and see my part in our eco system , I often get disappointed when others feel like they are on some moral high horse and talk of ideologies that we are Apex predators , except we should / do show more logic ,
But i say this INSANELY hypocritical when the same people use the logic that they are the same apex predators that typically rely on " others " to get their Prey to the supermarket shelf for them to Devour .
And unless you are the most Stringent Vegan who pretty much has displaced themselves from society then , and only then can people of this opinion stand straight in their beliefs .
Only that these people are choosing to not be Homosapiens anymore , but in that choice they are evolving / devoluting to another species of which I'm reasonably certain didn't survive till now . If so not , could someone please point out the undiscovered beings that have lived happily like this for eons ....

Back to sharks though , apart from being wasteful . I say power to the people locally that have made this decision . I'm not sitting on the fence , but I'm also not preaching my view and trying to impose / and belittle with them .

Thanks for the good read guys . Its added to my thoughts , next time I put myself in " harms way " .... cheers
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/12/2013 23:49

If there was no emotion there would be no cull. It's pretty basic stuff.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 13/12/2013 00:28

Thank you for sharing S.O. I understand that you have a love of getting wet. You are also aware there are risks. You made a choice to go out in the water knowingly. You also hope to hell that you don't become another shark attack statistic, and cause sorrow to your family and friends. Yes you have made your choice as a logical human being. However, The shark has no logic. All it is doing is trying to source food. Unfortunately it may accidentally mistake a human as a seal and think it's food. It's in it's own habitat. But now there is a boundary that it is not aware of, and if it happens to go near it. It is killed. Why because a logical human being has decided that it wants to get wet, come into your territory, and it can dictate that you shouldn't be there.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 13/12/2013 00:39

Cheers for your opinion S.O. I don't think I would have the guts to surf. It must be an amazing feeling. The thought of sitting out there alone would be just insane. Being in a kayak seems so much safer and you can see big things a lot easier especially with polarised sunglasses.

All this talk about attacks has made me reconsider a lot of things I face on a daily basis. Scenarios, encounters, dealing with situations on the water. We have had a few over the years. I guess its all good to learn more about these animals. Last week was shark week on discovery channel I think I have watched 20 hrs of Shark docos of late. I love it when I see a big shark (mainly hammerheads these days) its usually a brief sighting, hunting but don't feel threatened by them at all.

Paddling in colder waters especially off the SW around Bunker Bay / Cape Naturaliste and again off the East coast of Tassie around Freycinet/Schouten Island has given me the creeps in the past. Schouten Passage had a Big White sighted on the same day we had customers on a 5 day kayak trip in the same area. Skipper of the boat that sighted it could see us in the distance. Made me a bit uneasy paddling through that area afterwards.

We looked into buying a kayak business out of Dunsborough years ago and were going to set up tours around to the seal colony under Cape Naturaliste. Did the trip once, the seals seemed a little edgy the whole time we were there like there was something that was out there stirring them up. We paddled 20 metres from shore the whole way back. after hearing a few locals stories about the size of the whites off there later that day we left not buying the business.

Operating at Penguin Island off Perth for 6 years, never had any issues. A year later someone got eaten within sight in Safety Bay crabbing with his son. Yeah Southern waters freak me out. I still think I could swim and snorkel down there safely but I would now limit the places I would do it. As for surfing those waters. Nope it must be a buzz. Heading to Exmouth on Sat for 10 days so will be looking at the water with different eyes. Lots of paddling, swimming, snorkelling. Cant wait.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 13/12/2013 00:44

I was reading comments somewhere else and a guy said he'd now lost three friends to sharks in WA, and had another two friends attacked, also in WA. All of those people felt the same way you did Brett, including the guy who made the comment. It's a pretty standard reality for regular ocean users to gladly accept the dangers we face every time we venture out beyond knee deep. No one is possibly delusional enough to think there's no risk.

But surely you have to draw a line at some point? I don't even know that many people who have died in the car accidents in my whole lifetime, or a single person who has been hit by a bus, or who has drowned in a swimming pool or anywhere else for that matter, or any of the other things people keep saying we have a much better chance of dying from. Can you understand why people are getting upset over here, three friends dead and two injured all in separate attacks in 10 years? How would you feel about that?

There is a definite problem over this side of the country with great whites deciding humans are good to bite. Seriously, are the rest of you honestly going to miss a few sharks??
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/12/2013 01:02

All those dead friends and yet they are still stupid enough to go surfing and expect the sharks to simply be removed.

I lost a girlfriend in one car accident, 6 friends in another and all in 7 months! I didn't call for cars to be removed.

In my girlfriend's case it was the other driver's fault . In the other incident the road was. I was sitting at a pub in Bacchus Marsh waiting to have a beer with them but they never arrived.

The one big distinction between these and surfing fatalities is the reality that you are far more likely to be killed in a car, by lightning , by a hippo, having a bath, flying in a plane ,texting or even engaging in erotic asphyxiation than to be taken by a shark and even then surfers have a choice to enter the water or not.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 13/12/2013 01:10

There is no denying it that there is an issue with shark attacks in Southern Western Australia. That to many people have lost their lives already.

I may come across as being a flower hugging hippy, but I am not. If I thought that culling sharks would make a difference then I wouldn't be so vocal against it. But that isn't a solution to the problem, it is just a ploy for the government to look like they are doing something. Having more research, and educating people of the risks is the key in my opinion.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/12/2013 01:11

Originally Posted By: Adele
it is just a ploy for the government to look like they are doing something.


Absolutely.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 13/12/2013 01:21

I had a snort laugh on that one "erotic asphyxiation", when did you get so kinky Cold Front?

On a serious note. It is very sad that you know of so many people affected Jax, and that it also includes your wife's family.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 13/12/2013 01:30

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
.......that you are far more likely to be killed in a car, by lightning , by a hippo, having a bath, flying in a plane ,texting or even engaging in erotic asphyxiation than to be taken by a shark and even then surfers have a choice to enter the water or not.


SSNNZZ....... You still on about your comparisons. Is this thread about cars, lightning, hippos etc etc. Nope its about sharks. Its good to see you coming back with that argument for the 10th time though.lol
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 13/12/2013 01:31

I really don't know why people have to use comparisons all the time. It means nothing.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 13/12/2013 01:33

"I was reading comments somewhere else and a guy said he'd now lost three friends to sharks in WA, and had another two friends attacked, also in WA."

That's what I said, not that I know the victims. One victim however, was part of my extended family and very close to some of my friends. Please, don't make this about me, it isn't.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/12/2013 01:34

You'd need to ask Jax that question. He was the one that opened that box with his very inaccurate suggestion that the east coast lags behind WA on fatal attacks.

...and how does it mean nothing? Where is the outrage at bathtubs? Maybe if we fitted sharp teeth around the rim people would stay out!

The hypocrisy is that sharks do not know they are doing anything wrong but we should kill them anyway. Yet when I suggested we should line up child sex offenders and rapists against a wall last year there was outrage and anti-death penalty sentiment everywhere.
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 13/12/2013 01:34

2004 ? Brad Smith : Sth of Gracetown . Torn to pieces by two sharks that he valiantly fought off for over 60 seconds . Was a good friend of a friend .
2005 ? Geoff Brazier ? : Abrohlos Islands . Swallowed in one mouthful and never seen again . Again an ex citizen of a small island community i was apart of .
2009 ? Gracetown close friends were in the water 100M away from attack on ??? at Huzzers .
2009-2010 Bunker bay same friend as above in the water near the attack on a young boogie boarder .
2010-11 ? Rottnest Island American tourist's half corpse was retreived by a an " salty dog " mate of mine that works there as a ranger . I've never heard him upset before that day .
2012 Red Bluff camp Quabba station NW WA . Good friend is attacked and saved by another who bravely swam in and distracted and took him out of danger .
2013 Sth of Gracetown , friend of a friend taken , again a different friend witnesses it .

I and many of the people effected directly are neither here nor there on where " Authorities " will decide what happens . All of us are against too much professional baiting for crayfish , and some are distressed that non domestic sea lions are taking hold in these areas .

There are a hundred other viewpoints all of which are not " Emotional " because quite clearly if we were emotional we wouldn't re enter the water .
Again if i was to hook a shark whilst rec . fishing , and it didn't survive release i wouldn't shed a tear . I don't expect sharks to be removed , if it came to it or me surviving in a confrontation and it was legal i wouldn't hesitate taking its life to prolong mine . What they are doing over there is very little different . If people have an issue with it , then maybe they should travel over there , and
" Re- Educate " people of their horrid unthoughtful ways . I'm expecting in some circles they would be treated with contempt and told to stay out of food chain talks in case they themselves become part of it ....

I'm an east coaster thats lived on both sides of the fence , but i hate Both sides picking on the other . For me , ( and countless studies suggest ) levels of intellect are only hindered as one decides to move towards the equator .....
hehehe Popeye .... ;-)

But seriously though it can be proved that since its harder to live further from the equator that all animals ( including humans ) need to use more of their brain to survive ...... I'll stop now for fear of upsetting anyone ..... wouldn't want to do that now ...
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/12/2013 01:41

So that's obviously southern "Lake" Victoria you reside at.



Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 13/12/2013 01:43

Hook line and sinker ...... sssssssszzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/12/2013 01:44

So much for your BS earlier about not making it personal.

Originally Posted By: S .O.
but I'm also not preaching my view and trying to impose / and belittle with them .



So long as they support your opinion.
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 13/12/2013 17:54

Clearly Humour is not my forte', and it seems that you don't have a Sarcasm radar .......
As for Sth Side L. Vic .... I wish thats prime mining teritory .?

I don't have an opinion on this .
I support those who are immediately effected , its sympathy . I'm sure you've recieved it after Cyclones have gone through ...... Compassion and empathy is nearly all a Human need's to survive .
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 20/12/2013 11:51

Clearly there is no shortage of sharks in the waters off Exmouth. Was out fishing the other day and the cheeky buggers sniffed out the boat/bait/catch pretty quick. Lots of reefies and a few bigger ones maybe a 2-3metre tiger and a hammerhead. Fellas jumped in for a spear fish in 15 metres of water. 20 miles out in amongst the islands of the Gulf there was no way I was getting in there. Mind you when they got something they were pretty quick back to the boat.
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 20/12/2013 12:11

I too have had that happen Popeye, we had a bronze whaler about 3 metres long come up to the boat to sniff the berley bucket out, we could see him coming for about half an hour, just circling the boat and every circle he was coming closer. We thought we will have some fun with it and dangled some live bait and chunks of tuna, the shark didnt want to know about the bait. It just wanted to know where the berley trail was coming from, it gave the berley bucket a couple of nudges and it was off never to be seen again!!
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 20/12/2013 12:22

Here is a couple of links that were sent to me a week or two ago!!
Grey Nurse sharks, Broughton Island, just off the coast of Hawks Nest. No shortage of Grey Nurses here!!
Enjoy!!
http://youtu.be/BSwbtbIapZU

http://youtu.be/iHk8mfcCx7U
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 20/12/2013 13:39

There was a fantastic doco on Bull Sharks on TV this week. There is a place off southern Africa where they don't attack people swimming in the rivers. The only place on earth where there have been no recorded attacks of these sharks where people freely swim.

Instead they have learned that hanging around under the numerous fishing boats in the rivers will ensure a free feed . They put trackers on the sharks and follow them as much as 30km's up river. The doco was a brilliant watch and is available on line. Just google "river monsters bull sharks" . It runs for 50 minutes.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 23/12/2013 12:16

A tad off topic but interesting nonetheless. Check out the 25 minute mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLlEn0E4mm4

We have so much to learn.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 29/12/2013 14:40

Watched JAWS last night. Great movie. I remember watching it when I was 8 years old and didn't step foot in the water past my waist for a few years after. I had images of Colin Barnett with the gun at the end, blowing jaws up. But instead he missed and jaws ate him. Only if.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 29/12/2013 19:54

Lol Popeye, bit of wishful thinking there. That movie really did affect people, my sister wouldn't go into a swimming pool after Jaws. Grizzly really did her head in. She gave up watching horror flicks, just after the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Anyway, they've released info about where they'll be baiting:

Quote:
The State Government has announced the beaches where baited drum lines will be deployed next month to protect beachgoers from sharks.

In the metropolitan area, drum lines will be set one kilometre from shore at Ocean Reef, Mullaloo, Trigg, Scarborough, Floreat, City Beach, Cottesloe, North Cottesloe, and Port and Leighton Beaches.

In the South West, there will be drum lines off the coast at Old Dunsborough beach, Meelup, Castle Rock and Gracetown beaches.

The new Marine Monitored Areas will be patrolled from January to April.

The Premier Colin Barnett says the new measures are necessary after increased shark activity in WA waters in recent years.

"We have had 20 fatal shark attacks in WA in the past 100 years, seven of them in the past three years," he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-27/shark-drum-lines/5176480?section=wa
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 30/12/2013 12:19

Redneck idiots. (referring to the fools that have decided to take this tack)
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 30/12/2013 13:33

Not really Brett. They're reacting to a growing trend of people being killed by sharks in those areas. Your government has been doing the same for you for half a century.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 30/12/2013 13:39

I think the same about croc removal as a whole as well Jax.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 30/12/2013 14:00

Fair enough. If there was a chance they'd wipe out a species, croc, shark or otherwise in doing these things to provide some protection to people, then yeah, I'd agree with you. But that isn't going to happen. And it is not going to guarantee against further attacks, but it will lower the odds to a more acceptable level. That is a good thing considering how many people have been dying by shark over here lately.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 30/12/2013 17:27

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
Redneck idiots. (referring to the fools that have decided to take this tack)


Absolutely. Despite being told by a number of experts that this won't work. There is NO evidence it will reduce the number of attacks as this has been done elsewhere in the world and failed. Barnett is a tosspot..




There's plenty of proof that people making themselves look like seals is the real issue.

Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 30/12/2013 20:01

Literally thousands of sharks have been culled by government-run initiatives in NSW and Qld over a 70 and 50 year period respectively, whether people like it happening or not. The result is there have been bugger all human deaths by shark. Which part of that do "a number of experts" figure is not working to say "this won't work"? It obviously does work and clearly Barnett is acting on that fact.
Posted by: payshense

Re: sharks - 30/12/2013 20:52

I remember a recent shark death in W.A (in the last year or so)where surfers, stated they had been aware of the shark for a number of days, even that they had named the shark.

"Surfers in the area had noticed a large great white shark lurking in the area for about four days prior to Mr Linden's death, nicknaming the beast "Brutus'' due its size."

And people wonder why there are deaths?

In areas of northern Australia where saltwater crocodiles frequent, there are always signs warning of the danger, and the risk of death from attack.

I wonder how many people would think twice before entering the water, if a similar tactic was employed to warn of the danger of death from shark attack.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 30/12/2013 22:28

Apparently they are thick Payhense and demand the ocean is cleaned before they go in.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 31/12/2013 01:00

That wouldn't be right to put up signs to warn people. That would only have a negative effect to the economy and tourism. Peoples' welfare unfortunately does not come into this argument at all. Instead lets introduce a policy that will lull the general public with a false sense of security. By bringing more sharks into the area, because they are attracted to the baits (as well as school fish). And lets kill kill kill...or be killed.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 31/12/2013 10:00

Definitely a dollar driven decision Adele. But that's the right side of politics for you and all the drum lines and baiting on the east coast didn't stop the guy at Coffs getting nailed.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 31/12/2013 12:35

Adele, it is not about lulling anyone into a false sense of security. It is about minimising risk, in the same way it is in minimised in the eastern states, as it has been for longer than most of the people reading this have been alive.

People will still die by shark attack because sharks will always be there, the boy from Coffs clearly proves that is true. That it hasn't been happening two or three or more times every year shows that it is helping. A lot.





Posted by: payshense

Re: sharks - 31/12/2013 15:08

People being warned of the risk of swimming, surfing, diving in waters frequented by sharks, would minimise and reduce the number of deaths. This is not rocket science.

When there are extreme weather events,(as another example of warnings to the public) we are warned to stay indoors, not drive through floodwaters etc. Those who ignore these warnings are frowned upon, and in some cases fined.

I personally, would much prefer to see this kind of approach, as opposed to culling of any species.

The biggest threat to mankind, is man himself, through ignorance and arrogance, of nature.
Posted by: MC Thomas

Re: sharks - 31/12/2013 15:12

Originally Posted By: Jax
People will still die by shark attack because sharks will always be there, the boy from Coffs clearly proves that is true. That it hasn't been happening two or three or more times every year shows that it is helping. A lot.


I'm not sure that this is really hard evidence. The east and west coast both have Great Whites, but potentially the feeding behaviour on the west coast is different to the east coast (seals vs fish for example). There are Bull Sharks in Sydney Harbour and along the Gold Coast and, for the most part, these sharks do not cause any problems.

Lets be realistic, the risks sharks pose is tiny in relation to something like driving a car. Sure, we minimise the risks by stopping drink driving, not speeding, wearing a seatbelt etc., but the truth is that driving is pretty damn dangerous. If you are afraid of sharks, stay out of the ocean. It's that simple.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 01/01/2014 00:00

I guess the only way to see if there's any hard evidence that drum lines don't work is to stop all baiting and netting in NSW and Qld for a decade and see how the attack deaths stack up against our last decade. Maybe don't even worry about Qld.

I hope if/when you visit WA you do venture into the water and you don't get eaten. That would really suck.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 01/01/2014 08:15

Originally Posted By: MC Thomas

Lets be realistic, the risks sharks pose is tiny in relation to something like driving a car.


Been there and had that argument MC but got attacked for doing so. It is logical to make comparison to the other dangerous things in our lives but just not in this thread apparently. What's more amusing is I posted up a link to a surfer's site and only one person in the comments supported this stupidity. The other approx. 25 surfers who posted did not. Seems they are not all red necks in the surfing community and this is just minority nonsense. This is a case of guilty until proven innocent for the sharks.

Originally Posted By: MC Thomas
If you are afraid of sharks, stay out of the ocean. It's that simple.


But didn't you know it is our god given right to kill everything that hinders our recreational activity?

Happy New Year
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/01/2014 09:20

Posted by: MC Thomas

Re: sharks - 02/01/2014 13:51

Originally Posted By: Jax
I guess the only way to see if there's any hard evidence that drum lines don't work is to stop all baiting and netting in NSW and Qld for a decade and see how the attack deaths stack up against our last decade. Maybe don't even worry about Qld.

I hope if/when you visit WA you do venture into the water and you don't get eaten. That would really suck.


I actually believe the drumlines should be removed. It is barbaric to kill large numbers of sharks (and other marine animals) just to make us feel a bit safer in the water. Unfortunately, I don't think that anyone will be brave enough to stop these practices for fear of the repercussions in the event of a shark attack.

And thankyou for your concern......being eaten by a shark really would suck smile
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 03/01/2014 14:18

Came across this on Facebook.
Thouhgt you guys might like it!!
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 03/01/2014 15:02

LOL.


I love this article written by a surfer

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-03/carmody-in-defence-of-the-great-white-shark/5183396


Particularly this paragraph.

"Remarkably, even Premier Barnett has conceded that experts in marine science would not approve of his government's measures. And how dare we, then, take to the sea now like spooked Neanderthals and seek revenge for something we don't fathom, for a fear we don't attempt to truly reason with or understand? It seems it is becoming the black mark of our times: the ignorance of science in favour of self-interest or primitive emotion. Take away humanity's nobility, our intellect, our capacity for reason and judgement, what is left beneath? Who are the real monsters?"

....and this one......


"And we have seen it in the memory of the surfers who have tragically lost their lives to shark attacks; almost to a person remembered publicly by their families for their abiding respect for the ocean and their wishes that no shark would ever be killed in their name."



Again take the time to read the comments from those surfers underneath the article.
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 03/01/2014 15:30

A great read there Coldfront and brilliantly written, he obviously has plenty of support already, lets hope the pollies are there to listen, which i highly doubt!!
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 03/01/2014 17:32

Written by a surfer. Commented on below by two surfers, one windsurfer and a swimmer. The rest of the commenters I daresay are the usual shark loving swimming pool users from over east, most of them blissfully unaware their own local governments are baiting and netting and catching and killing sharks even as they type their support.

Not surprised to see this piece just before the rally.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 03/01/2014 19:24

Yeah because it's all one big conspiracy Jax wink

...and everyone on the east coast is ignorant too apparently.





Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 04/01/2014 16:14

A surfer's defence of the great white shark
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-03/carmody-in-defence-of-the-great-white-shark/5183396

By Samuel Carmody
Updated Fri 3 Jan 2014, 1:13pm AEDT

Surfers should be at the frontline of protests planned for this weekend against the policy to kill large sharks in Western Australia, writes Samuel Carmody.

My father introduced me to surfing when I was seven or eight years old, carrying me into the beach breaks off my childhood town of Geraldton whilst I lay on my foam board, terrified of a small sea that had then seemed huge, crying like a newborn being introduced to another bewildering world.

"You're trying to kill me," were the words I'd bleated, over and over. I remember that moment clearer than any other memory I have. The whiteout of the afternoon summer sky, the water torn by the sea-breeze. I remember the scream of that wind in my ears. And I remember most vividly the pure, potent anxiety I felt, the recognition that I was entering a space so much bigger than myself, bigger and more powerful even than my father had seemed to me all those years ago.

I guess I instinctively felt then, as young as I was, what I know now; that the ocean is an environment you can never truly control. It is the reason I grew to love it, why surfing became the closest thing to an addiction I have ever known. I came in from that first fear-stricken encounter with the sea utterly hooked.

In my memory of growing up along the rural coast of Western Australia, surfing was a tough, almost mystical activity performed by a strange species of person. I can recall my father being verballed by a local surfer in the mid-west lobster fishing town of Kalbarri for taking to the bush to relieve himself before an early morning surf; accosted as his bare bum hung over the coastal scrub and red dirt in the pre-dawn darkness.

It was a surreal thing to witness, and it left a lasting impression on the way I viewed that coastline; these toothless, leathered-skin men enforcing complex eco-sensitive standards. A turd in the dunes was just not cricket. A coke bottle found left on a beach could send them into a rage.

Who were these people? To them the sanctity of the ocean was absolute. Their submission to its power was all encompassing. They hooted after a death-defying wipeout, and spoke with a sailor's romanticism about death at sea.

And they had a deep respect for sharks. They feared them, sure, but in the same way a mountaineer might fear avalanches or altitude sickness. The risks, the danger, were all a part of it. The Great White Death. The Noah. The Man in the Grey Suit. It enlivened the whole experience. A surfer escaped land for a reason beyond the transient thrill of a wave. When you stepped into the sea you stepped into a wilderness. It wasn't golf. That was the whole point.

But in recent times the roughened wisdom of surfing appears to have lost its compass. Perhaps some of that spirit went down the same drain as Billabong, the iconic surfing brand turned doomed behemoth; overcome by its own acceptance into the mainstream, swallowed and then condemned by its own commercial successes. Australian surfing media has morphed from the counter-cultural lifestyle magazines of yester-year to advertising-laden publications, obsessed with the celebrity-based economy of surfing as professional sport.

This evolution in itself is not so unusual, or necessarily malevolent. It is the at times almost anti-environmental tone of popular surfing media that has marked the greatest diversion from surfing's Morning-of-the-Earth roots, and which is cause for alarm.

A spate of fatal shark attacks in WA waters since 2010 has encouraged a coarsening of the rhetoric towards sharks, both in surfing media and from some peripheral figures in the Australian surfing world, that is unprecedented in its hatefulness towards the animal. For the first time, some in surfing's broad church now sing in chorus with the shark fisherman, and the 'suits'. To quote Surfing Life magazine, the "beasts need to be taken out".

And the Western Australian Government has obliged. Sometime in the next few weeks, or even days, baited hooks will be set off WA's most popular beaches. Sharks longer than three metres that are caught, if not already dead when the lines are retrieved, will be shot and their carcasses discarded. In light of the falling popularity of the incumbent Premier Colin Barnett, one could conclude that the new policy is wholly politically motivated: an ailing government convinced that the public, including surfers, might be impressed by the kind of throwback symbolism of power and strength that a politician holding a large, shining hook might once have inspired. And for some it might.

But surfers should be at the centre of a defence of the oceans, not hand in hand with those that seek to destroy its creatures without any attempt at a scientific reasoning for it.
Remarkably, even Premier Barnett has conceded that experts in marine science would not approve of his government's measures.

And how dare we, then, take to the sea now like spooked Neanderthals and seek revenge for something we don't fathom, for a fear we don't attempt to truly reason with or understand?

It seems it is becoming the black mark of our times: the ignorance of science in favour of self-interest or primitive emotion. Take away humanity's nobility, our intellect, our capacity for reason and judgement, what is left beneath? Who are the real monsters?

Now 28 years old, I've often wondered if my memory of that childhood on WA's rural coast is quite as accurate as I'd like to remember it. What if the men in the gravel car-parks of those remote surf breaks that I remember were not as 'noble' as the seven- or eight-year-old thought them to be?

What if surfing culture was never as wise or transcendent as that earlier counter culture seems in hindsight? I imagine that those men I saw were indeed imperfect, that they would likely disappoint me if I was to meet them now. I suspect that none of it was ever as good as the mind can memorialise it.

But we don't need our imagination, or the past. We can see real nobility in our own time, in the majority of public opinion that is opposed to shark culling, transcending the natural, animal fear we have of such a formidable apex predator.

And we have seen it in the memory of the surfers who have tragically lost their lives to shark attacks; almost to a person remembered publicly by their families for their abiding respect for the ocean and their wishes that no shark would ever be killed in their name.

Like many other Western Australians with a close relationship to the sea, I'm off-put by our ocean at the moment, and I'm disturbed by each tragic loss of life.

Something does seem amiss. But also like most Western Australians, if something is wrong, I want to know why. We know so little of our ocean. Its greatest predator, the great white shark, remains in many ways a mystery.

And of course we have the capacity to learn more, that rare intellect and reason to understand a problem before we act, if only we display the necessary patience that is, again, a unique facet of our humanity.

I will stand alongside thousands of other WA ocean-lovers on Cottesloe Beach at 10am this Saturday because I think we are better than fear, and that we are nobler than vengeance.

In this moment in history where we are beginning to learn the critical nature of humankind's impact on the planet, and the destructive folly of past generations, surely the ocean finally deserves the best of us as a species.

Samuel Carmody is a writer and musician based in Perth. He is a doctoral student in Western Australian literature at Curtin University and is the chief songwriter of alternative Perth rock band, Warning Birds
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 04/01/2014 16:18

That's the article I linked above GAD.
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 04/01/2014 16:23

sorry CF, I was just catching up on the news while listening to the cricket and blindly did a cut and paste into this thread
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 04/01/2014 16:29

All good mate. Great article nonetheless.

Estimated 3,000 people turned out to protest over in WA today. 2,999 from the east coast and 1 surfer wink

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/20594583/activists-bid-to-stop-shark-cull/


Great turn out. Clearly they're not all redneck hicks in WA



....and this one sums up my opinion of Barnett perfectly.



Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 05/01/2014 19:19

Fish and chips did a roaring trade I bet. lol
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 05/01/2014 19:30

Even the sharks showed up to give their support on the day. lol

Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 05/01/2014 19:38

It was a great day to brave the waters and pass on the message.

Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 05/01/2014 20:26

Lol at the first shot Popeye. And wow to the second, they're in close. It's usually dolphins you see doing that but lined up better for the ride.
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 06/01/2014 12:44

WA Government standing by shark cull despite 4,000-strong protest at Cottesloe Beach
6-1-14

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-06/wa-government-standing-by-shark-cull-after-protest/5185802
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 06/01/2014 14:12

I am not surprised that the rally has not persuaded the state government into changing their decision on culling sharks. If scientists stated it wasn't going to be a solution and they didn't adhere to this advice, then a rally wasn't going to do it either.

I am less inclined to swim in the waters off WA even more so now. I strongly believe that the bating is going to attract more sharks into the area. This will increase the risk of getting attacked. I cannot be the only one who feels this way. This decision is going to have more of a negative impact against tourism and economical growth. Sadly the sharks that will be killed will be done so in vain.

The money that is being wasted to this so called solution, could have been spent more wisely in other fields like scientific research, educating the public, and more shark spotting equipment such as choppers for popular beaches.

No one is denying that there is an issue, but if they are really serious about reducing the number of attacks then find a better solution.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 06/01/2014 17:07

Is it in vain Adele? Does it attract more sharks? Can you prove this? What is the death rate to shark attack in NSW and Queensland where they've been doing it for over half a century?

The only real way to know what difference it makes is to stop doing it over east for a decade or so and see how things go. But you've go less chance of stopping it over there than you do of stopping it getting started here. I think tourists will appreciate it.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 06/01/2014 17:14

LOL. Provide any evidence it won't attract them. Blood in the water is the single biggest attraction for sharks. Prove otherwise.

You're right Adele it is all BS.




Posted by: payshense

Re: sharks - 07/01/2014 09:47

Here's a few figures on the effectiveness of the East coast SCP's(Shark Control Programs)derived from "Humane Society International"

"The nets are indiscriminate killers – in November 2009 in NSW alone two threatened species, a great white shark and a dugong were trapped and killed in the nets. In Queensland 16 dolphins, 6 whales, 1 dugong and 30 turtles were caught in shark nets in 2009.


In NSW between 1950 and 2008, 577 great white sharks and 352 tiger sharks were caught in shark control nets. Over the same period 15,135 other marine animals were caught and killed in nets, including turtles, whales, dolphins, rays, dugongs, and harmless species of sharks. This figure includes 377 of the now critically endangered and harmless grey nurse shark, a number which threatens their future survival.


In QLD, during the first 15 years of the shark control program 14,328 marine animals other than sharks were caught in the nets and drumlines. Between 1975 and 2001, 11,899 great white sharks, tiger sharks and bull sharks were killed in nets and drumlines. Over the same period 53,098 other marine animals were killed. In 2008, 578 sharks were caught in shark control equipment in Queensland and 505 sharks were caught between January and 20th November 2009. Less than half of those sharks caught were considered the dangerous or target species.


Shark control nets are stripping our oceans of its marine wildlife. In NSW in 2008, two of the shark attacks occurred on beaches with shark nets. HSI supports the removal of nets, replaced with practical measures to avoid interactions with sharks, such as avoiding swimming at dusk and dawn, as promoted by both the State and Federal Government Ministers."

Surely anyone can see that these SCP's are very effective...

...at catching anything that is willing to swallow a baited hook, or dares to swim within 500 metres of "our" beaches.

"The meek shall inherit the earth and the brave will inherit the sea"
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 07/01/2014 11:44

Have you got the figures for only drum lines? Because face it, that is what you're all getting huffy about, WA using baited hooks, right?

And how about human deaths by shark attack in the east, what are the figures there?

In fact, why don't you all get your focus shifted off WA and onto your own government?
Posted by: payshense

Re: sharks - 07/01/2014 13:00

Not getting huffy at all Jax. Do you feel the need to be aggressive? By claiming the thread for your own political and moral views?

NSW, by the way, does not use drum lines, only nets. Queensland uses a combination of both, drum lines and nets.

You obviously missed this in my last post, "In NSW in 2008, two of the shark attacks occurred on beaches with shark nets."

The figures I have quoted "are" for NSW and Queensland.

I am in fact a resident of both WA and Queensland, for six months of the year respectively.

This is not an issue just affecting WA. And nor is this thread just for one persons opinion.

This thread is actually about "Sharks".

In the meantime Jax, maybe you could go for a swim in the ocean to cool off a little.

Oh, watch out for sharks. wink
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 07/01/2014 13:27

Originally Posted By: payshense
Not getting huffy at all Jax. Do you feel the need to be aggressive?


He's trying to justify stupidity so the answer is yes. Everything is wrong with the WA government's plan and nothing is right with it. It is kneejerk foolishness.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 07/01/2014 15:48

Originally Posted By: payshense
Not getting huffy at all Jax. Do you feel the need to be aggressive? By claiming the thread for your own political and moral views?

NSW, by the way, does not use drum lines, only nets. Queensland uses a combination of both, drum lines and nets.

You obviously missed this in my last post, "In NSW in 2008, two of the shark attacks occurred on beaches with shark nets."

The figures I have quoted "are" for NSW and Queensland.

I am in fact a resident of both WA and Queensland, for six months of the year respectively.

This is not an issue just affecting WA. And nor is this thread just for one persons opinion.

This thread is actually about "Sharks".

In the meantime Jax, maybe you could go for a swim in the ocean to cool off a little.

Oh, watch out for sharks. wink


The huffy comment was intended in a sweeping generic way, it wasn't directed at anyone in particular payshense. It certainly wasn't used aggressively, so yeah, mistake the "tone" in a forum post and go ahead and get personal...


And pardon me for assuming this recent discussion has something to do withe the current situation - deaths, protests, masses of media coverage - in WA. Where we have no netting. Which was my point.


Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 07/01/2014 17:01

Haha now you're the villain payhense. Too funny.

Originally Posted By: payshense

This thread is actually about "Sharks".



Correct. It is but this is what happened when I shared an encounter I had with a shark 31 years ago...........

Originally Posted By: Jax
.

And so what if you had an encounter in the Bass Straight? ...Struggling for useless page filler??


Originally Posted By: ColdFront
crazy This is a thread about sharks!!!!!!!!!!


See a pattern emerging? And yet you're the one using the personal attacks.

Provided you discuss the merits of CULLING and agree with Jax then everything will be honky dory !!

Meanwhile back on the topic of SHARKS the comments under that article are growing by the day and only one of two rednecks want this to go ahead.

Barnett's shark cull is the cull you have when you're not having a cull. AKA Clayton's cull.

...and who is going to measure the sharks? Oops that one was only 2.99 mtrs long and it drowned on one of the hooks. Hurry up and cover it with a tarp and tow it out to sea before it bleeds into the water and invites its friends in for a chew or two. Madness !!
Posted by: payshense

Re: sharks - 08/01/2014 11:19



Not to worry Coldfront. Bit of a dry old argument here in Cairns too aint it! Bring on the rains so we can talk about them instead. smile
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 15/01/2014 18:00

Anyone noticed how sharks only attack wet people?

That's because if you don't get in the water you won't get attacked. Now here's a clown !!

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensla...0115-30ubq.html
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 16/01/2014 06:14

Love your new avatar ColdFront. Shame it's not a beer worth mentioning...Calling this guy a clown is an under statement!!! All this does is give surfers a bad name, or an idiot that's trying to promote his own product. Like a state premier trying to promote his state, saying he has solved an issue???
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 17/01/2014 14:59

Here is another article on the shark nursery off the coast of Port Stephens. Jimmy's Beach is inside the Port and its where i do all my swimming and in the 30 odd years of swimming, spear fishing, snorkelling there i'm yet to see a shark apart from numerous Wobbegong and Port Jackson sharks.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2027804/great-white-shark-nursery-off-hunter-coast/?cs=303

I will post another link that caused outrage amongst the community, when i find it!!


Edit found link you may have to go to facebook to read all the comments
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2023595/massive-swansea-shark-catch-sparks-backlash/?cs=391
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 18/01/2014 09:52

It's not the Whites you have to worry about at Port Stephens. Some of the Tiger and Bull sharks you see while fishing off Tomaree defy belief. It's not unusall to see 3 and 4 hundred kilo sharks at your feet on the rocks while divers happily swim a couple hundred mts away completely unaware. Plenty of days there where the fish are thick but you cant get a single one past the grey suits. Awsome to see.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 18/01/2014 18:20

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/tv/Nature/Myths-of-the-Great-White-2856219.html
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 19/01/2014 13:29

taken from ninemsn homepage 19-1-14

http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/t...lia-a-timeline/
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 21/01/2014 10:26

Taken from Fishing Worlds email newsletter 20-1-14

Pros cautious about shark culling
20 Jan 2014

THE ABC reports that commercial fishermen in Western Australia are hesitant to tender for work on the state's controversial shark cull because of concerns for their safety.

The WA State Government has issued a tender for professional fishers to catch and kill all white, bull and tiger sharks more than three metres long in certain areas along the state's coast.

There has been strong opposition to the policy, including from one man who vandalised Premier Colin Barnett's office.

Mr Barnett says commercial fishermen are understandably wary.

"There has been some hesitancy by people who were keen to put in tenders and some of them have pulled back," he said. "I can understand that because there has been a lot of aggression and threatening behaviour in the community."

The Premier says such behaviour has damaged the standing of the environmental movement.

His comments come as WA activists band together to form a special unit in a bid to sabotage the catch-and-kill shark policy.

Read the full story at: http://ab.co/19EtXgZ
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 21/01/2014 11:02

^^^ "The WA State Government has issued a tender for professional fishers to catch and kill all white, bull and tiger sharks more than three metres long in certain areas along the state's coast."

No, it has not. It has issued a tender to catch and kill all white, bull and tiger sharks more than three metres long that are caught on baited drum lines to be used in certain areas along the state's coast.

The media is loving this...
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 21/01/2014 11:38

...and so they should love it . Your info is wrong too. The people they appointed have withdrawn due to threats from rival pro fishermen. Well thought out plan you have there Barnett wink

This is what happens when red necks roll out knee-jerk policy.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-20/pl...andoned/5209628

But wait, there's more.........


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ja...onservationists


Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 21/01/2014 13:56

"The people they appointed have withdrawn due to threats from rival pro fishermen."

The media are clearly not the only ones making stuff up. ^^

Newspaper headline: "Western Australia's shark cull faces legal challenge from conservationists" Link
I hope people read that story. It's obvious no one is "facing" a legal anything yet. They don't know if there's a case to face. They don't have a legal team. And they hope they'll get a pro-bono one if this does go anywhere, lol. As I said, the media is loving this.

A more honest headline would have been "Conservationists hope public will fund legal team if found fighting shark strategy is legally viable"

Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 21/01/2014 14:35

Originally Posted By: Jax
The media are clearly not the only ones making stuff up. ^^




""But the Fisheries Minister, Ken Baston, says threats from opponents have prompted a private fishing outfit to pull out of the process.

"We had a successful tenderer, but that tenderer did pull out with the worry of threats to himself and his family," he said.""



So the West Australian government are full of it too? We already knew that Jax smile

....and a more honest government would call a cull a cull.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 21/01/2014 14:47

Oh yes, and from the other article linked back there, was this gem:

"Now this proposal is going to deliberately have a major impact on endangered sharks but it's also going to have a major impact on other threatened species in the ocean; dolphins, sea turtles, whales."


No matter how many times a journo trots that furfy out, it is still not true. Drum lines have been shown to catch extremely low numbers of dolphins, sea turtles and whales. So low in fact, that in an entire year, not one of those creatures died on a drum line in South Africa. One turtle was caught, but was released alive. Otherwise the drums caught 4 catfish and the rest were sharks. Some of which were released alive.

It is the nets that do the damage. People are just getting all mixed up about what is going to happen and what the media is telling them will happen.

See for yourself here, page 26 on the downloadable pdf KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board 2011 Annual Report. http://www.shark.co.za/Downloads.aspx?c=4


And this "endangered shark" thing we keep seeing. Target species are Great White sharks, Tiger sharks, and Bull sharks. None of those is listed as endangered. Not one.

No, the Great White is listed as vulnerable, happened about the time they were listed as a protected species, two decades ago. Hasn't been updated since. But anyway, understanding the language of the listing system is important too. Vulnerable comes before endangered which comes before critically endangered which comes before extinct.

So 72 drum lines along a select few beaches are going to nudge the Great White three rungs up the ladder to total species meltdown if you believe the chicken little apocalyptic ecosystem collapse that will kill us all brigade.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 21/01/2014 14:51

Originally Posted By: CF
"The people they appointed have withdrawn due to threats from rival pro fishermen."



Please link to the report that says the "opponents" that threatened people were "rival pro fishermen".
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 21/01/2014 16:13

I was fishing. Someone pm'ed me that you had blocked me smile

Inquisitive just like a shark it seems .
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 21/01/2014 16:25

Originally Posted By: Jax
So low in fact, that in an entire year, not one of those creatures died on a drum line in South Africa.


So about as low as the number of people who died in shark attacks in Victoria last year despite the fact they have thousands of surfers, great white sharks and no shark control measures !!
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 21/01/2014 16:30

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
I was fishing. Someone pm'ed me that you had blocked me smile

Inquisitive just like a shark it seems .


Oh, you admit that you were trolling then? Back on block you go. Couldn't find that link either I see. Making stuff up, like I said.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 21/01/2014 16:35

Blocked again. bounce


Originally Posted By: Jax
Making stuff up, like I said.



You need to provide evidence he wasn't threatened by other pros Jax. He wouldn't disclose where the threats come from.

You won gold for making stuff up with this beauty.


Originally Posted By: Jax


Most east coasters don't seem to get that they enter the water with HUGELY lower odds of being eaten than we do over here.


Check it again .

http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/map-of-shark-attacks-worldwide.htm
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 21/01/2014 17:44

If you want to go back to colonial times through the early 1900's even into the mid 1900's yeah sure enough but you can't disagree that the last few decades your chances of being attacked and killed on the east coast vs west coast is way more weighted to the west. Maybe all the nets and drum lines set on the east coast are the reason for this. Trying to dig up old historical data whilst interesting doesn't really support an issue that is now.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 25/01/2014 11:31

But what would she known. Oh and she's a surfer wink

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/myths-busted-about-sharks/story-e6frflp0-1226810150305

Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 25/01/2014 11:44

http://oceanramsey.com/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/02/diver-ocean-ramsey-swims-with-sharks/
Posted by: Dawgggg

Re: sharks - 26/01/2014 13:36

Ramsey is going to become breakfast one day.
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 26/01/2014 14:26

First shark killed under WA's catch and kill policy

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-26/first-shark-killed/5219492
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 27/01/2014 12:04

I know they are not sharks but the same principal is involved. 2 crocs have been shot in a revenge attack after 12 year old boy was attacked and killed swimming in Kakadu. Niether croc was responsible by the way. So these amazing ancient creatures die because someone is stupid enough to go swimming in croc habitat. We really have to see these deaths for what they are. Examples of natural selection. Why kill the croc.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 27/01/2014 12:12

Agree Brett. Especially as the boy taken was swimming in known croc habitat in the middle of breeding season and in swollen waterways. Add to that that a teenager was grabbed in that same waterhole (but survived) a year ago and was from that same community.

Oh and the crocs shot had no stomach contents resembling a human !! Pointless and just like great whites they are quite old at that size. I read that it is claimed the shark shot yesterday was a tiger shark. I wonder when the last person in WA was killed by that species?
Posted by: adon

Re: sharks - 27/01/2014 13:29

Yeah as I have said in other forums, if this was a bloke walking through the wilds of Africa and got taken by a lion, he would be looked apron as an idiot for walking and got what he deserved, people choose to swim/surf/fish in waters that are HOME to sharks crocs and god knows what else that could harm. It is their decision to go in and should be at their own risk. A shark is not targeting them, it is just doing what comes naturally. Now if that shark crept into a local swimming pool, that would be a whole different story. Sorry but swim in the sea at your own peril. I am not a fan of sharks, hence I don't swim in the sea very much!
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 28/01/2014 08:48

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/ma...0127-hva2g.html

Quick NZ get the drum lines out.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 28/01/2014 18:31

Here's why I say there's a much lower chance of being attacked by a shark in the east coast.
Below are Queensland's 2006 gear distribution figures. Today the totals remain similar if not exact.


Cairns:
Ellis Beach 1 Net 5 drum lines
Buchans Beach 2 drum lines
Palm Cove 1 net 7 drum lines
Clifton Beach 1 net 2 drum lines
Trinity Beach 1 net 3 drum lines
Yorkeys Knob 1 net 2 drum lines
Holloways Beach 3 drum lines
Total 5 nets 24 drum lines

Townsville:
Picnic Bay 5 drum lines
Nelly Bay 9 drum lines
Alma Bay 6 drum lines 3 drum lines
Florence Bay 5 drum lines
Radical Bay 5 drum lines
Horseshoe Bay 12 drum lines
Palarenda Beach 3 drum lines
Kissing Point 6 drum lines
Total 54 drum lines

Mackay:
Harbour Beach 2 nets 9 drum lines
Lamberts Beach 6 drum lines
Blacks Beach 6 drum lines
Eimeo Beach 1 net (Net rotated for 6 drum lines in turtle season September to March each year)
Bucasia Beach 2 nets 6 drum lines
Total 5 nets 27 drum lines

Rockhampton:
Emu Park 6 drum lines
Fisherman’s Beach 6 drum lines
Tanby Beach 5 drum lines
Mullambin Beach 5 drum lines
Kemp Beach 6 drum lines
Lammermoor Beach 10 drum lines
Cooee Bay 6 drum lines
Yeppoon Beach 5 drum lines
Farnborough Beach 5 drum lines
Total 54 drum lines

Tannum Sands:
Tannum Sands 12 drum lines
Total 12 drum lines

Bundaberg:
Oak Beach 2 drum lines
Neilson Park 6 drum lines
Bargara Beach 3 drum lines
Kelleys Beach 9 drum lines
Total 20 drum lines

Rainbow Beach:
Rainbow Beach 3 nets 12 drum lines
Total 3 nets 12 drum lines

Sunshine Coast:
Noosa 2 nets 3 drum lines
Sunshine Beach 3 drum lines
Sunrise Beach 3 drum lines
North Peregian Beach 3 drum lines
Glen Eden Beach 3 drum lines
Peregian Beach 3 drum lines
Coolum Beach 1 net
Yaroomba Beach 4 drum lines
Hyatt Resort 4 drum lines
Marcoola Beach 1 net
Surfair Resort 4 drum lines
Mudjimba Beach 4 drum lines
Twin Waters Resort 4 drum lines
Maroochydore 2 net
Alexandra Hdl 2 nets
Mooloolaba 1 net
Point Cartwright 3 drum lines
Buddina Beach 6 drum lines
Wurtulla Beach 1 net
Currimundi Beach 4 drum lines
Moffat Beach 3 drum lines
Caloundra Beach 1 net
6 drum lines
Bribie Island (Woorim) 18 drum lines
Total 11 nets 78 drum lines

Point Lookout
Amity Point 4 drum lines
Cylinder Beach 12 drum line
Ocean Beach 12 drum lines
Total 28 drum lines

Gold Coast
Sheraton Mirage 5 drum lines
Main Beach 1 net
Narrowneck 2 drum lines
Staghorn Avenue 2 drum lines
Elkhorn Avenue 2 drum lines
Surfers Paradise 1 net 30
Northcliffe 3 drum lines
Broadbeach 2 drum lines
Kurrawa Beach 1 net
Mermaid Beach 1 net
Nobby’s Beach 2 drum lines
Miami Beach 1 net
North Burleigh 2 drum lines
Burleigh Beach 1 net
Tallebudgera Beach 1 net
Palm Beach 2 drum lines
Currumbin Beach 1 net
Tugun Beach 3 drum lines
Bilinga Beach 1 net
Kirra Beach 2 drum lines 1 net
Coolangatta Beach 1 net
Greenmount 2 drum lines
Rainbow Bay 6 drum lines
Total 11 nets 35 drum lines

Grand Total 35 nets 344 drum lines

The above gear figures came from: http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/extra/pdf/fishweb/sharksafetyreport.pdf
If you want to see what NSW's effort is, go here: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/...rt-Aug-2013.pdf


These programmes were introduced in 1936 in NSW, in 1962 in Queensland. South Africa began their programme in 1952.
All of them were introduced to help improve human safety. All of them achieved a greatly reduced incidence of fatal shark attacks.

Below are WA's gear distribution figures until two days ago:
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 01/02/2014 10:00

Too Funny
http://www.theskewer.com.au/2014/01/shark-cull/
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 01/02/2014 20:29

I doubt the supporters of this CULL will get it Eddy. Thanks for sharing mate.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-01/shark-protests-wa-catch-and-kill-perth/5232480
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 01/02/2014 23:25

They're a clever bunch these anti cull protesters. Take the ones today at Manly... Seems people outsource thinking these days.

Hint in case you missed it: Manly is one of the 51 NSW beaches "protected" by shark management.

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/...rt-Aug-2013.pdf

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conser...0201-31tiy.html
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 01/02/2014 23:32

Am I off the blocked list already?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/thousands-protest-against-wa-shark-cull
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 00:29

I saw this one on someone's Facebook site today. Had a bit of a laugh.

Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 00:35

Gee 6,000 isn't many. I thought they would of had heaps more than that. Sat morning, Summer, well publicised, big issue. Whilst I still don't agree either way I think a trial for 4 months is Ok to give a go considering all the bad publicity in recent years. No doubt interest/funding will be lost in it within a year or two and it will get stopped. Mind you all this publicity is just highlighting the issue more and more to everyone. Sharks in WA.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 11:45

A normal hot summers weekend day would normally see half that many people there anyway Popeye, at least. Some of these are there protesting all manner of other political issues as well. Some have no clue, they just believe the entire ecosystem is going to collapse if Barnett has his way. Like I said, outsourcing thinking, mostly to media.

CF, I saw your comment, that happens when I'm not logged in. You have a problem, you're a dedicated troll. You will also feel awfully special when I tell you you are the only person I have blocked, there is no list. It is your fool comments and annoying gifs and incessant trolling led me to it. I also see you have nothing to say about the list of beaches protected in Queensland. But that's okay, that post attracted around 200 views every day between that and the next post, so I can only suppose that roughly one thousand people realise what a sad little person you are.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 12:25

Given that recent polling showed 84% of people in Australia are opposed to the cull I'd say you have things a tad confused. That you need to level the comments at me and actually yell from the rooftops that you blocked someone is indication enough.

You asked for people to provide information relative to the thread then attacked me for mentioning a shark encounter 31 years ago. Then did the same to another poster. It's usually an indication that you can't handle debate rationally.

I'm sure readers will make up their own minds. Those gifs such as the one highlighting the fact more people die from so many other things than sharks serve to highlight what is basic fact. A picture says a thousand words. You didn't kick and scream when Popeye put up a gif of a shark eating a swimmer at the meet because it suited your agenda.

Popeye 6,000 people at any protest is a success be it sharks, union rallies, boat people or otherwise. I read an article suggesting others left due to having to walk a mile to get there yesterday and were still looking for a parking space when the rally was well under way. You can only fit so many people on a beach within hearing distance of the speakers .
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 13:28

I found that funny how in Manly they were protesting about the WA shark drumlines etc when just off their coast they have been doing it for years. If they were so serious and concerned about it why don't they rally to have all the NSW and QLD nets and drumlines removed. Hilarious. Maybe the shark supportive crew need to focus their attention to the whole issue in Australia not just WA.

I guess not having it in WA has meant there are big populations of untouched White populations off our coast which is unique (but scary) Wouldn't it be nice to get rid of these old 60's practices along the East coast now to ensure we have big populations of untouched white populations cruising up and down the East coast from Southern QLD to Tasmania aswell. Let the sharks free to roam and eat what they want all around Australia as apex predators.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 13:31

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Wouldn't it be nice to get rid of these old 60's practices along the East coast now to ensure we have big populations of untouched white populations cruising up and down the East coast from Southern QLD to Tasmania aswell. Let the sharks free to roam and eat what they want all around Australia as apex predators.


Now you're talking .
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 13:33

Let the fatal attacks continue at current rates in WA and share the love with the East coast by pulling down their nets and removing their drumlines so they can get their dozen shark fatalities as well. Throw in a few more for Vic and SA and suddenly your odds of getting attacked would seem a lot higher across Australia.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 13:34

But that's OK they are the Apex predators and its dangerous for us to enter their waters.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 13:39

I think its harsh that such attention has been brought to an issue in WA when the rest of the country have been getting away with it for years. "it will make Australia look bad" lol. WHY NOT in WA. Its been going on everywhere else. Its a joke. Why cant people in WA have a right to some form of government protection like the east coast. Are we different.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 13:43

Damn good point Popeye. Everyone should be treated equally. It should never be one rule for some and a different rule for others. Drum lines and nets should be removed everywhere.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 13:52

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Let the fatal attacks continue at current rates in WA and share the love with the East coast by pulling down their nets and removing their drumlines so they can get their dozen shark fatalities as well. Throw in a few more for Vic and SA and suddenly your odds of getting attacked would seem a lot higher across Australia.


That's just it Popeye, but it won't happen. The eastern state governments know full well that the majority of people actually like having them there.

As for polls, it really depends where they're run and who by. Here's one I found, it was created and linked in a dedicated water sport forum. Wet people having a say...

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1GE0e1ysSyNo0gOyhmP8CZh1MT9wwm-5cm9NqUXorH1w/viewanalytics
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 13:55

CF, by gif I meant animated gif. Beer bottles and windmills specifically. Some people find them annoying. Other people feel the need to be the only one using them. Attention seeking maybe, who knows.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 14:43

If you don't like them report it to the mods. If they request that I take them down that is entirely up to them. Not you. If you go for a trudge through the forum you'll find there are plenty of animated gifs. GOMO and stop sulking. As you are referring to the "avatars" you are off topic. Go start a thread in the lounge or report the "avatar" to the mods.


Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
Damn good point Popeye. Everyone should be treated equally. It should never be one rule for some and a different rule for others. Drum lines and nets should be removed everywhere.


Absolutely. Then people could take responsibility Australia wide for their own actions instead of this pathetic demand that we clear everything out of the way so they can get in the water.

Perhaps if more people were scared to go in the water as is reportedly the case in WA we might have less drowning wink
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 15:22

Must have been attracted to the drum lines.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-02/shark-alert/5233148
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 15:35

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
Damn good point Popeye. Everyone should be treated equally. It should never be one rule for some and a different rule for others. Drum lines and nets should be removed everywhere.


Go for it Brett, start a movement, the time is never going to more ripe with more people ready to back you. 87 percent of people apparently. Oh, unless you take a wet persons poll.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 15:43




Asian news.

http://www.voanews.com/content/australians-protest-shark-culls/1842306.html

Funny how so many of those wet people don't want this either. There were plenty of surfers on Cottesloe Beach yesterday opposed to the cull and here we are with a 4 metre shark ignoring the baits that lured it close to shore. Yep. Just as that moron Barnett was warned.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 15:56

The WA government had a report done to assist them into deciding how to go about doing something. One of the conclusions was that drum lines do not attract sharks that are not already in the area.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 16:07

Drum lines attract sharks like crazy if you believe what some people say. Any wonder anyone is brave enough to get wet in the following areas then...

Cairns:
Ellis Beach 1 Net 5 drum lines
Buchans Beach 2 drum lines
Palm Cove 1 net 7 drum lines
Clifton Beach 1 net 2 drum lines
Trinity Beach 1 net 3 drum lines
Yorkeys Knob 1 net 2 drum lines
Holloways Beach 3 drum lines
Total 5 nets 24 drum lines

Townsville:
Picnic Bay 5 drum lines
Nelly Bay 9 drum lines
Alma Bay 6 drum lines 3 drum lines
Florence Bay 5 drum lines
Radical Bay 5 drum lines
Horseshoe Bay 12 drum lines
Palarenda Beach 3 drum lines
Kissing Point 6 drum lines
Total 54 drum lines

Mackay:
Harbour Beach 2 nets 9 drum lines
Lamberts Beach 6 drum lines
Blacks Beach 6 drum lines
Eimeo Beach 1 net (Net rotated for 6 drum lines in turtle season September to March each year)
Bucasia Beach 2 nets 6 drum lines
Total 5 nets 27 drum lines

Rockhampton:
Emu Park 6 drum lines
Fisherman’s Beach 6 drum lines
Tanby Beach 5 drum lines
Mullambin Beach 5 drum lines
Kemp Beach 6 drum lines
Lammermoor Beach 10 drum lines
Cooee Bay 6 drum lines
Yeppoon Beach 5 drum lines
Farnborough Beach 5 drum lines
Total 54 drum lines

Tannum Sands:
Tannum Sands 12 drum lines
Total 12 drum lines

Bundaberg:
Oak Beach 2 drum lines
Neilson Park 6 drum lines
Bargara Beach 3 drum lines
Kelleys Beach 9 drum lines
Total 20 drum lines

Rainbow Beach:
Rainbow Beach 3 nets 12 drum lines
Total 3 nets 12 drum lines

Sunshine Coast:
Noosa 2 nets 3 drum lines
Sunshine Beach 3 drum lines
Sunrise Beach 3 drum lines
North Peregian Beach 3 drum lines
Glen Eden Beach 3 drum lines
Peregian Beach 3 drum lines
Coolum Beach 1 net
Yaroomba Beach 4 drum lines
Hyatt Resort 4 drum lines
Marcoola Beach 1 net
Surfair Resort 4 drum lines
Mudjimba Beach 4 drum lines
Twin Waters Resort 4 drum lines
Maroochydore 2 net
Alexandra Hdl 2 nets
Mooloolaba 1 net
Point Cartwright 3 drum lines
Buddina Beach 6 drum lines
Wurtulla Beach 1 net
Currimundi Beach 4 drum lines
Moffat Beach 3 drum lines
Caloundra Beach 1 net
6 drum lines
Bribie Island (Woorim) 18 drum lines
Total 11 nets 78 drum lines

Point Lookout
Amity Point 4 drum lines
Cylinder Beach 12 drum line
Ocean Beach 12 drum lines
Total 28 drum lines

Gold Coast
Sheraton Mirage 5 drum lines
Main Beach 1 net
Narrowneck 2 drum lines
Staghorn Avenue 2 drum lines
Elkhorn Avenue 2 drum lines
Surfers Paradise 1 net 30
Northcliffe 3 drum lines
Broadbeach 2 drum lines
Kurrawa Beach 1 net
Mermaid Beach 1 net
Nobby’s Beach 2 drum lines
Miami Beach 1 net
North Burleigh 2 drum lines
Burleigh Beach 1 net
Tallebudgera Beach 1 net
Palm Beach 2 drum lines
Currumbin Beach 1 net
Tugun Beach 3 drum lines
Bilinga Beach 1 net
Kirra Beach 2 drum lines 1 net
Coolangatta Beach 1 net
Greenmount 2 drum lines
Rainbow Bay 6 drum lines
Total 11 nets 35 drum lines

Grand Total 35 nets 344 drum lines
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 16:13

You have bravery and stupidity confused. They can take down what they like in Cairns it wouldn't matter to swimmers. It won't remove the crocs, marine stingers ,stonefish etc. However it might save al the turtles ,dugings ,dolphins and whales that die in them.

But that's the whole point. Ultimately it's a choice and we have no right to whinge if attacked.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/marine-life/shark3.htm

Seems they can't just smell over miles but can hear a distressed fish over miles too. Like a small undersized shark on a bait drum for example.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 16:31

Well hop to it CF, get onto your local government and lobby to have them removed. You are clearly incredibly passionate about it.

Good move editing out the fact you found the conclusion of the report so hilarious too. I was just popping back in to say that it was based on half a century of observations of the baited drum lines and nets in the beaches listed above. The report also concluded that nets are vastly more damaging to other species than drum lines, which is why they (WA) decided not to use them.

Nice move removing "Sharks only kill wet people" from your signature too...
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 16:39

Yeah I was too busy laughing about it. Sharks aren't attracted to blood haha . Written and spoken by a professional shark hunter wink

You need your eyes checked. I removed nothing about sharks killing wet people.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 17:53

Oh, well my apologies CF, I still can't see the sharks only kill wet people signature, but never mind.

Who said sharks aren't attracted to blood? I mentioned a report based on decades of data gathered from places utilising drum lines and nets, in which it was noted that baits don't attract sharks from miles away. Maybe it was the fact there were not sharks fighting each other and queuing up for the baits that led to that finding. Maybe it was the fact that sometimes baits were untouched. Maybe that there are still sharks in the ocean after half a century of baiting. Maybe How Stuff Works wasn't their primary source of information.
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 18:19

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Wouldn't it be nice to get rid of these old 60's practices along the East coast now to ensure we have big populations of untouched white populations cruising up and down the East coast from Southern QLD to Tasmania aswell. Let the sharks free to roam and eat what they want all around Australia as apex predators.


it`s not all gloom and doom on the east coast

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2027804/great-white-shark-nursery-off-hunter-coast/?cs=303
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 18:24

I read that article last week. Great read. All those great whites and no recorded deaths from them. Speaks volumes. Research is what's needed Gad. Not a knee jerk cull.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 18:46

Juvenile Whites usually prey on fish, smaller things don't they. Not Marine Mammals which is what they target when getting 3 metres and above. Maybe that's why they don't attack people in that particular area. Just a thought. A salmon or tailor doesn't look like a surfer in a black wetsuit.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 19:31

I will be interesting to see them hook a 4m - 5m+ Great white and see the fight on there hand. I wouldn't like to be pulling that thing on board. Gun they use looks like a poxy .22 They might need a .303 if they hook the big one. I hope the anti shark protestors get to film it so we can see it on the news.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 19:32

Maybe they should use a few seals for bait to catch the bigger ones. No wonder they only catch the little ones using fish for bait.

Keep the seals alive to, just hook them through the tail. Live bait always works better. Especially when they can sense the movement and blood trail from such a long way away.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 19:34

Quote:
Popeye said:
Juvenile Whites usually prey on fish, smaller things don't they. Not Marine Mammals which is what they target when getting 3 metres and above. Maybe that's why they don't attack people in that particular area. Just a thought. A salmon or tailor doesn't look like a surfer in a black wetsuit.


That's true Popeye. And that they are breeding in nurseries surrounded by nets and bait lines means that it is sustainable too. But we knew that, otherwise the whole ecosystem would have collapsed a long time ago.

The reason juvenile whites take smaller prey is because of a lack of mineralisation in their jaws. Literally their jaws and teeth are weak and easily damaged on anything too firm until they are mature, which is about when they measure over 3 metres. The same can't be said for bulls and tigers though, as far as I'm aware.

CF - a kneejerk anything is something done quickly with little thought. The WA government has been having this conversation for a decade now, while the deaths keep piling up. This is not kneejerk, far from it. And once again, it is based on data from over half a century of baiting and netting sharks in the eastern states and South Africa.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 19:39

HAHA sorry JAX. I seem to be making to much fun out of this topic I might leave it alone for a while. I wonder when the next attack is going to happen. Its been a while...
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 20:43

[quote=ColdFront Research is what's needed Gad. Not a knee jerk cull. [/quote]

knee jerk? what knee jerk.....

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/02/02/14/33/more-wa-drumlines-after-big-shark-spotted
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 20:50



But they took decades to decide to roll out those extra lines. laugh

Interesting comments underneath. The handful of twits supporting the CULL keep rolling out that "How come the protesters aren't in the water" tripe.

They clearly have the intelligence to weigh up the risk wink
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 21:19

The hypocrites and dry people are welcome to their opinions.

And thank you CF, for the only comment you really made about the list of protected beaches in your area is that people who swim there are stupid. Good one.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 21:30

That's an interesting interpretation but given you are blinded by fear its also hardly surprising.

Another way to look at it and the logical view might be that they accept the risk should they enter the water and have the brains to weigh up their options wink Which is why this cull is so wrong in the first place. People have the option to stay in safe depth or out of the water altogether. The sharks do not.

It's been stated in here numerous times and with supporting evidence that plenty of wet people are opposed to this stupidity by Barnett too.

Large white pointers attack in a manner to protect themselves as they too are vulnerable to injury. The smaller sharks attack smaller prey. Just as there has been plenty of evidence around the globe that often the large whites share the water with surfers without incident. The tracking beacons have recorded it numerous times.



Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/02/2014 21:41

Here's one of the dry people who's is protesting the cull.

Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 03/02/2014 02:55

I have to agree that it is hypocritical of having a rally against WA for using bait lines at Manly a protected beach. This should be a national rally against all bait lines and nets in Australia, and not just targeting Western Australia.


Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 03/02/2014 12:21

Yes, I can see how I misinterpreted this:
I said, "Drum lines attract sharks like crazy if you believe what some people say. Any wonder anyone is brave enough to get wet in the following areas then...Cairns: Total 5 nets 24 drum lines"

CF, from Cairns, then replied:
"You have bravery and stupidity confused."


Online poll results when dry people don't partake:

Yes 84%
No 15%
Unsure 1%

Even Richard Branson's vote won't make any difference to that.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 03/02/2014 12:26

Adele, CF, Brett, Gad, come on, one of you should get a national rally going. You have avid and passionate support in this forum, there are at least four of you, and there are thousands upon thousands of supporters all over the place. Someone has to get the heads rolling. It would be fantastic to see a major national protest demanding the nets and baits are removed. Put your mouth where your passion is, bring it on!
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 03/02/2014 12:38

Yes time to save these beautiful creatures.

Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 03/02/2014 12:45

Using a pic like that in a sarcastic way is probably not the best idea Popeye. Can easily be oppsed with a pic of a human mutilating another human under the same statement. And I know which would paint a worse picture wink
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 03/02/2014 13:03

What's not beautiful about that? Its real. The Apex predator. They attack and kill and eat things. That's what gives the great white it's respect, creates the interest in them, the fear, their reputation, their beauty.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 03/02/2014 13:13

Maybe I detected sarcasm that wasn't intended then. If so I appologize.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 03/02/2014 13:20

I did search for the ugliest photo I could find to portray their beauty. lol wink
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 04/02/2014 00:18

Originally Posted By: Jax
Adele, CF, Brett, Gad, come on, one of you should get a national rally going. You have avid and passionate support in this forum, there are at least four of you, and there are thousands upon thousands of supporters all over the place. Someone has to get the heads rolling. It would be fantastic to see a major national protest demanding the nets and baits are removed. Put your mouth where your passion is, bring it on!


aaahhh Jax my fellow forumite, I must admit your request of me, caught me somewhat by surprise,and I do appreciate your vote of confidence in my being able, theoretically, to rally the troops.
Now the surprise for me, was your erroneous presumption that I am a contestant in your pro- anti shark drum lines peeing up the wall competition.

Sorry to disappoint, watch out for splashback, especially if wearing shorts
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 04/02/2014 08:57

Gad I'm certain from Jax' comments that he/she was down at Cottesloe among the 6,000 people chanting "kill the sharks". Other was he/she would be a hypocrite smile
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 04/02/2014 09:08

Otherwise*
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 04/02/2014 11:25

Sorry Gad, my misunderstanding. But seriously, why aren't the rest of you making a whole lot of noise over that side of the country? You are wasting the perfect opportunity to do something while you're banging on in this forum about WA. You would have the media lapping at your heels it you got it underway right now. Stop the culling in Queensland. Stop the culling in NSW. Stop the poofy few hooks going in in WA. Get on the programme, the time couldn't be more ripe.

It is happening right under your noses and has been for your whole life, unless you're over 70, which I doubt. I don't understand.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 04/02/2014 12:37

I guess he missed the irony.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 04/02/2014 16:34

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Gad I'm certain from Jax' comments that he/she was down at Cottesloe among the 6,000 people chanting "kill the sharks". Other was he/she would be a hypocrite smile


I'm not a hypocrite CF. It was an anti cull rally, not an anti anti cull rally.

So anyway, what are you doing to further your cause, been in touch with your local government hired shark killers yet? Made any effort to have it stopped in your own back yard? Did someone say hypocrite?
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 04/02/2014 17:17

Petition signed last week. If you're so much in support of the cull I csn only assume you have shown your support by contacting that hick premier of yours and telling him so. Did someone say hypocrite?
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 04/02/2014 17:46

Oh dear CF... I want the cull, the premiere has okayed it. Nothing needs to be done. You, on the other hand, are all in a snit, calling people all sorts of names because you are vehemently against it. It is you, not I, that needs to do something. Enjoy.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 04/02/2014 18:04

PS, I only said I want "the cull" because no matter what kind of language is used, cull is clearly the only word that registers with those opposed to it. I prefer shark management strategy, like they have over east. But whatever.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 04/02/2014 19:06

ZzZzZzZz. It's a cull . Funny only the rednecks that support it think otherwise.

cull


/kʌl/


verb

verb: cull; 3rd person present: culls; past tense: culled; past participle: culled; gerund or present participle: culling



1.


reduce the population of (a wild animal) by selective slaughter.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-01/shark-protests-wa-catch-and-kill-perth/5232480

LOL @ snit. Who can forget this beauty. In a shark thread of all places.

Originally Posted By: Jax

And so what if you had an encounter in the Bass Straight? ...Struggling for useless page filler??




Originally Posted By: Jax

They mature around 15 years and live to around 30 years.


Wrong. They live to over 70.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 04/02/2014 19:35

CF, I just read that useless page filler post again, and stand by it. Still not sure why you slotted in there, but if you can explain why it wasn't as random and out of context with the preceeding conversation, go ahead, knock your socks off.
But anyway, to be fair, this is a shark thread. Tell us all about it. What happened? Do you still dive?
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 04/02/2014 19:38

Originally Posted By: Jax
Still not sure why you slotted in there,


The thread is titled sharks wink Not Jax' shark stories or Jax' thread on sharks (follow my lead or else). Just SHARKS.

The purpose of posting it up was clear to everyone BUT you. I have had a close encounter with a great white and still don't want them CULLED.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 04/02/2014 23:48

No, it's not my thread. But I have a basic grasp of a conversation. It usually flows from one thing to the next with some common thread joining it all together. But hey mate, chuck in a wild card if you need to, sorry I pointed it out. You've done it to death now, bringing it back up over and over.

But anyway, forget all that, let's talk sharks, this is a shark thread you know. Tell us about your encounter with a great white in the cold cold waters off Tasmania. Are you still diving? I'm probably not the only curious one here, we'd love to hear your story. Did I mention that I had a close encounter with a great white too? Yep, thought so, only I wasn't aware of it at the time. My dive buddy saw it though. He had about 15 years more experience than me, in the shark attack capital of Australia (by recent reckoning anyway) and he'd seen several apparently over the years. To be precise, we were in pretty deep water off Cape Naturaliste. Bit of an overcast day, bit of wind, vis was ordinary. But anyway, this one spooked him pretty bad, he apparently landed in the boat like a flying fish, lol. Glad I never saw it to be honest.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 05/02/2014 00:03

Originally Posted By: Jax
No, it's not my thread. But I have a basic grasp of a conversation.


So basic that you can't tell this is a thread about sharks. Go back and read the original post. It was very much on topic and in flow with the discussion but didn't suit your agenda which is basically that everything should make way so you can have a swim.

Originally Posted By: Jax
the shark attack capital of Australia (by recent reckoning anyway)


As the last fatal attack was on the east coast I can only assume that is where you are referring to.


Originally Posted By: Jax
he'd seen several apparently over the years.


...and yet he's still alive. Funny that wink Ignorance and fear is the reason behind this CULL. Plenty of surfers over the decades have had great whites under their boards and been completely oblivious. There's plenty of video evidence to prove it too. On very rare occasions they attack.

Originally Posted By: Jax
Did I mention that I had a close encounter with a great white too?


Pointless page filler?

Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 05/02/2014 00:18

Better add this in too I guess.

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5583/20140109/great-white-sharks-live-70-years-more.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25655666


http://www.livescience.com/42423-great-white-sharks-live-long.html
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 05/02/2014 00:42

Come on Coldy, you don't want it to be about me, so stop making it about me. What about you...still diving? Tell us about your shark encounter. You dropped it in there, now expand on it.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 05/02/2014 00:49

Took your advice and went back to look at the first post, specifically, it's about bull sharks. Good god man, we're all off topic!
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 05/02/2014 09:02

The thread is titled sharks. You may want to go and do a course somewhere on forum etiquette.

I posted about my encounter with the intention of sharing the experience with others as it was a major event in my life but some brat put a swift end to that ever happening.


http://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/21244186/cheeky-dolphins-pinch-shark-bait/

These dolphins are following the pros laying baits and taking them off the hooks. So when the bait has been layed out in a line over several hundred metres and the scent has attracted the sharks but there are no baits left on the lines what's next? Sharks can hear splashes in the water from kilometres away. So when the dolphins work it out over there in WA (and they will)the people will be lulled into a false sense of security .

I also watched the local news last night and some marine expert was saying that the clowns over here are baiting sharks throughout summer when no-one is on the beaches due to marine stingers. Yeah it is a fail policy by fail ministers.


Posted by: teckert

Re: sharks - 05/02/2014 09:32

Can you two kids leave each other alone please. Thanks.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 05/02/2014 11:04

With pleasure Teckert.

So, anti cull protesters around the world are having conniptions thinking that Colin Barnett is going to cause the entire marine and terrestrial ecosystems to collapse by dangling a few dozen hooks off WA. Wonder what they think about researchers only knowing how long white sharks live thanks to underwater nuclear bomb testing.


Quote:
Bomb radiocarbon dating
Nuclear testing and eventual release of discrete radioactive particle around the world during the 1950s and '60s has given a kind of "time stamp" to all living tissues. Many researchers study the levels of carbon-14 in tissue samples to determine its age.
In the current study, too, researchers looked at radioactive carbon level in shark vertebrate and compared it with a reference table that charts the amount of carbon-14 taken up by marine organisms.
Radiocarbon dating showed that the oldest male shark in the study was 73 years old and the female was 40 years old. Other male sharks in the group were 9 to 44 years old.
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 05/02/2014 16:06

maybe the waters off Perth are not full of hungry prowling whites looking for take away

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-05/search-underway-for-missing-fishermen/5240142
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 05/02/2014 17:41

What? All night in the ocean and no shark attack? It's an outrage Gad.

If they hadn't been found sharks would have been blamed no doubt. After all science is dismissed when ageing them so we may as well dismiss drowning as cause of death and just add weight to the CULL.

CULL

1/reduce the population of (a wild animal) by selective slaughter.

Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 05/02/2014 19:30

From the Guardian.

It takes a very special set of circumstances for the Western Australian premier, Colin Barnett, to clash with Ricky Gervais over a policy matter. A $20m policy to track, trap and shoot sharks that venture near popular WA beaches, to be precise.


It’s unlikely Barnett envisioned his plan to set 72 baited drumlines to ensnare large sharks and provide reassurance to an electorate spooked by a spate of attacks – seven in three years – would garner such international opprobrium, including from the likes of Gervais and Sir Richard Branson.

But a hefty backlash to the shark cull – 15 protest rallies were held from Perth to Sydney on Saturday – has not only engulfed Barnett but also threatens to cause a headache for the federal government.

About 6,000 people gathered on the deep sand and grassy steps of Cottesloe to protest – a crowd that shows the cull is succeeding in drawing people back to the beach, as one passing onlooker sardonically noted.

At first glance, the rally could be taken as a protest against nanny-statism. “My choice to swim, my risk,” read one sign, while another advised people who fear shark attacks to buy themselves a swimming pool.

An effigy of Barnett, pierced on a baited hook, fluttered in the breeze, while young children with sharks painted on their cheeks dozed in their parents’ arms. Two young men dressed in full shark costumes quietly baked in the WA summer heat, stirring only to applaud the most rousing speakers.

The rally repeatedly denounced the cull as unscientific and pointless. There are fears that further removal of the oceans’ top predator – up to 100 million sharks are killed each year – will disrupt the marine ecosystem, potentially decimating the region’s fisheries stock.

Cull opponents argue previous tracking and tagging work was working – 338 sharks have been tagged by the state – before the death of 35-year-old surfer Chris Boyd in November from a shark attack caused the state government to take a drastic new tack.

The cull is opposed by a motley selection of groups, Sea Shepherd, the Greens and the WA Conservation Council among them. Western Australians for Shark Conservation, which specialises in shark education work, is also against the plan, as is the self-styled Marine Response Unit, a group that takes direct protest action such as chaining themselves to fishery boats.

“Sharks simply aren’t interested in us as a food source. If they were, we’d lose people every day,” Ross Weir, head of Western Australians for Shark Conservation, told Guardian Australia.

“It won’t be an easy fight as we’re faced with an arrogant and stubborn premier who is determined to stick his head in the sand. But we won’t relent until a research and education approach is used instead of this cull.”

The cull has so far caught five small sharks, rather than any of the 3m-plus great white, tiger and bull sharks deemed as dangerous to swimmers and surfers. The baited hooks may even draw more sharks closer to the beach by dangling tasty morsels just 1km from the shoreline.

“They’ve basically set up a hanging bait curtain for sharks,” Weir said. “We’ve seen small tiger sharks come in, get caught, thrash and roll around and take up to 12 hours to drown.

“That thrashing around attracts larger sharks. Think about it. Why do you think they are taking out the drumlines for the Rottnest channel swim?”

Despite this, the shark strategy has provided a sense of security for some. A small counter rally at Cottesloe called for “people to be put before sharks” while some surfers have said there is a “silent majority” in favour of the cull. The front page of the weekend’s West Australian ran the relieved headline “At last” as the drumlines went in. Stories abound of tourists terrified of WA’s shark-infested waters.

The state government will hope the protests melt away into a reassuring period of bucolic, shark attack-free beachgoing until April, when the drumlines will be temporarily removed, allowing it to claim a tough but clearly necessary decision was made.

But the cull is feeding into a broader, increasingly bitter narrative that Australia’s natural treasures are under assault from Canberra, after its backing for Barnett’s shark strategy. At the Cottesloe rally a laundry list of separate grievances – from the defunding of Environmental Defenders offices to the expansion of coal seam gas – were enthusiastically jeered by the crowd.

Some conservation groups already see little point in dialogue and diplomatic entreaties such as petitions as a way to engage with the federal government, less than six months into its term.

Money tins rattled at the rally will fund a legal challenge to the cull, with the courts now being used as a primary tool – rather than a last resort – by environmental groups aghast at decisions that threaten sharks and whales in WA, nature reserves in Queensland and the Tasmanian devil in its home state.

Sporadic bursts of outrage at various environmental decisions have yet to coalesce to become an electoral liability for the Coalition. But the shark cull has again exposed the tension faced by the environment minister, Greg Hunt, in balancing the protection of the natural world with political expediency.

Hunt has grappled with some uncomfortable non sequiturs in his time as environment minister. He has extolled the benefits of carbon storage in trees and soils, in lieu of a price on carbon emissions, while also requesting that Unesco remove 74,000 hectares of Tasmanian forest – containing some of the deepest carbon sinks in the world – from the world heritage list.

When in opposition, Hunt regularly promised to send a boat to the Southern Ocean to face Japanese whalers, but then backed down in government when it became clear that the earmarked vessel would instead be used to intercept asylum seeker boats near Christmas Island.

He has also voiced his support for the science of climate change and the renewable energy target while some of his senior colleagues, most notably Tony Abbott, have questioned both. The New South Wales bushfires in October forced Hunt to tread an awkward tightrope on whether climate change was a factor, given the starkly differing views expressed by, on one hand, the prime minister and, on the other, Hunt’s own department.

The WA shark cull has caused him to perform further unhappy contortions. His letter to Barnett allowing the exemption of great white sharks from federal protection hinted at what may be his true feelings towards the strategy, stating: “One does not have to agree with a policy to accept that a national interest exemption is warranted to protect against imminent threat to life, economic damage and public safety more generally.”

Ultimately, while he knocked back Barnett’s desire to hunt down sharks in the open water, he gave the go-ahead to the drumlines, using exemption powers originally envisioned for use in times of national crisis.

In an unfortunate juxtaposition, Hunt used an ABC radio interview on Monday to defend the shooting of sharks in WA before criticising Japan for its so-called scientific whaling, saying “I personally despise, reject [and] condemn” it. Japanese officials may be forgiven for joining the likes of Branson and Gervais in thinking Australia has a rather muddled logic when it comes to protecting the ocean’s most awe-inspiring creatures.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 05/02/2014 19:51

What a terrifying ordeal these three men would of had. I am glad they are all safe. Imagine what they must have been thinking all night long.

There has been a lot of back lash from Barnett's CULLING policy. It has put WA in the negative lime light. Has this had a negative impact to tourism yet?
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 05/02/2014 20:19

Ahh, old time newspapers are fascinating things aren't they? Here's a snippet from January 1952 full page article headed SHARK MESHING PROTECTS SURFERS in a Sydney rag called The World's News. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/139912344?searchTerm=shark%20nets&searchLimits=


Meshing entails the lowering of a
net off a beach, just beyond the
breakers. The nets are 500ft long,
20ft wide and of 22in to 24in mesh,
made of strong rope.
Usually two nets are laid together
to give an actual length meshed of
1000ft. Mostly the nets are put
down at night and picked up next
day. They are not trawled behind
the boats.
Placing the nets is simple. An
anchor, with drum attached, is
dropped and the net is then played
out as the trawler moves along. But
the picking up is arduous and fraught
with danger.
The net is located by the glass
bubble attached. The trawler heaves
to and the crew hauls in the 1000ft
of net hand over hand. There is
an atmosphere of tension at this
time.
A surge of a wave and the net
can be around the propeller, with
the boat only a few yards from the
breaking surf.
A swell and the net whips over
the side, taking with it any man
not quick enough to jump clear.
Sharks in the net provide a prob-
lem. They are lifted, threshing and
biting, over the side to the rolling,
slippery deck.
The trawlers have to be sturdy
craft for the work, the men adven-
turous.
Each trawler carries a fisheries'
inspector to record the catch and
each must carry out a certain num
ber of meshings a month, with a
specified number to a beach.
Sharks are scavengers, and move
along the bottom seeking food. The
swirling folds of net set on the bot
tom probably have the appearance
of seaweed to their short-sighted
eyes.
Once they touch the net they are
lost. Their stubbornness sends them
forward. The net swirls behind their
heads, catches on the dorsal and side
fins.
Maddened, the shark begins to
whirl about, slashing with his teeth,
but the more he moves the more the
net enmeshes him, just as a sticky
spider web traps a fly.
Finally, the shark becomes ex-
hausted in this man-made web.
Meshing is carried out by con
tractors. Captain P. R. Stuart Ptv.
Ltd. do the work Sydney and
Wollongong.
Mr. N. Gorshenin carries out
meshing at Newcastle.
Each year somewhere between 500
and 1000 sharks are caught, each
of which is capable of killing a man.
Meshing has never been claimed
as an absolute safeguard from at
tack. It is a precaution only.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 05/02/2014 20:19

While the culling policy has not been taken well no doubt people holidaying here will feel a little more at ease with entering the water. That is... until the next person gets eaten. Lets hope its a few years between attacks from here on in so people can get there confidence back. Land based activities and cafes, Wineries etc will no doubt be doing well. Water based stuff might have had a bit of a drop off in numbers over recent years. Understandably. Its a pity because the ocean environment here in WA is awesome.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 05/02/2014 22:29

Awesome is an under statement. One of the best beaches in the world (but then I am biased). Unfortunately the next time we come home is in early May for my Grandmother inlaws 100th birthday, and its ways to cold then regardless of sharks.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 05/02/2014 23:37

Come north Adele, May is still beach weather. Winter doesn't really start until July and it's all over by September. I don't think there's been a shark fatality in May.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 05/02/2014 23:57

Just came across Deeper Blue, a diving forum, world wide participation, and as far as I can tell, after a quick look, no mention of WA's shark cu... Oh hang, no, there's one thread, 100 views, not a single comment. In the spear fishing section.

Wow, and some people would have me believe that this CULL was attracting huge amounts of world attention from shark loving water users.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 06/02/2014 00:01

At least you finally recognise it for what it is. That's a start.

I took a look at your forum. By the time I got back to 2007 in the Australia/New Zealand section I found a report on great whites with not a single reply requesting a CULL

http://forums.deeperblue.com/threads/3rd-white-pointer-sighting-at-warnbro-sound.74362/

Seems divers have more sense than surfers .
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 06/02/2014 00:52

Hey, this shark topic is throwing up some beauties. Check out the Shark Arm Case: http://www.abc.net.au/dimensions/dimensions_in_time/Transcripts/s546563.htm

Quote:
Sydney in 1935 was under attack from the sea. The shark was public enemy number one and bounty hunters were employed to help rid beaches of the menace. But there is one shark story from that year that still reverberates through popular memory and has become notorious in the criminal history of Australia...












... This amazing story would never have been told if, all those years ago, that shark had not been caught off Coogee Beach, proof, perhaps, that truth really is stranger than fiction.
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 06/02/2014 09:12

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Water based stuff might have had a bit of a drop off in numbers over recent years. Understandably. Its a pity because the ocean environment here in WA is awesome.


I bet it is awesome, one day i will visit your area Popeye, sharks or no sharks!!

No drop off in tourist in this neck of the woods, infact every sighting of a shark close to the waters edge, through social media, people would visit the beach in droves just to get a glimpse of the shark!!
Any publicity is good publicity!!

I pinched this from Jax interesting article

MANDY PEARSON: In April 1935, a 3.5 metre tiger shark was caught off the coast of Coogee. It was brought back alive and put on public display at the Coogee Aquarium Baths. Crowds flocked to see the monster with the man-eating capabilities. On Anzac Day, it didn't disappoint.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 06/02/2014 09:23

Yeah people find them fascinating Eddy that's for sure. Just some can't get past their fear and no amount of education will change it. Crocs suffer from the same human ignorance.
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 06/02/2014 09:56

Its not every day the general public get to see such amazing creatures in their own habitat, especially the ones that visit a seaside place once or twice a year, your chances of seeing such wildlife is very slim.
Another place high on my bucket list is to visit the northern tropics to see a Croc in its natural enviroment!!
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 06/02/2014 14:42

Came across this on facebook, not sure when the footage was taken. Would have been a big adrenaline rush!!
http://www.shockmansion.com/2014/02/03/v...n-in-australia/
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 06/02/2014 17:14

Awesome footage Eddy. It's a rare day when the water is glassed off Lorne let me assure you. How come it didn't put its nose over the back of the boat and cause one of them to slide into its mouth like in the movie? wink

What a privilege to witness. Notice the blood on the corner of the boat. No doubt the lure to that magnificent specimen.

It was that same stretch of coast where I had my dive encounter around 50 k's closer to Port Philip Bay. If you go to google maps and type in Anglesea you can see the reef I was diving exposed about a kilometre off the coast .

Thanks for sharing.
Posted by: SBT

Re: sharks - 06/02/2014 18:19

Protesting about culling sharks while they catch hundreds every day commercially is a bit silly. Walk into any fish and chip shop in WA (and most other Australian states) and there will be flake on the menu about the middle of the price range.

I am against culling. It is totally ineffective and could make the situation worse by uing baits. I swam with sharks many times in PNG and was never scared of them as I have previously stated. Aware of them, yes, especially the cranky black tip reef sharks and tigers but most of the others where just nosing around looking for a free feed. No sea snakes, they give me the irrits big time.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 06/02/2014 18:22

Originally Posted By: SBT
Protesting about culling sharks while they catch hundreds every day commercially is a bit silly.

I am against culling.


crazy



The fish and chip thing has been done to death wink

Of course of you'd read up on this issue you'd know these are being towed out to sea and dumped and the Great White unlike the flake you referred to is actually a protected species in WA and has a "vulnerable" listing and cannot be used on fish shop menus.

sleep
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 06/02/2014 19:05

Most of the flake (shark) caught is mainly gummy sharks, which are not a protected species. The larger sharks have too strong ammonium taste for commercial use, and the flesh is darker in colour (beige). I know this as my family used to commercially long line shark fish off King Island and Stanley Tasmania. It was only a small operation. I don't think it is wrong to fish for food, as long as you are being responsible, and not over fishing in one particular area.
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 06/02/2014 20:40

CF its been a while since i seen the ocean that glassy, it certainly looks like a great spot for fishing.

Originally Posted By: Adele
I don't think it is wrong to fish for food, as long as you are being responsible, and not over fishing in one particular area.


I reckon you nailed it right on the head there. I have seen far to many anglers catch more than they need and thats not just the professionals im talking about either!!
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 06/02/2014 21:28

Yeah it's stunning coastline down there. Lorne is in the middle of the Great Ocean Road. They'd have had a northerly blowing I'd be guessing. There's a shipwreck on that reef I mentioned. That's why we were there.

http://vhd.heritage.vic.gov.au/shipwrecks/heritage/338
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 07/02/2014 01:33

Originally Posted By: Adele
Most of the flake (shark) caught is mainly gummy sharks, which are not a protected species. The larger sharks have too strong ammonium taste for commercial use, and the flesh is darker in colour (beige). I know this as my family used to commercially long line shark fish off King Island and Stanley Tasmania. It was only a small operation. I don't think it is wrong to fish for food, as long as you are being responsible, and not over fishing in one particular area.


Golly gosh, imagine the response in here if it had been me who said my family fished for shark...? Too funny, and no offence intended toward you or your family Adele.

So it's obvious from the response to that, or lack of it, that some sharks are more special than other sharks. See, that's where this culling debate falls on it's arse for me. Sorry fellas, either they're all special, or they're all not. I love a bit of flake, juicy and sweet, yum; and I'm not opposed in the slightest to knocking off a few big ones found hanging out in areas close to areas humans keep getting eaten at. At least I'm consistent hey? But clearly for some people, the ones we eat are not special at all, but the "magnificent" ones (I think that means really huge gnarly ones??) that eat us most certainly are.

Big sigh.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 07/02/2014 09:31

See this is where the CULL falls on its backside for me. I love a good "shark takes surfer" story, juicy and sweet news reading ,yum. I believe they call it natural selection. We eat millions of sharks every year but the bleeding hearts cry in their cornflakes when the sharks take one or two of us. Boohoo.

It's never the victims I feel sorry for. EVER. They made a choice and knew the risk. But then I haven't been sucked into the emotional bulldust that we are the only important species on earth. Their decision to do something reckless that cost their lives has affected the lives of those left behind .Not to mention the absolute tangle of hypocrisy it causes our government ."Japan you can't take whales it is wrong" but we can kill great whites that are actually listed as a protected species ourselves just in case. The ultimate hypocrisy . Nice work Barnett. You are a gronk.

Even bigger sigh.

P.S I eat Mackerel wink
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 07/02/2014 10:53

I have to agree with this article.

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/hypocrisy-in-wa-shark-kill-debate-20140204-31yyv.html
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 07/02/2014 11:59

Please find attached article, Death or injury to marine species following capture in beach meshing (nets) and drum lines used in Shark Control Programs.

http://www.environment.gov.au/node/14596

Jax, are you aware of the NSW policy on the Great White Shark?


[Quote]
"Since 1996/7 there has also been a policy in New South Wales to release Great White Sharks whenever possible (NSW Fisheries)."
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 08/02/2014 12:55

Yep, they had to introduce that policy when the species became protected, which was ironically just after the first fatal attack by a white in WA in a couple of decades. That doesn't mean white sharks don't die in their nets though.

That report is an interesting read, however it doesn't take into account only drum lining. It is a combined nets and drum line discussion, and it is nets that do the most damage to non target species. I posted a link earlier to the South African figures, you'll see there more clearly how drum lines hardly affect non-target species. Here, I'll put it up again:

Drumline vs netting figures on page 26 on the downloadable pdf KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board 2011 Annual Report. http://www.shark.co.za/Downloads.aspx?c=4

Oh, and that news article at the top of the page, thanks Adele. It's good to see a more honest piece for a change.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 08/02/2014 13:09

Honest because it throws up a fluff piece supporting your view from someone who's business relies on people entering the water? Doh. laugh laugh
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 08/02/2014 14:43

"There is a hypocrisy..." he said.

"It's happening in their backyard," he said.

"I think they mean well but I think it's out of sight, out of mind..." he said.
Posted by: teckert

Re: sharks - 08/02/2014 14:48

Suspected fatal attack this arvo off yorke peninsula in sa.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 08/02/2014 15:24

And only yesterday was this article published:

Quote:
PORT Lincoln tuna baron Hagen Stehr has warned that it is just a matter of time before another South Australian dies from a shark attack following an unprecedented build-up of white pointer sharks around the coast.

Mr Stehr said people needed to be protected from sharks at beaches by nets or lines and believes SA is negligent in not doing so.

"It is wrong to have carte blanche protection against every shark," he said.

"It's better to be cautious and save human beings where possible."

Mr Stehr said the that despite drawing widespread public criticism , authorities had got it right in Western Australia had been right in moving to protect swimmers with a shark cull.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south...m-1226820051425


Very sad for the families and friends...

Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 08/02/2014 16:25

WOW not good news if it is true. Pretty sharky waters around that part of SA. We were down there snorkelling this time last year at the southern end of Yorke Peninsula in the Innes National Park. Beautiful spot. I knew the Neptunes were just over the horizon and my snorkel there was very brief and just a look to see what was there. Definitely stayed in the shallows. It just felt sharky. Feel sorry for this persons family.

Interesting article from that Tuna Fisherman released the day before this attack. He has been flying over the SA waters a lot and said he wouldn't swim in SA waters at the moment. Scary stuff.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 08/02/2014 16:49

He's from Adelaide too. You'd think he'd know better.

http://www.news.com.au/national/woman-saves-mate-from-shark-attack/story-e6frfkvr-1226325443107

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south...3-1226547334596
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 08/02/2014 17:00

....and more

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/nationa...r-1226527729226

http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/marineparks/enjoy/shark-cage-diving

Plenty of education out there it seems.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 08/02/2014 17:08

BAHAHA that first story of Dolphin Bay in Innes National Park was a bay further down from where we camped. Kinda glad I didn't take the kayaks out there after reading that. Thanks for the education Coldie. lol
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 08/02/2014 17:12

Notice when it was? There's always been plenty of Whites off that region of SA .It's been known since the whaling days.

A tuna baron wanting a shark cull lol.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 08/02/2014 17:23

Yeah for sure Neptune Islands are nearly within sight of that area.

The following days we camped in a little caravan Park at Port Germein which is in the bottom of Spencer Gulf. Best crabbing spot in SA apparently. Went crabbing off the big 2-3km jetty there but the lady at the park said don't swim off the jetty as there had been a 5metre white seen there the week before just hanging off the end of the Jetty.

Lovely part of OZ for big Whites. Taught my 6 year old daughter to snorkel in Port Lincoln National Park which was even more sharkier lol. No way a big shark was getting in 50cm of water though.

It just continued all along the SA coast. BIG white territory, Port Lincoln, Coffin Bay, Streaky Bay, Ceduna, Cactus. My daughters name is Kiana and we found a spot called Kiana Beach so we walked in there for a look. Most sightings of Great Whites last season at that beach apparently. Awesome spot. Loved SA except for the sharky waters.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 08/02/2014 17:26

Originally Posted By: Popeye
No way a big shark was getting in 50cm of water though.



...and that's the key to sharing the water.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 08/02/2014 17:32

Well you have to pick your places to swim and snorkel in sharky waters. Whilst WA is sharky waters, metropolitan Perth beaches you would think are reasonably safe but you still get big whites coming in real close to the waters edge. So I guess the reason why they have decided to drum line them now.

Kiana Beach North
Posted by: Markus

Re: sharks - 08/02/2014 17:48

Yeah some huge sharks out Pirie way Popeye, the biggest white pointer landed in Sa history was very near port germein at 5.5m. Brilliant crabbing spot also, I've been swimming there once before, a risk ya take. I've also heard of huge sharks being seen near port Broughton. Spencer gulf seems to have some huge ones, perhaps due to the copious amounts of large snapper,
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 08/02/2014 18:15

Yep they love their snapper. I read somewhere years ago that they follow them up and down the east coast with the whales.

http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/video-great-white-v-snapper
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 08/02/2014 19:19

Originally Posted By: Popeye
WOW not good news if it is true. Pretty sharky waters around that part of SA. We were down there snorkelling this time last year at the southern end of Yorke Peninsula in the Innes National Park. Beautiful spot. I knew the Neptunes were just over the horizon and my snorkel there was very brief and just a look to see what was there. Definitely stayed in the shallows. It just felt sharky. Feel sorry for this persons family.

Interesting article from that Tuna Fisherman released the day before this attack. He has been flying over the SA waters a lot and said he wouldn't swim in SA waters at the moment. Scary stuff.


Yeah, farming tuna gives him a unique relationship with the area. He obviously has a long history with the ocean, in it and on it and knows the risks, says a lot that right now he's not prepared to risk getting in there at all. And that's just it, people who spend so much time in and on the water are all reporting increased sightings of big sharks. Armchair experts and 50 cm waders frequenting netted and baited beaches aren't really getting it.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 08/02/2014 19:31

It's apparent from today's attack that natural selection is alive and well.

I saw a tuna fisherman's interview where seals were swimming up and landing on the outer walking platform around the tuna farms so in is wisdom he put an outer mesh around the walkway. Now there is a mass of seals swimming just outside the nets and not too far off the coast.

No surprise this clown wants a cull. He has created a massive problem.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 08/02/2014 19:38

Yep that's the coast in the back ground.


Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 08/02/2014 19:53

Maybe those tuna fisherman need to clean up their own act first.

Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 08/02/2014 20:14

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-08/man-killed-in-shark-attack-off-south-australian-coast/5247528
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 09/02/2014 00:05

Yep, have to agree that spear fishing in a location that has been seeing large sharks in recent days wasn't a smart move. Still sad for the friends and family.

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
P.S I eat Mackerel wink


Yeah, sharp teeth those mackies. Iki jemi isn't really an option until they've been pretty severely donged on the head first. It's never nice smashing one with a blunt bashing instrument. Do you fish for them yourself, or get someone else to carry out the gruesome dispatch of the supremely streamlined and somewhat majestic mackerel's life?
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 09/02/2014 00:09

I'll let you work it out . It's more fun that way laugh

Note the family's response to this young man's death. Funny that. Seems to be a common theme with the families of victims.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-01/search-for-shark-that-killed-bodyboarder-zac-young/5127228


Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 09/02/2014 00:20



From the article..


"The family of shark attack victim Zac Young says it does not want to see a shark cull following his death."
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 09/02/2014 00:49

But Zac Young was attacked off the NSW coast and they already do a cull with drum lines and nets in NSW.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 09/02/2014 01:50

Its bloody sad that fella got taken today. Spearfishing is always a high risk activity. Crew are just getting cocky I think with spearfishing. They have gotten away with it for to long and the reward of getting the fish is just to attractive. The young American guy who got taken off Rotto a few years back was also spearfishing. I would not like to be in the water with a great white excited by fish kills. That would be seeing the great white in its true terrifying attack mode. Whether you would see it is another thing.

I have spearfished occasionally up here in Broome over the last 10 years and its a great way to fish. Its exciting. I always used to say you can go spearfishing and not get anything but have a good spearfishing experience. You see the regular 3-5 ft reefies that hang around but there have been a few times in isolated areas up the peninsula where you get cocky and head out deeper and chase the bigger fish and when you nail one and it takes the spear with it under a reef it suddenly becomes exposed and tense experience. The more regular croc sightings up the peninsula have put an end to those days. Hope they start culling them soon. wink
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 09/02/2014 09:22

Originally Posted By: Popeye
But Zac Young was attacked off the NSW coast and they already do a cull with drum lines and nets in NSW.


What i can gather is the nearest net that was closest to Zac would have been either Newcastle or the Gold Coast, about 300kms or so either side!!
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 09/02/2014 19:14

Just watched an interview with a mate of the guy taken yesterday on the news. He said the victim would not want the shark responsible harmed or a cull as he knew the risk and accepted it.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south...m-1226821301522
Posted by: Golden State

Re: sharks - 09/02/2014 20:49

on a side note, police divers sure do have enormous b*lls ....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-09/search-for-sa-shark-attack-victim-resumes/5248054
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 09/02/2014 21:20

Haha. I was thinking the same.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 09/02/2014 22:15

Cops would have had a boat with a gun ready to cull anything that came into the area.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 09/02/2014 22:26

The victim had a spear gun and it didn't do him any good. Clearly he didn't see it coming.
Posted by: Golden State

Re: sharks - 09/02/2014 22:33

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Cops would have had a boat with a gun ready to cull anything that came into the area.


still, if a white zeroed in on one of them there'd be nothing anyone in a boat could do ..
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 01:45

It's probably not all that hungry today.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 10:17

From the Adelaide Times.

Mr Hammond said the man was an experienced spearfisherman who had recently started participating at competition level.

“He knew what he was doing ... he was doing what he loved,” he said.

Mr Hammond said sharks were a natural risk when spearfishing and the victim would not want the animal to be hunted and killed.

It’s tragic that its happened (but) the last thing we want is for people to be talking about chasing a shark down or hunting a shark,” Mr Hammond said.


“He never would have wanted that to happen".


“When we go out in the water we are part of the ecosystem. We go out and we know that the shark is the apex predator.

“We all have a healthy respect for sharks.

“We know they are always there and it’s just part of the sport.”


Sentiments so often echoed by the surfing community.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 11:49

Kevin Merifield has been surfing Yallingup for over 60 years, and he’s getting a bit exasperated with the public outcry against the Barnett government’s shark cull initiative. While he finds Great White’s to be majestic creatures, like the rest of us, he doesn’t want to see another friend or family go through the pain of losing someone in such an abrupt and cruel way. When his own son was circled by a four metre shark, he thought it was time to say his piece.

Those against the cull can be can be laptop crusaders and poster protestors till the end of time, but in the end, Kevin and his town are the one’s being affected. Let’s hear their story…

http://www.surfinglife.com.au/news/sl-news/10788-let-s-hear-it-from-wa
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 12:01

Originally Posted By: Jax
Kevin Merifield has been surfing Yallingup for over 60 years,


There's the problem right there. Thankfully thinking about our environment has come along way since he entered the world. Along with a much better understanding of sharks.

But probably more to the point he has been surfing for 60 years and hasn't been eaten by a great white? What gives?

Originally Posted By: Jax
Those against the cull can be can be laptop crusaders and poster protestors till the end of time,


Just like those that were diving with the guy in SA when he was attacked? Laptop crusaders? Or the friends and family of the young man taken off NSW recently? Laptop crusaders?

LOL.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 12:16

The ones crying out hardest for the cull are the tuna fishermen who get paid to CULL them, business tied to people using the oceans and Barnett Rubble. Oh and the occasional redneck that can't see how stupid and pointless this is.

As one person pointed out in that article you linked, the refusal to remove nets down the east coast is more to do with fear of litigation (should someone be attacked) than preventing shark attacks. They simply cannot turn back despite the woeful publicity it attracts each year due to numerous endangered mammals getting tangled in them. Oh and he's a surfer too.

There is a section of more than 300 k's un-netted where that guy was killed off NSW and yet he was the first attack in several years in NSW. That speaks volumes in itself.
Posted by: Golden State

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 12:37

I stopped reading at "we're surfers and we accept the consequences" ...but... "action should be taken because we don't want any further attacks" ...

So this guy (and those who share his point of view)wants these animals to be killed on suspicion within their own habitat, just so he and his buddies can enjoy their favourite pastime..

And the netting and drum line program that he claims has been "so successful" in Queensland has been even more successful at claiming more by-catch (including endangered species) than sharks.

our situation in Queensland is 'apples and oranges' with what's over in WA. We don't have anywhere near the same prevalence of great white sharks in our waters.

His generalisation about those against the cull of sharks is completely childish and ignorant. Maybe he should look up some recent media stories about the hoardes of surfers and regular beach goers who've staged protests about this. And so frigging what if people who don't swim are against killing sharks .. They're clearly far more educated than this bloke on the vital role that sharks play in our oceans and the rapid rate at which they're already being slaughtered right across the globe. Anyone who knows the birth / mortatilty rates of Great White Sharks would know there is no way known their numbers could have skyrocketed to plague proportions over 17 years of protection. It is physically impossible.

Overall, the thing I keep coming back to on this and the thing that fuels this whole debate is the hysteria surrounding shark attacks. There were 1,193 people killed on the roads in Australia last year but a handful of shark attacks over a couple of years whips people into an absolute frenzy. This guy Kevin whatever his name is states that he's never even had a run-in with a shark during his entire surfing life but I bet like most of us he's had some seriously near misses just driving around in his car.

People demanding (mortal) action against sharks need a serious reality check.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 12:39

Originally Posted By: Golden State
I stopped reading at "we're surfers and we accept the consequences" ...but... "action should be taken because we don't want any further attacks" ...

So this guy (and those who share his point of view)wants these animals to be killed on suspicion within their own habitat, just so he and his buddies can enjoy their favourite pastime..

And the netting and drum line program that he claims has been "so successful" in Queensland has been even more successful at claiming more by-catch (including endangered species) than sharks.

our situation in Queensland is 'apples and oranges' with what's over in WA. We don't have anywhere near the same prevalence of great white sharks in our waters.

His generalisation about those against the cull of sharks is completely childish and ignorant. Maybe he should look up some recent media stories about the hoardes of surfers and regular beach goers who've staged protests about this. And so frigging what if people who don't swim are against killing sharks .. They're clearly far more educated than this bloke on the vital role that sharks play in our oceans and the rapid rate at which they're already being slaughtered right across the globe. Anyone who knows the birth / mortatilty rates of Great White Sharks would know there is no way known their numbers have skyrocketed to plague proportions over 17 years of protection.

Overall, the thing I keep coming back to on this and the thing that fuels this whole debate is the hysteria surrounding shark attacks. There were 1,193 people killed on the roads in Australia last year but a handful of shark attacks over a couple of years whips people into an absolute frenzy. This guy Kevin whatever his name is states that he's never even had a run-in with a shark during his entire surfing life but I bet like most of us he's had some seriously near misses just driving around in his car.

People demanding (mortal) action against sharks need a serious reality check.



Great post.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 13:25

Or those that promote culling of sharks because they pose a threat to humans should show some consistency at least. I don't see anyone suggesting that we summarily execute anyone caught Drink driving. I can't understand why considering they obviously pose a threat to other innocent road users. Can those that support the shark cull please point out what the difference is because I simply cannot see it.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 13:31

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
Or those that promote culling of sharks because they pose a threat to humans should show some consistency at least. I don't see anyone suggesting that we summarily execute anyone caught Drink driving. I can't understand why considering they obviously pose a threat to other innocent road users. Can those that support the shark cull please point out what the difference is because I simply cannot see it.


Not to mention we don't go out and indiscriminately shoot people over 3 feet tall because some of them may kill.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 14:10

So 1 in 20,000 Australians die on the road every year. I wonder what the ratio of surfers to fatal attacks in the SW of WA is. Not far off that. People who make comparisons need to look at things a bit more rather than reel off crap stats that mean nothing.

An attack is an attack its not like he is making up statistics. Statistics say that over the last decade there have been nearly a dozen fatal attacks 7 in the last 3 years when prior to that there were no fatal attacks for decades. That's real statistics real facts and worthy of peoples concern.

If you want to argue with that maybe you need to get off your one sided bandwagon and respect peoples opinions especially those that have to deal with the issue in their communities.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 14:25

The comparison was being made to drunk drivers. Sort of like saying X number of people die in the water every year(equivalent to X number of road users) but Y number of those deaths are caused by sharks(much like Y number of road deaths caused by drink drivers), so the point stands. Why don't we simply put a bullet in the head of drink drivers. It is exactly the same principal. If you support one then man up and support thr other.
Posted by: Golden State

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 14:36

Yeah and while you're at it popeye, better get some drum lines and shot guns for all these things too, because they kill more people than sharks every year ...

http://www.news.com.au/technology/scienc...b-1226777036820
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 14:44

We already kill millions of cows, have been trying to find ways of killing mosquitoes, Christmas trees are already dead because they have been cut down, Vending machines?? Icicles have technology to reduce risks remove etc, beds chuck out old ones all the time and buy a new one, dogs get put down in their thousands daily across the world. Kill 2 sharks in WA on drumlines and everyone is having a sook lol.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 14:48

Anyway I don't want to argue with people that are so one sided. I think its good to see both sides and respect everyones opinion. If the government wants to do their best to try a strategy to prevent further attacks then let them try it. If it doesn't work which it probably wont then they can re evaluate it down the track. Currently I don't see why they shouldn't at least try something.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 14:52

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
The comparison was being made to drunk drivers. Sort of like saying X number of people die in the water every year(equivalent to X number of road users) but Y number of those deaths are caused by sharks(much like Y number of road deaths caused by drink drivers), so the point stands. Why don't we simply put a bullet in the head of drink drivers. It is exactly the same principal. If you support one then man up and support thr other.


I was just talking overall with the stats that people come up with. Not just drink drivers. If a drink driver kills someone they go to jail. In a country where we don't kill people for their crimes that is what the government has come up with for punishment. Still serious consequences for drink driving and fair enough to.
Posted by: Golden State

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 15:04

So in the space of a couple of weeks this culling program will have killed more sharks than sharks have killed people in this area over the last few years .. yep, makes sense.

Here's some further evidence of how much sense drum lines and nets make in QLD, NSW and South Africa ..

While the nets have been responsible for the death of over 33,000 sharks in the last thirty years, less than 12% were targeted species (whites, zambezis, tigers). 25,000 harmless sharks were killed that did not pose any threat to bathers. However, their deaths do pose a threat to the health of the environment – and the economy.

The nets’ bycatch is appalling during the same period: 2,211 turtles, 8,448 rays, and 2,310 dolphins. The nets caught 100% more dolphins and turtles and 800% more rays than zambezis. Sadly, all species of turtles and many of dolphins are listed as threatened or endangered.


In NSW between 1950 and 2008, 577 great white sharks and 352 tiger sharks were caught in shark control nets. Over the same period 15,135 other marine animals were caught and killed in nets, including turtles, whales, dolphins, rays, dugongs, and harmless species of sharks. This figure includes 377 of the now critically endangered and harmless grey nurse shark, a number which threatens their future survival.


In QLD, during the first 15 years of the shark control program 14,328 marine animals other than sharks were caught in the nets and drumlines. Between 1975 and 2001, 11,899 great white sharks, tiger sharks and bull sharks were killed in nets and drumlines. Over the same period 53,098 other marine animals were killed. In 2008, 578 sharks were caught in shark control equipment in Queensland and 505 sharks were caught between January and 20th November 2009. Less than half of those sharks caught were considered the dangerous or target species.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 15:09

It's the mentality behind it Popeye that is the problem. This isn't protecting peoples survival, it is protecting their ability to go out and have a bit of fun. Their is a big difference and I can't understand how you can't see it. What you are saying is that our right to a frivolous existence outweighs the right to life of an ancient species. If that is the case then thats fine. Just state it outright. You would also obviously then support the killing of animals for ivory wouldn't you?(which in reality is more acceptable because the people that do it tend to do so to survive and make a living). You have no problems with hunting Whales for no real reason because it makes some people happy. The caging of bears to extract their bile is not a problem because it satisfies a useless need. If those who put themselves in positions of risk truly wanted to save themselves then they would stay out of the water. Those that choose not to stay out of the water(and I am one of them) need to suck it up and deal with it rather than taking a childish response and resorting to revenge killings.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 15:15

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
If you support one then man up and support thr other.


But he's on the fence. sleep

Most of the people killed in cars are also in a situation where the car is required i.e ; going to or from work. Surfers have a choice to stay out of the water. So really there is no comparison. Except of course that EVERY single person that drives a car knowingly accepts the risk however some red necks that enter the water do not.

Originally Posted By: Golden State
This figure includes 377 of the now critically endangered and harmless grey nurse shark, a number which threatens their future survival.




That's appalling.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 15:33

Lol, we're back to the useless comparisons again. Let's all agree to disagree then, shall we? It's certainly becoming clear who doesn't know any surfers.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 15:34

Originally Posted By: Jax
Lol, we're back to the useless comparisons again. Let's all agree to disagree then, shall we? It's certainly becoming clear who doesn't know any surfers.


So why didn't you just admit to not knowing any surfers in the beginning? I know plenty and they are all opposed to this CULL.


Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
If those who put themselves in positions of risk truly wanted to save themselves then they would stay out of the water.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 15:41

Oh I know plenty Cold Front, you have no idea. Cairns must be teeming with them, lol.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 15:46

Originally Posted By: Jax
Lol, we're back to the useless comparisons again. Let's all agree to disagree then, shall we? It's certainly becoming clear who doesn't know any surfers.


Instead of just dismissing the oppinions of others Jax please explain to us all how one activity that is not critical to survival is different to another activity that is not critical to survival. PLEASE share your wisdom becauase try as I might I can't see it.

Also, I don't know who you are referring to when you say it is becoming clear who doesn't know any surfers. I grew up on the South coast of NSW. I know a LOT of surfers(and divers) having lived beside the ocean my entire life. I spent years diving in waters with sharks.I don't know any who agree with petty revenge killing.I say again to those who think their unimportant recreation is more important than the survival of a species. SUCK... IT...UP. Eat a cup of concrete or munch on a plate of nails. Deal with it. Accept the potential consequences of your actions. If you can't deal with your own actions then you don't deserve respect.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 15:48

That's rather ignorant Jax. I grew up diving and surfing the Great Ocean road in Victoria where many of my mates still surf and dive. Much of the time diving was spotting whilst my mate dived for crays and then we'd switch (both in the water) .

Even with the other person drifting above watching out we'd still be nervously watching over our shoulders as we dived to the bottom. We knew the risks but took it anyway. Even back then when great whites were not listed as vulnerable we'd never have requested they be killed in our names. But then we didn't let our own personal choice be overcome by ignorant fear.

A female diver recently wrote that there is nothing more stupid than swimming in a shark's lounge room dressed up like their favourite meal. But she will do it anyway because she loves the sport and accepts the risk.

We have a lot more to worry about than just the occasional shark up here in Cairns when we enter the water at this time of year Jax. Oddly enough people know the risk so they stay out wink

Funny that.




Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 16:05

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
Originally Posted By: Jax
Lol, we're back to the useless comparisons again. Let's all agree to disagree then, shall we? It's certainly becoming clear who doesn't know any surfers.


Instead of just dismissing the oppinions of others Jax please explain to us all how one activity that is not critical to survival is different to another activity that is not critical to survival. PLEASE share your wisdom becauase try as I might I can't see it.

Also, I don't know who you are referring to when you say it is becoming clear who doesn't know any surfers. I grew up on the South coast of NSW. I know a LOT of surfers(and divers) having lived beside the ocean my entire life. I spent years diving in waters with sharks.I don't know any who agree with petty revenge killing.I say again to those who think their unimportant recreation is more important than the survival of a species. SUCK... IT...UP. Eat a cup of concrete or munch on a plate of nails. Deal with it. Accept the potential consequences of your actions. If you can't deal with your own actions then you don't deserve respect.


An activity being critical to survival is not really the issue Brett, that's just your personal take on it.
South Coast of NSW, where there's been 70 years of shark management you mean?

There are much more important things for you to concern yourself with than a few sharks being killed in WA. Seriously. There is.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 16:13

Originally Posted By: Jax
Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
Originally Posted By: Jax
Lol, we're back to the useless comparisons again. Let's all agree to disagree then, shall we? It's certainly becoming clear who doesn't know any surfers.


Instead of just dismissing the oppinions of others Jax please explain to us all how one activity that is not critical to survival is different to another activity that is not critical to survival. PLEASE share your wisdom becauase try as I might I can't see it.

Also, I don't know who you are referring to when you say it is becoming clear who doesn't know any surfers. I grew up on the South coast of NSW. I know a LOT of surfers(and divers) having lived beside the ocean my entire life. I spent years diving in waters with sharks.I don't know any who agree with petty revenge killing.I say again to those who think their unimportant recreation is more important than the survival of a species. SUCK... IT...UP. Eat a cup of concrete or munch on a plate of nails. Deal with it. Accept the potential consequences of your actions. If you can't deal with your own actions then you don't deserve respect.


An activity being critical to survival is not really the issue Brett, that's just your personal take on it.
South Coast of NSW, where there's been 70 years of shark management you mean?

There are much more important things for you to concern yourself with than a few sharks being killed in WA. Seriously. There is.


Didn't actually answer anything Jax. Again please explain your points or contravene mine. Please. If you beleive in what you are saying then stand up for it. I'll stand up for mine if you want. I would rather see all nets and drum lines removed and more people die to shark attacks than the other way around. Simple as that.

And how is the fact that thhe activity is NOT critical to survival not relavant. It is completely relevant.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 16:20

Originally Posted By: Jax

There are much more important things for you to concern yourself with than a few sharks being killed in WA. Seriously. There is.


Which roughly translated means please make it all go away so the CULL can continue unopposed. Desperate. Jax won't reply Brett, he will deflect. Notice he completely avoided replying to the fact that the friends of the SA victim DO NOT want the shark responsible killed. Not so much a murmur.


http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south...m-1226821301522
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 16:45

Ah the ole friends/victim didn't want the shark culled angle again. What people say in public/media vs what they really think would be interesting to know. They say what they say to be seen in the right way but...... what do they really think. Mate/son/brother/partner has just been brutally attacked and killed by a Great white shark. Lets just let the string of attacks continue at the current rate and see where peoples opinions start falling. After a while the ole come back lines and statistics become a bit old and worn out. A bit like the merry go round of info/stories you guys have to keep bringing up. If you want to make a stand and give good debate, come up with something that makes me think a bit more rather than getting bored by the same old comebacks.
Posted by: Orebound

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 16:47

I find it rather concerning that anyone could feel content in supporting a policy that most of us find abhorrent in the extreme. I have to agree with Brett Guy on this one, how conceited is it for us to believe that we have the right to execute any creature simply because it's mere existence might somehow interfere with us going about enjoying our frivolous pastimes?

You may well believe that you are a member of the silent majority Jax but I can assure you that the wave of discontentment surging towards the Barnett government and the West Australian tourism industry is a far greater threat than the odd act of Darwinism on your precious Perth beaches.

As for justification via comparison with archaic east coast programmes, forget it - as a once proud West Australian I would have liked to have thought that we were perhaps a little more civilised in our approach towards marine conservation, particularly given the overwhelming evidence highlighting the adverse affects to marine ecosystems caused by the existence of these netting and drum-lining programmes.

These programmes have been in place long enough now for the placebo safety affect to have engrained itself enough into the consciousness of those suffering similar fears to yours, but the "risk" still remains after all these years - equally as minute as when the programmes where first implemented.

The policy is nothing to do with risk management and everything to do with phobia management, a condition generally resolved with a few sessions kicking back in a leather lounge.


Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 16:54

Good points Orebound but how about the crocs getting rounded up and killed everytime someone gets taken in the NT, or the hundreds that get trapped and removed out of Darwin Harbour and the ones that get trapped and destroyed out of the waterfalls in Litchfield, Kakadu and the Katherine River every year.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 17:16

Yep. There are plenty of rednecks over here too Popeye and they argree with those measures. Many of us don't. I used to work on a croc farm and we used to recieve these 'so called' problem crocs. None of them were actually problems at all. Rather some dip@#$@ wanted to go swimming in a lagoon and got scared or some lowlife let his dog swim in croc water where it got taken. Instead of charging the owner with animal cruelty the croc is captured or killed. How wrong is that? It is not as though croc farms need these wild crocs. They can grow there own breeders. Every so often there may be a croc that really is a problem but these animals can be caught and kept alive if need be. The killing of them (as happened recently in the NT after the young girl was taken) in an act of revenge is quite pathetic really. Especially when you consider neither animal that was shot was responsible for the girls death. Again. These animals are not threatening us while we go about our safe daily lives. They attack us when we PURPOSEFULLY and WILLINGLY put ourselves in a position of danger. If one of your family members ran onto the highway and got hit by a truck would you demand that the driver was killed. Obviously you would because truck drivers are a danger to people running onto the road. I know you will dismiss this comment completely but on the off chance you have the courage of your convictions please explain to me how it differs from calling for a cull of sharks that kill a couple of surfers.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 17:28

This photo was taken in the exact same spot police launched their boat to search for the 12 year old taken near Jabiru last month.

Posted by: Golden State

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 17:29

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Lets just let the string of attacks continue at the current rate and see where peoples opinions start falling. After a while the ole come back lines and statistics become a bit old and worn out. A bit like the merry go round of info/stories you guys have to keep bringing up. If you want to make a stand and give good debate, come up with something that makes me think a bit more rather than getting bored by the same old comebacks.


we've given you EVERY possible statistic and moral reason why it's wrong. You've given us nothing but cliches and speculation.

If there was a score being kept on this 'debate' as you put it, you'd have been absolutely smashed out of the ball park.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 17:35

Good for you golden state.

Brett I guess we live in an anthropocentric world. Humans are at the top of the list. I know that's not a healthy thing for the world but its the way things have evolved. If you run out in front of a truck that's just bad luck. If you get munched by a shark an anthropocentric world says lets get rid of the danger. Times have changed a lot along those thought lines but humans are using ocean more and more through work, recreation, relaxation so who is to say the oceans are not our habitat to. We share the ocean with great whites like we share the road with trucks. You risk your life when entering the water as you do when you cross the road. You risk your life driving a truck a shark now risks its life if it eats someone.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 17:38

Originally Posted By: Popeye
a shark now risks its life if it eats someone.


That's a ridiculous. The shark has no idea it is doing anything other than surviving.
Posted by: Golden State

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 17:38

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Lets just let the string of attacks continue at the current rate and see where peoples opinions start falling. After a while the ole come back lines and statistics become a bit old and worn out.


yeah the current rate of two and a bit fatal attacks per year threatens to put the human population under serious threat.

Where have you been, it's only in the last couple of years as this spike in attacks has occurred that debate has started re the possibility of culling and the overwhelming response has been opposition to it. Even in the face of an increase in attacks.

Seems the average joe is smart enough to realise the threat sharks pose to us really doesn't justify us killing even more of them than we already do.
Posted by: Golden State

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 17:40

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Good for you golden state.

Brett I guess we live in an anthropocentric world. Humans are at the top of the list. I know that's not a healthy thing for the world but its the way things have evolved. If you run out in front of a truck that's just bad luck. If you get munched by a shark an anthropocentric world says lets get rid of the danger. Times have changed a lot along those thought lines but humans are using ocean more and more through work, recreation, relaxation so who is to say the oceans are not our habitat to. We share the ocean with great whites like we share the road with trucks. You risk your life when entering the water as you do when you cross the road. You risk your life driving a truck a shark now risks its life if it eats someone.


and when there's no sharks left see what kind of ocean we have then.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 17:44

Originally Posted By: Golden State

yeah the current rate of two and a bit fatal attacks per year threatens to put the human population under serious threat.




You're right .The human population rose more than that while I was typing the word "population".

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 17:45

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Good for you golden state.

Brett I guess we live in an anthropocentric world. Humans are at the top of the list. I know that's not a healthy thing for the world but its the way things have evolved. If you run out in front of a truck that's just bad luck. If you get munched by a shark an anthropocentric world says lets get rid of the danger. Times have changed a lot along those thought lines but humans are using ocean more and more through work, recreation, relaxation so who is to say the oceans are not our habitat to. We share the ocean with great whites like we share the road with trucks. You risk your life when entering the water as you do when you cross the road. You risk your life driving a truck a shark now risks its life if it eats someone.


Thank you Popeye. Thats really what I wanted to hear. If you believe that anything we do is more important than the environment around us at least you have the guts to admit it. Many don't. That is obviously where our oppinions differ and I doubt that will change. Stay safe in the water.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 17:56

I love the environment, I can just see both sides of the argument that's all. Nothing wrong with that.

Anyway this thread has gone to crap lately. Good luck on the merry go round.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 18:12

I think what has made me think more about the issue is the fact that drumlines and netting has been going on for years on the east coast. I cant get over that. The argument against here in WA has no grounds to stand on until they remove the drum lines and nets on the east coast. Wouldn't you agree. Until then WA has every right to do drum lines to protect their citizens. Any further protests need to be taken over east to back their arguments otherwise they look like idiots.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 18:14

Two wrongs don't make a right.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 18:17

Yeah and east coast is the backbone of where the wrong has started.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 18:17

But until they change that I don't think they (or anyone) have a leg to stand on with what goes on here in WA.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 18:21

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Yeah and east coast is the backbone of where the wrong has started.


Absolutely. I never said it's ok. But we have a conservative state premier that's actually worse than Barnett if that's possible so it won't change anytime soon.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 18:21

Originally Posted By: Popeye
But until they change that I don't think they (or anyone) have a leg to stand on with what goes on here in WA.


Apathy. One of man's worst traits.

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Until then WA has every right to do drum lines to protect their citizens.


Where's the evidence this will work?
Posted by: Orebound

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 18:22

Originally Posted By: Popeye
The argument against here in WA has no grounds to stand on until they remove the drum lines and nets on the east coast. Wouldn't you agree.


And risk an explosion in numbers of those pesky marine animals like Dolphins, Turtles and Dugongs? LOL
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 18:23

I have said for years it is wrong to do it. WA were in a position where they could hold their head up high and look down on the eastern states. That is no longer the case. And unfortunately once the position has been taken it is hard to go back for political reasons as had been said. If nets are removed and someone is taken the pollie who removed them will get voted out because of bad press ifluencing the yokels. No pollie is going to risk their pay packet over something as trivial as the environment.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 18:27

Isnt it great then that this current issue has been bought to the attention of all Australians. With such support I don't see there would be a problem to remove all the nets and drumlines on the east coast as everyone is so supportive of it.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 18:39

What a joke!!!! Pollies wont take them down due to being scared of losing votes. Whereas Barnett ( I don't like him) gets bagged for doing something about it here in WA. I would love to see a realistic poll in WA over the issue. With all the info laid out on the table, details of the current drumlines and netting and where it is used in Australia and let people have their say. That might make people think a bit more.

Like I have said before 6000 people at a big protest on Cottesloe Beach (the very site were two people have been taken) is just an example of how few people are willing to openly support it. Perth 1.8million water loving people and only 6000 turned out. Its because most are either undecided, fence sitters, or are not willing to voice there approval due to the vocal anti shark cull movement dominating the issue.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 18:43

Take note of my last post Popeye. I doubt it will happen. There have calls for years to remove the lines and nets(often due to the bycatch issue) but even though they don't really protect anyone no pollie will remove them. Once they are in place they are there for good or ill. WA has just taken a sad step down the path of destruction that will be almost impossible to take back. You have lowered yourselves to the east coast level. It is not something to be proud of.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 18:57

Originally Posted By: Orebound
I find it rather concerning that anyone could feel content in supporting a policy that most of us find abhorrent in the extreme. I have to agree with Brett Guy on this one, how conceited is it for us to believe that we have the right to execute any creature simply because it's mere existence might somehow interfere with us going about enjoying our frivolous pastimes?

You may well believe that you are a member of the silent majority Jax but I can assure you that the wave of discontentment surging towards the Barnett government and the West Australian tourism industry is a far greater threat than the odd act of Darwinism on your precious Perth beaches.

As for justification via comparison with archaic east coast programmes, forget it - as a once proud West Australian I would have liked to have thought that we were perhaps a little more civilised in our approach towards marine conservation, particularly given the overwhelming evidence highlighting the adverse affects to marine ecosystems caused by the existence of these netting and drum-lining programmes.

These programmes have been in place long enough now for the placebo safety affect to have engrained itself enough into the consciousness of those suffering similar fears to yours, but the "risk" still remains after all these years - equally as minute as when the programmes where first implemented.

The policy is nothing to do with risk management and everything to do with phobia management, a condition generally resolved with a few sessions kicking back in a leather lounge.




You find killing a few fish "abhorrent in the extreme" Orebound. Really?

I find the thousands of innocent children being murdered in modern wars abhorrent in the extreme. And the slaughter and rape and mutilation of their mothers and sisters. And the torture and rape and slaughter and mutilation of their fathers and brothers. I find those things abhorrent in the extreme. A few dead sharks pales in comparison, sorry. I'm not "content" with it, but it is preferable to having two or three or more people eaten every year. And it seems from the last 10 years of incidents that it is a growing trend.

As for the archaic east coast programmes, well stay tuned and see how it pans out if it starts looking like they might be about to lose their safety nets. From what we saw the other day at Manly, it's obvious plenty of them don't even know they have net at their own beaches. Those archaic programmes were implemented for a reason, and it wasn't because people thought there was a minute chance of being eaten by a shark.

I do believe I am a member of the silent majority. I live in a surfing community, perhaps that's why.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 19:03

Originally Posted By: Jax


And it seems from the last 10 years of incidents that it is a growing trend. wink




2 attacks a year. Massive growth .

More to do with more gronks entering the water than an increase in shark numbers smile They're a thick bunch over there it seems.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 19:05

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
I have said for years it is wrong to do it. WA were in a position where they could hold their head up high and look down on the eastern states. That is no longer the case. And unfortunately once the position has been taken it is hard to go back for political reasons as had been said. If nets are removed and someone is taken the pollie who removed them will get voted out because of bad press ifluencing the yokels. No pollie is going to risk their pay packet over something as trivial as the environment.


Have you said it in the right places all these years, and put so much passion into trying to stop it? Or is purely a topic to argue in a forum and over the dinner table? We can still hold our heads up Brett, it's the soloution that causes the least damage to non target species. Check the figures of drum lines in South Africa, where south west WA water conditions and temperatures are more comparable than they are in Queensland.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 19:07

Originally Posted By: Popeye
What a joke!!!! Pollies wont take them down due to being scared of losing votes. Whereas Barnett ( I don't like him) gets bagged for doing something about it here in WA. I would love to see a realistic poll in WA over the issue. With all the info laid out on the table, details of the current drumlines and netting and where it is used in Australia and let people have their say. That might make people think a bit more.

Like I have said before 6000 people at a big protest on Cottesloe Beach (the very site were two people have been taken) is just an example of how few people are willing to openly support it. Perth 1.8million water loving people and only 6000 turned out. Its because most are either undecided, fence sitters, or are not willing to voice there approval due to the vocal anti shark cull movement dominating the issue.


+ 1 to all of that.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 19:17

Originally Posted By: Golden State



and when there's no sharks left see what kind of ocean we have then.


Yeah, you've come late into this one GS, so here goes again. The sharks aren't all going to run out because a few dozen hooks go into the water in the south west of WA. A hundred years of targeted killing didn't wipe them out. 70+ years of targeted killing in the east still sees sharks coming in to be killed. Port Stephens, with nets and baits north and south of it, has 250 baby white sharks, counted by CSIRO scientists only last month for goodness sake. Stop with the end of the species stuff already, just don't keep going there. Sharks have not run out and WA's hooks won't make it happen.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 19:30

Originally Posted By: Jax
70+ years of targeted killing in the east


Targeted? PMSL. Where have you been?
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 19:44

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Originally Posted By: Jax


And it seems from the last 10 years of incidents that it is a growing trend. wink




2 attacks a year. Massive growth .

More to do with more gronks entering the water than an increase in shark numbers smile They're a thick bunch over there it seems.


See, there you go again CF, making me think you just have no respect for surfers. And you say you used to do it and have friends that still do. Odd.

Here are the figures, spot the trend (pay attention to the bottom four, that's 50 years):

2013 - Chris Boyd, 35, was killed by a shark while surfing near Gracetown..
2013 - Martin Tann, 24, suspected shark attack victim disappeared from Mullaloo Beach.
2012 - Ben Linden, 24, was killed by a great white shark while surfing off Wedge Island, near Lancelin.
2012 - Peter Kurmann, 33, died after an attack while diving off Stratham Beach, between Busselton and Bunbury.
2011 - George Thomas Wainwright, 32, was killed after being bitten by a great white shark while diving off Rottnest Island.
2011 - Bryn Martin, 64, was likely taken by a great white shark. He was last seen 350 metres from the shore on his daily swim at Cottesloe Beach.
2011 - Kyle James Burden, 21, was killed while on his body board at Bunker Bay, near Dunsborough.
2010 - Nick Edwards, 31, died after a shark attacked him while he was surfing near Gracetown.
2008 - Brian Guest, 51, was taken by a great white while snorkelling at Port Kennedy.
2005 - Geoffrey Brazier, 26, of Perth, was bitten in half while snorkelling at the Abrolhos Islands.
2004 - Brad Smith, 29, died in a shark attack while surfing near Gracetown.
2000 - Ken Crew, 49, died after his leg was torn off by what fisheries officers believe was a four-metre great white shark at Cottesloe Beach.

1997 - Werner Schonhofer, 41, disappeared while windsurfing off Geraldton.
1995 - Dave Weir, 29, was taken by a great white shark while abalone diving near Hopetoun
1967 - Robert Bartle, 23, was bitten in two off Jurien Bay.
1948 - Arthur Strahan, 17, disappeared while swimming at Lancelin.


Here, for you Orebound, from KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board page http://www.shark.co.za/Downloads.aspx?c=4 It's a pdf, page 26 gives shark catch, by-catch and release figures from nets and drums individually, not combined. It's also the same ocean and similar latitude as WA.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 19:45

Originally Posted By: Jax

See, there you go again CF, making me think


I doubt it.

Please don't blur my love of my mates or their taking responsibility for their own actions with your ignorance about sharks.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 20:02

"Moron, redneck hick, dickhead, halfwit, twit, gronks, tosspots, thick, ignorant"...these are all your words in this post in relation to my surfing friends and family. If you are going to use such language to describe surfers in general but excluding your own friends, best you make that clear I guess.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 20:04

My friends don't want a cull wink Nor do most surfers so please don't tar them with that brush.

Can you link me to where I called someone a dickhead?

You've had plenty of evidence put forward as you originally requested and yet you've done everything to avoid it, twist it or simply ignore it.

I find it truly staggering that you are trying to justify why on earth it is plausible to kill sharks so you can surf. Plucking out rubbish such as 250 sharks in a massive ocean to support your case is ridiculous .

Maybe you can explain to us all exactly how the deaths of endangered dugongs ,grey nurse sharks and leatherback turtles fits into your "targeted" theory?
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 20:25

Originally Posted By: Jax
Lol, are they putting something in the Cairns water supply? You lot seem just a bit confuddled.



Originally Posted By: Jax
This isn't a pissing contest you twit.



Note "twit" was yours and I'll bet you $50 you won't find evidence I called anyone a dickhead in this thread .So stop lying and stop trying to play the victim. You give as good as you get and usually immediately after someone links evidence that the victim's relatives do not want this CULL.

Which of course you have stepped around on several occasions. So tell us what you think of the relatives of victims wanting the sharks left alone?

Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 20:55

Here's the statement from his direct family. The other I linked was from his friends.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nat...f-1226822761269

“He knew he was a visitor in their backyard, and the last thing he would want is for this shark, or any other, to be hunted down and culled.”
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 21:23

Originally Posted By: Jax


A hundred years of targeted killing didn't wipe them out. 70+ years of targeted killing in the east still sees sharks coming in to be killed.


You may want to go and do some reading on Grey Nurse and yes we are entirely responsible.

Great Whites were listed as vulnerable due to plummeting numbers. Oddly enough the evidence was originally supplied by professional fishermen concern that reductions in GW numbers would see seal populations exploding and that would put pressure on fish stocks. Ironic and rather stupid then that tuna fishermen are wanting both culled.

Nature finds its own balance. It's us that don't.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 22:49

I've chosen to not respond any more to your posts CF. You've admitted to baiting (trolling) me, and frankly, I don't think we have any more to say to one another, and for anyone interested, this thread read start to finish explains where I'm coming from pretty clearly I think. It's not about me, and it's not about you. And the mods have two or three times already warned us to leave each other alone. If your PM box wasn't already full, I would have put this in there.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 22:55

You've been presented with tonnes of evidence suggesting this cull is a bad idea and continually used personal attacks to counter it. Your "twit" comment set the tone. You even attacked someone for living inland as well as my post about my own personal experience with a great white.. I'm happy for you to ignore my posts. It's better for the discussion here that way.

It's apparent that the majority of posters here feel this cull is a stupid idea. As do the victim's families. If you wish to ignore someone because they put forward the evidence you asked for then that's up to you. I'd like to add that my tosspot comment was directed at your premier and at no stage was it directed at you or your family or friends.

You will continue to love your surfing and hopefully you remain safe whilst doing it but I will NEVER support the cull of these magnificent creatures . I wouldn't wish a shark attack on anyone but ultimately it is a risk you take when entering the water. It is a knee jerk decision done purely for economic reasons and has zero to do with human safety and all the evidence suggest the money would be better spent on research.

Your refusal to respond to the question regarding the victim's relatives is duly noted too.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 23:12

Well done Jax though... I'm with you. As much as I distrust hockey stick graphs - as they say a picture tells a thousand words (and a graph even more).



http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/statistics/trends.htm

Note - that the last two decades are where longlining and culling has decimated the shark population. Make of that as you will.

Quote:
It's apparent that the majority of posters here feel this cull is a stupid idea


Actually - I'd be surprised if that is the case. Whilst I'm not a big fan of needless slaughter of wildlife, I support the netting and drum lines without reservation. I don't want my son or daughter a statistic - end of argument.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 23:13

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Isnt it great then that this current issue has been bought to the attention of all Australians. With such support I don't see there would be a problem to remove all the nets and drumlines on the east coast as everyone is so supportive of it.


Exactly Popeye. But that would be putting people at risk, and I think it would show the very vocal minority where the numbers actually lie.

Take for example, this forum. There are what, five people totally against the cull, but there's been well over a thousand views since I posted the list of Queensland beaches that have drumlines and nets. Are all those people against it, or are most of those people not prepared to put themselves up against the likes of the one I'll not bother naming.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 23:14

Can you provide similar graph of global population growth please Arnost just to keep it real. Thanks in advance.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 23:22

Never mind. Found it myself.

Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 23:25

Originally Posted By: Rorschach
. As much as I distrust hockey stick graphs - as they say a picture tells a thousand words (and a graph even more).



http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/statistics/trends.htm

Note - that the last two decades are where longlining and culling has decimated the shark population. Make of that as you will.

Quote:
It's apparent that the majority of posters here feel this cull is a stupid idea


Actually - I'd be surprised if that is the case. Whilst I'm not a big fan of needless slaughter of wildlife, I support the netting and drum lines without reservation. I don't want my son or daughter a statistic - end of argument.


I bumped your post to show both graphs on the same page. Note the growth in attacks versus population growth. Basic maths says per 1,000,000,000 (1 billion) people the number of attacks have declined and even your graph shows after a quick spike in the 90's that is reflected in population growth there is a sudden slow down in the trend in the next decade despite the population accelerating exponentially which supports a reduction in shark numbers.


Originally Posted By: Jax

Take for example, this forum.


I have .It is proportionate to every other forum I've read on the issue that overwhelmingly suggest this cull is ridiculous.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 23:35

What has GLOBAL population got to do with this? The places where shark attacks have taken place have not increased in population by much... I might use the same logic and "prove" that because shark population has declined that the rate of attacks has actually increased even more than what is shown in the shark attacks graph!

Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 23:44

You're arguing for increased attacks but against global population being a contributor? LOL.

..and can you please size your graphs to fit the page. Then I won't need to scroll a mile only to discover shark catches are still less than 25 years ago.


You may also want to go for a good read through the thread before repeating all that stuff about what has already been covered.

Originally Posted By: Rorschach
I don't want my son or daughter a statistic - end of argument.


At just two attacks a year the odds are overwhelmingly against it but as a parent you can further reduce them by telling her not to take up surfing wink
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 10/02/2014 23:56

It has been proven that culling doesn't work. In Hawaii they have now opted for a research and educational program. To put things into perspective, statistically they have a higher fatality rate of shark attacks than Western Australia. Furthermore, the United States of America is the leader in litigations, yet they still stopped culling the sharks. If they are taking these steps, does this not prove how barbaric our current shark policies are in this country.

[Quote]
"But on the Hawaiian island of Maui, where eight of the attacks took place, authorities said a cull is "off the table" and instead they have funded research and an awareness campaign.

That's because more than 4500 sharks were killed from 1959-76 in a Hawaiian culling program that both the Hawaii Institute for Marine Biology and the state's Department of Land and Natural Resources concluded was "ineffective" because shark attack numbers remained the same."

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-...3-1226821359697

If the politicians really do want to save lives, then they need to stop wasting money on something that doesn't work, and maybe consider research and educational program as well.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 00:08

Originally Posted By: Adele
If the politicians really do want to save lives, then they need to stop wasting money on something that doesn't work, and maybe consider research and educational program as well.


Maybe they could introduce a game hunting fee. A bit like shooting the tigers in Sumatra or hunting an elephant in Africa, or even snaring a snow leopard in Afganistan. Catching a great white in Perth. Could be a good revenue raiser for Colon Barnett and the WA government. lol wink
Posted by: Arnost

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 00:17

Nah Popeye - we really need to get a public grant to rehabilitate and re-integrate into the ecosystem sharks that had a bit of a chew on someone's ar$e. A couple of mill should do it ( for the first month or two at least). And introduce shark rights into the constitution - and sue anyone under the anti-discrimination legislation who suggests that the chewee has more claim to compensation than the chewer.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 00:28

16 fatal attacks last year globally out of 7,000,000,016 people. Over a million from mosquitos (1,000,000)

Ouch that's a massive dent in population numbers. I put the 16 on the end to highlight the stupidity of the actual numbers v's people but you get the idea. Our population is actually higher than that.

16 people? I'd say your daughter is pretty safe from a shark attack Arnost. wink Better to educate her on the dangers of sugar. 30,000 died from obesity just in the USA.

Maybe we can have one of those safaris on cane farmers or automotive builders or BoM for not perfectly predicting the lightning strike that killed someone who couldn't be bothered getting themselves under cover or looking at the sky or perhaps the grandparents of the mass murderer for not foreseeing their daughter would give birth to a monster?


http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Our population will increase by 16 in the next several seconds.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 00:36

Wow sugar. That's another one to the 214 comparisons you have made to useless information to this thread coldie. Its about sharks. Who cares what the population is. Do some study and tell me what the odds are of a surfer being attacked in SW WA and come back to me with some real data.

But if all you can come up with is internet data and news stories you have dug up from Google that's OK. Anyone can do that. Give me real facts not just anything you can grab for the moment.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 00:39

If they had the sense to stay out of the water I'd say the odds are 100% in their favour Popeye. Wouldn't you? That's a massive lurch you made off the fence by the way. Last time I looked the agreement for killing sharks was because they kill people. If there were no people this thread wouldn't exist wink

http://www.statisticbrain.com/surfing-statistics/

That would put your odds at greater than 1 in a million wink

"(The Australian Sports Commission, in '02, put the number of surfers nationwide at just under two million.)"

It's safe to say that number has increased in the past 12 years yeah?
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 00:45

Originally Posted By: Adele


That's because more than 4500 sharks were killed from 1959-76 in a Hawaiian culling program that both the Hawaii Institute for Marine Biology and the state's Department of Land and Natural Resources concluded was "ineffective" because shark attack numbers remained the same."



Less sharks 17 years into culling, same number of attacks? Is that really conclusive evidence that extra people would not have died if the sharks hadn't have been culled? Or is it evidence that sharks were getting desperate and it's lucky that so many were culled or a lot more people might have died?
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 00:48

Originally Posted By: Adele
If they are taking these steps, does this not prove how barbaric our current shark policies are in this country.



Absolutely.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 00:48

The following information comes from the Department of Fisheries Western Australia Shark Safety FAQ

1. Is it safe to go swimming?
Beaches are aquatic ecosystems. When you enter the ocean, you must remain vigilant of all risks associated with the aquatic en​vironment, including the risk from sharks. While it is impossible to guarantee that you will not encounter a shark while swimming, the risk of shark attack is extremely low, despite the number of attacks in WA in recent years. People can reduce shark interactions by following some commonsense tips. If you are not happy to accept the risk, albeit low, do not enter the water.

2. Is the number of sharks increasing?
There is no evidence that the number of dangerous sharks is increasing. In fact the numbers of some species are lower now than in the past.
Helicopter surveillance and increased vigilance in reporting shark sightings may support a perception that there are more sharks off our coast. How humans use the coast has also changed over recent decades with an increase in population, access to isolated portions of the coast and people are venturing further from shore. Based on these factors it would be expected that we would encounter more sharks.

3. Is there an increase in the number of white sharks (white pointers or great whites) off the Western Australian coastline?
No available data suggests that numbers of white sharks are increasing, either in WA or in other parts of Australia. The reason for the white shark being granted protected status is that this species faced a high risk of extinction in the wild over the medium term.
The core distribution of white sharks across Australia is believed to be centred in South Australian waters where they are known to aggregate. Through previous tagging studies, white sharks are known to undertake long distance migrations to WA waters and it’s possible that fluctuating white shark abundance in our waters is dependant on environmental cues that drive these migratory patterns. Research is being undertaken by the Shark Response Unit through the extension of the Shark Monitoring Network in an attempt to gain a better understanding of these migrations through acoustic tagging of white sharks and deploying and maintaining acoustic receivers or listening stations along the coast.

Last modified: 10/12/2013 12:25 PM

http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Education-and-...safety-FAQ.aspx

The information that they have provided, does not seem to support a cull.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 00:49

Coldie a quick google search for meaningless surfing facts from America. Congratulations again. Quick fingers for useless info well done. I was talking surfers in SW WA where the majority of attacks are occurring.

I honestly think I am becoming more in agreement to catching the occasional shark off WA waters mainly due to some of the crap I read from people that are against it. You might be able to give yourself a pat on the back for some of those contributions.

I know what its like fighting for something and having a strong view on an issue. We had the NO GAS campaign up here in the Kimberley. At least we got 3000 people to a protest on Cable Beach out of a population of 16,000. Like I say I reckon the support behind the anti cull was represented by the 6000 people at Cottesloe Beach out of 1.8million or the 25 that participated on Cable Beach.

Your dealing with an issue that pulls the fear factor in a lot of people. Its not going to have the majority support even if the shark people think so. They are arguing for the sake of arguing. Bit like yourself.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 00:58

The information provided does not suggest mosquito control either - after all, the chances of getting malaria, Ross river, dengue, barmah, Murray river encephalitis or any such virus is soooooo slim! Maybe we should ban mortein like we should ban drum lines and shark nets.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 01:06

Supply factual information from relevant sources to support the cull then. Its easy to do a quick search. LOL
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 01:14

I found a couple of good ones that JAX put up previously regarding the QLD and NSW drumlines and netting programs and how the numbers of fatal attacks over there in the last 10-15 years has been quite low. Is that good enough.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 01:19

Number two in that article Adele is in direct contradiction to what long term surfers and long term fishermen in the southwest of WA are observing in recent years. Fisheries don't include shark observations in the data they collect from professional fishermen, so they are only getting a limited and predominantly coastal assessment. I wouldn't be surprised to see it added to monthly fish returns (log books) in the near future. If surfers kept log books, the story would be newsworthy.

Number three is again due to "available data", of which Fisheries has not been actively collecting. The web page was updated mid Dec, in response to the media circus surrounding this issue. That there are juveniles to the tune of 250 being counted by CSIRO in one known nursery in the east only last month, in an area that lies between shark mesh and bait lines, then it would stand to reason that somewhere in the west the same thing is occurring. They have been protected for close to two decades. Common sense says they will have been breeding since reaching maturity, shark food over here is plentiful. Common sense also says some would have been mature or about to mature at the time protection began. There has been close to two decades of white sharks breeding under protection. Of course there are more of them.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 01:19

I think the NSW fisheries or Qld department put those detailed reports out. I guess they are relevant sources. The numbers of fatal attacks were not on there but its easy enough to do a search on recent fatal attacks in NSW and QLD from Great whites. There are not many.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 01:34

Exactly - there haven't been any recent fatal shark attacks at major/popular beaches that are netted or have drum lines. Netting and drum lines demonstrably works. More of it please. It's not a difficult choice between a toothy fish and a human life.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 01:38

An independent report by Bond University into shark nets found that “due to the environmental impacts of shark control activities, it is not recommended that either shark nets or drum-lines be introduced into Western Australia. Please find the attached report."

http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop108.pdf
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 01:55

Interesting read there Adele but I don't recall WA wanting to use nets which that study seemed to focus on. There was limited info on the drum lines other than they were a successful way of catching the targeted sharks except the Bull shark. Its interesting how the article is focused on nets yet he doesn't recommend drum lines either. Why didn't he focus his study on that if that was what research is required. Is that study any use at all for the proposed WA shark program. Not really.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 02:02

Yep, and that is why the WA government chose not to use nets. They will be putting in 72 drum lines - there are 388? drum lines in Queensland. They took into consideration what the Bond Uni report said and went with the method that would have the least impact on non target species. It is a shame that report did not have a section specifically on drum lines, without the netting info tied into it. You can get a good idea of what it would have been though, if you read page 26 of the South African report I have linked two, maybe three times now (only a couple of pages back last time). It has details of what was caught on drums, what was caught in nets, and the release figures of both. Very little is caught on drums other than sharks, from memory four or seven catfish and a turtle. The turtle was released and lived. Not sure about the catfish. That is for one whole year. Otherwise, all sharks. No dugongs. No whales. No dolphins.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 02:16

The report is about shark hazard mitigation with both nets and/or drum lines.

This is a direct quote in the executive summary.

"Shark Control Programs do not, as many people perceive, provide a continuous barrier that prevents access to beaches by sharks. Instead they aim to reduce the number of sharks that can potentially cause harm to humans through the use of shark meshing nets and/or drum-lines.

This is also a direct quote on page 10,
"Prior to their installation, there were 37 shark attacks (18 fatal) at NSW beaches and following installation there were 23(1 fatal)(Green et al., 2009). The rate of fatalities is highly unlikely to be a result of meshing activities, but is likely to be a function of improved beach front response time and first aid procedures."
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 02:35

I also feel that he had to to include netting, as it is so heavily used on the east coast. I am glad nets have not been included in WA. Happier still if there was no cull at all.

Although if it could be scientifically proven that the cull would be beneficial, then I would consider it. But at the moment I feel killing the sharks are in vain with the current information available.

To be honest I am more paranoid about stingers over here than sharks. I remember getting stung by a jelly fish off Como jetty when prawning when I was a little girl, and that hurt enough. Whereas the stingers here can kill (shudder). Next thing there will be a jelly fish cull. LOL
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 02:42

I think the drop from 18 fatals to 1 is pretty good evidence the nets made a difference. What time frame was that over? First aid procedures will have improved with time, but even now and with modern technology to get medical help to the scene faster than would have been possible when those nets went in is still no guarantee a life will be saved after an attack.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 09:18

Originally Posted By: Adele

To be honest I am more paranoid about stingers over here than sharks.


That's because you haven't succumbed to the red neck hysteria about sharks.

The media are the reason these people can't fathom what the odds of 1,000,000 to 1 represent for surfers. SHAAAAAARRRRRRKKK.

If you value human life so much Arnost it may be time for you to lobby the WA premier to keep people out of the water because that's the best way to save them. Over 200 people drowned in Australia last year wink
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 09:46

Here's one million dots on a page. Don't forget to scroll across . There's your odds in Australian waters as a surfer according to the sport's own data. wink Don't forget to zoom in too. it's more fun that way laugh laugh


http://www.vendian.org/envelope/dir2/lots_of_dots/million_dots.html
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 09:49

...and you can reduce them to zero if you play in the shallows .
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 12:55

Quote:
In 2000, Perth businessman Ken Crew was killed in front of hundreds of horrified beachgoers while wading in knee-deep water off Cottesloe. Officials believe the culprit was a 13-foot great white shark.
Link


Quote:
A man has been attacked by a shark while fishing on a beach in waters that were only knee deep.

Alan Saunders was bitten on both legs by the Grey Nurse Shark off the coast of New South Wales in Australia.
Link
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 14:54

LOL. He's a lucky bugger. A 13 foot shark in knee deep water would be beached wink
Posted by: dlcat1

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 15:55

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Here's one million dots on a page. Don't forget to scroll across . There's your odds in Australian waters as a surfer according to the sport's own data. wink Don't forget to zoom in too. it's more fun that way laugh laugh


http://www.vendian.org/envelope/dir2/lots_of_dots/million_dots.html


It is US data, but I rather like this one. Now I don't surf so maybe that 1:1000000 would look different if I did, but right now I'd prefer my share of the public money spent on one of those top causes.

http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Documents/Injury_Facts_43.pdf
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 16:28

Coldfront ,

I've personally seen bronze whalers BREACH not beach , themselves onto dry reef chasing salmon . They will wash up with a wave , get their target and then wait , wriggle around until the next wave washes them off .....

As for the First aid reference to more people not being killed by shark attack in the Green et el 2009 ..... welll clearly they are not talking about white sharks above 3M is size .. people surviving great white attacks , is even higher odds than general populace being attacked by all other sharks .

Even if they just bite/ mouth you , you bleed out .... and before you type Rodney Fox .... there is plenty of evidence to support that he was not bitten by a White , but infact a large Bronze Whaler .

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 .

And lastly , I'm pretty sure a spandex suit will stop nay potential threats from even your deadly irukandji jellyfish .
How ever , no amount of body armour short of a submarine will save you from a white bigger than 4m and getting up to 6M and the mass of a mini bus .
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 11/02/2014 18:15

Glad to see you finally showed your hand S.O.

The surfing numbers are not my data. They come from the surfing bodies themselves. Even if we play your game against the evidence I linked and say 1 in 200,000 (I'd like your evidence too thanks) those are still massive odds and entirely preventable by simply finding another hobby. If you don't like the risk DON'T DO IT. Skydivers die more often than shark attack victims but we aren't out culling parachutes.

Of course I only put up the surfing stats to play the game on Jax' terms and didn't include kite surfers, snorkelers, scuba divers, swimmers ,jet ski riders etc, etc, etc,.

I wonder how the spandex will do against the crocs up here? It doesn't offer any protection from stone fish either . The point that you completely ignored is that entering the water for recreational purposes is a CHOICE and it is arrogant to believe we should kill everything in it so we can surf. Take the risk or don't.

dlct1 great link and thanks for sharing. Yes you raise a very moral point about spending $24 million on CULLING sharks when that money could be spent far more wisely elsewhere, but then curing cancer won't help tourism numbers wink Also you are playing with fire showing comparative stats. It doesn't suit the agenda for killing sharks so the kiddies can sleep at night.

As for the knee deep guy that's just plain ol' bad luck and had he stayed on land he wouldn't have gotten bitten. It really is basic stuff.


Can you please link me to the evidence that Rodney Fox was attacked by a bull shark? Silly bugger has been wrong for decades and I'd like to let him know.


Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 12/02/2014 11:34

Showed your hand? Game?
Not surprised to see that language, at all. Pfft!
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/02/2014 16:53

Game is language? LoL.

Maybe as you've chosen to weigh back in you can share your view on the relatives and friends of the SA attack victim requesting that the shark be left alone instead of responding on behalf of other posters?

It certainly flies in the face of the claims made here that there is an overwhelming support for the cull. The polls suggest otherwise and if the relatives and friends don't want it killed that should be respected.
Posted by: T_D_S

Re: sharks - 12/02/2014 17:44

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
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 00:43

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
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 01:33

Cold one, I didn't weigh out to weigh back in, but here is my view, as requested, seeing as you insist on banging on with this victims' families thing.


Are they (the victims' families) all pushing to have sharks killed? No. Are they pushing to have sharks not killed? No. Are all of them saying anything publicly? No. Have there been two or three talk to the media in support of not killing sharks? Yes. Does their view represent all victims' families? No.

And please don't fragment quotes if you are going to take them out of context. No dolphins were killed on the drumlines in the report I quoted, for one year.


Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 05:14

Originally Posted By: Jax
[quote]In 2000, Perth businessman Ken Crew was killed in front of hundreds of horrified beachgoers while wading in knee-deep water off Cottesloe. Officials believe the culprit was a 13-foot great white shark.
Link





This is an excellent example of sensationalised journalism. It was not knee deep water it was actually waist deep. They also forgot to mention that it occurred at 6.30 am, around sunrise. Additionally, the water at the time was choppy due to rougher weather.

I have attached two links to confirm this, from reliable sources.

GREAT WHITE SHARK ATTACKS AND ATTACKS IN AUSTRALIA AND IN THE MEDITERRANEAN:

http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat53/sub337/item1273.html#chapter-6

BEFORE AND AFTER JAWS: CHANGING REPRESENTATIONS OF SHARK
ATTACKS:

http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/9471/2/02Whole.pdf

Chapter Four: Case study of media hype: Ken Crew, the day it all changed? Gives a great insight in how an attack can affect not only friends and witnesses, but the community as a whole. As I stated before in a previous post. This fatal attack really affected me personally. I was always wary about swimming in the ocean after this. Particularly around dawn, dusk, whale season, or in mercy water.




Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 10:01

Of course it was a fabrication and as usual it was the result of the person doing the wrong thing. Nice research Adele.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 10:18

Originally Posted By: Jax

Have there been two or three talk to the media in support of not killing sharks? Yes.


Thanks for your reply. I googled long and hard and couldn't find a single family or friend on any attack calling for a cull or to kill the shark responsible. It hasn't been two or three ,it has been the same trend over decades.


The quote wasn't taken out of context, You were trying to convey that the lines don't kill dolphin which is of course misleading. I'll fragment the quotes as I like if it means simplifying the point. After all you fragmented my forum name for effect Jex .


Originally Posted By: S .O.
Coldfront ,

I've personally seen bronze whalers BREACH not beach , themselves onto dry reef chasing salmon .


But the article linked by Jex claims the shark was a Great White 13 feet in length which is a size bull sharks don't reach and would have meant a massive girth and suspected Adele has since found the evidence that this was a media beat up. Which is why we are in the position we are now.




Interesting that Sydney was virtually unchanged.


Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 10:32

The horrors of false security


From a certain angle, this clinical weighing of policy and statistics seems ghastly. Even a single fatal shark attack means that someone suffered unimaginable physical and mental anguish. Yet one of the most notorious recent examples of such a death highlights not the successes of the shark control program, but its failures.


+


In 2006, a pack of bull sharks attacked Sarah Whiley while the 21-year-old swam with friends from her church group in the murky late-afternoon waters off a sleepy Queensland beach town called Amity Point. No aerial patrol was available the day of the attack. Late afternoon is a notoriously dangerous time to swim, particularly given that fishermen were using live bait nearby and that the previous night’s storms had clouded the water. And even though locals generally refuse to swim in the area because they know it’s “teeming with sharks,” as The Age reported, there were no signs alerting swimmers to the presence of sharks.


+


No signs, no patrol, no warnings. But Amity Point did have one thing: drumlines. (The local tides and water depth in that particular area are too strong to permit nets.) The local community pushed to be part of Queensland’s drumline pilot project as a way of attracting visitors, as The Age reported, although some locals believed the baited drumlines attracted the sharks that killed Whiley to the area. A later government review questioned whether the area should have been protected in the first place, given the “large population of transient sharks in the area that would not be fished down” (pdf, p.28) and an abundance of food sources that “outclassed” the bait.


+



A sign at Balmoral Beach, Sydney. Flickr user Lawrence Murray

Sarah Whiley clearly had no idea of the acute danger of swimming when and where she did. But she obviously didn’t know that. The circumstances surrounding her death hint that shark control programs that emphasize capture can inadvertently create more danger, by lulling beachgoers into a false sense of safety.


+


It’s a phenomenon that policy makers worry about. ”It is difficult to determine if the nets actually prevent attacks, however they do provide a perception of security for beach users,” said a 2006 report prepared for Dunedin, a city in New Zealand that scrapped its shark net program in 2011.


+


The Australian government echoed these concerns (pdf, p.40) in a recent report on protecting its great white population. ”Balancing perceptions of public safety (and subsequent pressure on governments to ‘act’ after incidents of shark attack) with conservation remains a significant issue with respect to possible actions taken that can increase threats to the species,” said the report. “Public education and demystifying white sharks in the public domain remains a priority.”
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 10:52

in an unsustainable overpopulated world, some peoples actions reinforce my belief that the answer,is not in the debate for the protection of the environment and the species that exist in them,but the realistic need for sanity to prevail and meaningful steps taken to cull(let die down) the ever increasing human population.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-13/fi...o-death/5257052
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 11:04

Originally Posted By: Gad
in an unsustainable overpopulated world, some peoples actions reinforce my belief that the answer,is not in the debate for the protection of the environment and the species that exist in them,but the realistic need for sanity to prevail and meaningful steps taken to cull(let die down) the ever increasing human population.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-13/fi...o-death/5257052



Amen.

...and that clown didn't get fined enough imo.
Posted by: Dawgggg

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 11:26

Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 12:07

Originally Posted By: Adele

It was not knee deep water it was actually waist deep.


Yes, you're right, and that thesis is a great link, nice find. But it happened in the shallows. From that thesis:

Quote:
A witness
described the shark as so close to the shore that it was stirring up sand with its
body.


And I linked it in direct response to this:

CF said: ...and you can reduce them [fatal attacks] to zero if you play in the shallows .

The fact remains, Ken Crew was taken in shallow water. Apparently he was stupid for being there... Are you sure you ever surfed or dived CF, it's looking more and more unlikely every time you insult water users. Unless of course you have the same low opinion of yourself.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 12:19

Originally Posted By: ColdFront


Thanks for your reply. I googled long and hard and couldn't find a single family or friend on any attack calling for a cull or to kill the shark responsible. It hasn't been two or three ,it has been the same trend over decades.



You think google will tell you what the friends and family of victims think? Wow...having a grip on reality is clearly an option.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 12:25

Insulting water users? Oh please Jax enough of the tanties and accusations .It makes your argument look fragile. You very conveniently overlooked the fact it was waste deep and at the worst possible time of day for attacks and was glorified and falsified by the media. Was he standing at the edge of a drop off? It doesn't say. Was someone bleeding amongst that crowd of bathers to attract the shark? Doesn't say. Did one of the swimmers urinate? Doesn't say. Was someone fishing nearby? Doesn't say.

All the data available points to population and water use actually having outgrow shark attacks in every single water sport except surfing of which it has remained stable against population growth for the past 40 years. It also suggests the attacks have mainly occurred where there are drop offs along which sharks typical hunt. Time for surfers to take responsibility for their own actions. Or don't surf. It is so pathetic that a surfer of 60 years can argue for a cull when he is still here. Shark attacks are rare .

Of course continually reducing the size and shape of boards until they have perfectly matched the size and appearance of the very prey great whites eat would not have anything to do with it right? I wonder how many surfers on long boards have been attacked?

Now I am being accused of having never dived or surfed? You're getting desperate. Either stick to the topic at hand or put me back on your ignore list.

Even the federal government has acknowledged that education is the better way to go. But you can't educate numpties. Now go back and read how drumlins can causes the problem rather than fix it. Stupid policy by a stupid premier.

Originally Posted By: Jax
Wow...having a grip on reality is clearly an option.


laugh See down page

Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 12:27

And yeah Gad, that is disgusting behaviour, thankfully it is nothing to do with the recent round of media hype though, it happened three years ago. Disgusting too are the hordes of people I see pulling up a fish on a line, who then ponce around not really wanting to grab hold of it and end up leaving it to suffocate while flapping around on the sand or jetty. Often its mums and dads with the kids on holiday trying the great Aussie tradition of throwing in a line. The bashing in of the heads of mackerel is pretty gruesome too. And don't get me started on big game and trophy fishing. Yep, humans pretty much just need to clean their act up...
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 12:34



You yourself said that sharks that size can't eat people due to soft structure of their Jaws.

Making comparison between a Spanish mackerel that takes one quick blow to kill humanely and is part of our table stocks and a protected Great White Shark that was no thread to anyone ,dragged up a ramp alive by the tail, beaten numerous times, officially listed as vulnerable,a protected species and cannot be eaten is working wonders for your "reality" comment.

Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 13:07

You two need time out in the naughty corner, if you want to continue acting like children. This discussion would be so much more enjoyable without your constant personal attacks against each other. If you don't agree, then counter attack, without the personal barbs.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 13:10

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.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 13:16

Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 13:18

This is why they need to take the nets down too.



Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 13:23


The government's own studies conclude the practice is foolish. Yet Abbott and Hunt have over ridden that logic. Go figure.

http://www.environment.gov.au/node/14596

A. Could the threatening process cause a native species or an ecological community to become eligible for listing as Extinct, Extinct in the Wild, Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable?

There is concern that Shark Control Programs may have a negative impact on several native marine species, including the Dugong (Dugong dugon), Irrawaddy Dolphin (Orcaecella brevirostris), Indo-Pacific Humpbacked Dolphin (Sousa chinensis), Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and several Ray species.

Catch data from the Queensland and New South Wales Shark Control Programs is used to analyse the impact of the Shark Control Programs on each of these species. Both historical catch data and recent catch data are presented (where available), but recent catch data (1993-2003) has primarily been used to assess the current impact of the nominated threatening process on each species.

Recent catch data for the Queensland Shark Control Program (1992 - 2003) was provided by the Queensland Government Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Catch data from the NSW Shark Control Program was provided by NSW Fisheries (1950/1-2002/3 for shark species and 1995/6-2002/3 for non-shark species).

Dugong (Dugong dugon)

Dugongs are long-lived herbivorous marine mammals, which have a low reproductive rate and a high investment in each offspring (Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2001a). Dugongs are found in northern Australian waters, from Shark Bay in the west to Moreton Bay in the east (Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2001a). Aerial population surveys indicate that the total Dugong population is approximately 85 000 individuals, although this is thought to be an underestimate (Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2001a). Long-term Dugong data is insufficient to determine population trends in most areas of Australia, however catch data from the Queensland Shark Control Program has been used to estimate population changes in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

A study by Marsh et al (2001) estimated that the Dugong population in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area has declined at an average rate of 8.7% per year between 1962 and 1999. The causes of this long-term decline are thought to include habitat loss, overkill from traditional hunting, incidental by-catch in commercial fishing and capture in Shark Control Programs.

Early catch data indicates that only 5 Dugongs were captured in NSW between 1950 and 1993 (Krogh and Reid, 1996). In Queensland, 837 Dugongs were caught between November 1962 and June 1991, equating to an average of almost 30 Dugongs captured each year (Anon, 1992). Condition was not recorded for the majority of Dugongs captured, therefore it is not possible to calculate the mortality rate.

Fewer Dugongs have been captured in recent years, which is thought to be due to the overall decline in Dugong population and the replacement of mesh nets with drum lines in many areas. Between 1993/4 and 2002/3 in Queensland, 17 Dugongs were captured in mesh nets, resulting in 16 mortalities, an average mortality of 1.6 Dugongs per year. No Dugong captures have been recorded in New South Wales since comprehensive by-catch data was collected in 1995/6. Their rarity in NSW means that dugong mortality in the NSW Shark Control Program is likely to remain low (Krogh and Reid, 1996).

To examine the impact of Shark Control Programs on Dugongs in the southern Great Barrier Reef region, Gribble et al (1998) compared catch data from six Shark Control Program contract areas (Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Tannum Sands, Bundaberg) with regional Dugong population estimates. During 1994-1995, Dugong catch within the southern Great Barrier Reef Region was 1.5 individuals per year and the regional population was estimated to be 1750 ± 257 individuals. Hence, mesh nets resulted in the loss of less than 0.1% of the southern Great Barrier Reef population in one year.

The estimated impact of Shark Control Programs on the national population is even lower. Given that the total Australian Dugong population is estimated at 85 000 individuals, the current mortality rate of 1.6 Dugongs per year in Shark Control Programs causes the loss of less than 0.002% of the total population annually. Therefore, it is considered that Shark Control Programs alone will not cause the Dugong to become eligible for listing as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Dolphins

In New South Wales, Common Dolphins and Bottlenose Dolphins are captured in the Shark Control Programs, but the recorded captures are not species differentiated.

The Queensland Shark Control Program has documented dolphin captures since the early years of the Program, but species identification has only been recorded in recent years. Irrawaddy Dolphins have been reliably identified since 1992 (Gribble et al, 1998) and captures of Indo-Pacific Humpbacked Dolphins, Spinner Dolphins, Bottlenose Dolphins and Common Dolphins have been recorded since 1996. There are still some captures of dolphins where the species is not identified, but the number of unidentified individuals is small. Between 1996/7 and 2002/3, a total of 14 unidentified dolphins were captured, resulting in the mortality of 12 individuals. This is equivalent to an average mortality of less than 2 unidentified dolphins each year.

Despite the absence of species differentiated historical data, it is possible to analyse the current impact of Shark Control Programs on the majority of dolphin species using catch data from the past 7 to 10 years.

Irrawaddy Dolphin (Orcaecella brevirostris)

Irrawaddy Dolphins are found in northern Australian waters, off the coasts of Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland. Irrawaddy Dolphins are not highly migratory and are thought to form discrete, localised populations (GBRMPA, 2000). Very little is known about the biology of Irrawaddy Dolphins, but they have long gestation periods (14 months), a high investment in each offspring, and are thought to live for up to 28 years (Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2001b).

The Irrawaddy Dolphin is listed as rare under the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992. Information on the Irrawaddy Dolphin population size is scarce; the minimum population estimate for areas surveyed off the Northern Territory is 1227 ± 301, but this is uncorrected for animals below the surface (Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2001b). There is no data on the population rate of change, however there is anecdotal evidence that Irrawaddy Dolphins are less common in the Great Barrier Reef region than they were previously (GBRMPA, 2000).

Due to the fact that Irrawaddy Dolphins occupy shallow coastal habitats, they are particularly susceptible to threats from human activities. Past threats include indigenous hunting and live capture for oceanaria in Queensland, while current threats include overfishing of prey species, capture in barramundi nets and capture in mesh nets used in Shark Control Programs. Potential threats include organochlorine pollution, habitat destruction and degradation, and pathogen-induced mass mortalities (Bannister et al, 1996).

Over the past ten years (1993/4 to 2002/3), 8 Irrawaddy Dolphins were caught in mesh nets in the Queensland Shark Control Program, and no captures were recorded in New South Wales. Of the 8 Irrawaddy Dolphins captured, 3 individuals were released alive and 5 individuals died, which equates to an average mortality of 1 Irrawaddy Dolphin every 2 years.

Without population estimates, it is difficult to assess the effect of Shark Control Program mortalities on the Irrawaddy Dolphin. Although Shark Control Program mortalities could reduce local populations of this species, Irrawaddy Dolphins occupy a large range in Australian waters and it is considered current Shark Control Program mortalities (1 Irrawaddy Dolphin every 2 years) are not likely to impact on the population as a whole. Hence, it is considered that Shark Control Programs will not cause the Irrawaddy Dolphin to be eligible for listing as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Indo-Pacific Humpbacked Dolphin (Sousa chinensis)

Indo-Pacific Humpbacked Dolphins are found in shallow, coastal waters in northern Australia, extending southwest to Exmouth Bay in Western Australia and southeast to the Queensland-New South Wales border (GBRMPA, 2000). Indo-Pacific Humpbacked Dolphins are thought to live for more than 40 years and reach sexual maturity at 10-13 years, although little more is known about their reproductive biology (Bannister et al, 1996).

The Indo-Pacific Humpbacked Dolphin is listed as rare under the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992. There is no data on the absolute abundance of the Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin in Australia (Bannister et al, 1996). However, a total of 100 Indo-Pacific Humpbacked Dolphins have been identified in Moreton Bay (Queensland) and approximately 40 individuals have been identified in the Great Sandy Strait (Queensland) (Vang, 2002 (cited in Queensland Government submission)). Moreton Bay and the Great Sandy Straight have been identified as key localities for the Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin. Aerial surveys indicate that the number of Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphins may be declining in Australian waters (GBRMPA, 2000).

Threats to the Indo-Pacific Humpbacked Dolphin include habitat destruction and degradation (including noise pollution), capture in drift-nets, trawl-nets and Shark Control Programs, illegal sport-fishing, live capture and overfishing of prey species. Potential threats include organochlorine pollution and pathogen-induced mass mortalities (Bannister et al, 1996).

Between 1996/7 and 2002/3, 16 Indo-Pacific Humpbacked Dolphins were caught in the Queensland Shark Control Program; 14 in mesh nets and 2 for which equipment was not recorded. All captured Indo-Pacific Humpbacked Dolphins died, resulting in an annual average mortality of 2.3 individuals per year. No Indo-Pacific Humpbacked Dolphin captures have been recorded in New South Wales.

Without total population estimates, it is difficult to assess the effect of Shark Control Program mortalities on the Indo-Pacific Humpbacked Dolphin. Although Shark Control Program mortalities could reduce local populations of this species, Indo-Pacific Humpbacked Dolphins have a wide distribution in Australian waters and it is considered current Shark Control Program mortalities (2.3 Indo-Pacific Humpbacked Dolphins per year) are not likely to impact on the population as a whole. Hence, it is considered that Shark Control Programs will not cause the Indo-Pacific Humpbacked Dolphin to be eligible for listing as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)

The Bottlenose Dolphin is recognised as the species, Tursiops truncatus, although there are several subspecies. The subspecies T. t. truncatus and T. t. aduncus are both found in Australian waters (Bannister et al, 1996). T. t. truncatus is usually found in colder, deeper waters and occurs in southern Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. T. t. aduncus is generally found in warmer inshore waters, and occurs in Northern New South Wales, Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, as far south as Perth (Bannister et al, 1996).

Accurate population estimates are not available for any Bottlenose Dolphin community in Australia, but they are common in several localities (Bannister et al, 1996). Bottlenose Dolphins have been photo-identified in several locations, providing minimum population estimates, including: Moreton Bay (Queensland) - 334; inshore waters off North Stradbroke Island (Queensland) - 321, south-eastern Shark Bay (WA) - over 300, Cockburn Sound (WA) - at least 150; Adelaide (SA) - at least 140 (Bannister et al, 1996). The relative importance of these populations to the total Australian population is not known. However, the local population numbers indicate that the total population is in the order of thousands, rather than hundreds. There have been no estimates of the rate of population change for Bottlenose Dolphins (Bannister et al, 1996).

Current threats to the Bottlenose Dolphin include habitat destruction and degradation, noise pollution and potentially organochlorine pollution, incidental capture in trawl-nets, drift-nets, aquaculture nets and mesh nets used in Shark Control Programs, illegal sport-fishing and overfishing of prey species (Bannister et al, 1996).

Over the past 7 years (between 1996/7 and 2002/3), 25 Bottlenose Dolphins were captured in mesh nets and drum lines used in the Queensland Shark Control Program, resulting in 19 mortalities. This is equivalent to an average mortality of 2.7 Bottlenose Dolphins each year. The actual mortality rate may be higher, as the Queensland Government has stated that many Bottlenose Dolphins could have been misidentified as 'Common Dolphins'. Between 1996/7 and 2002/3, an average of 3.3 Common Dolphins died each year in the Queensland Shark Control Program.

In New South Wales, 23 Common and Bottlenose Dolphins died in Shark Control Programs between 1996/7 and 2002/3, equivalent to average mortality rate of 3.3 dolphins each year. Assuming that half the dolphins captured were Bottlenose Dolphins, the mortality rate in New South Wales is approximately 1.7 individuals each year.

The current mortality rate of Bottlenose Dolphins in both Queensland and New South Wales Shark Control Programs is in the order of 5 individuals per year. Without accurate population estimates, it is difficult to assess the effect of Shark Control Program mortalities on the Bottlenose Dolphin. However, given that the Australian Bottlenose Dolphin population is likely to be in the order of thousands of individuals, and the species has a wide distribution in Australian waters, it is considered that the Shark Control Program mortalities will not cause the Bottlenose Dolphin to become eligible for listing as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Rays

A wide range of ray species (including rays, sawfish, stingray and stingaree species) are caught in the Queensland Shark Control Program. The species, and groups of species, captured in the Queensland Shark Control Program are presented in Attachment (i). In New South Wales, data on ray captures is available from 1995/6, although the captures are not species differentiated.

A total of 1040 rays were captured in mesh nets and drum lines in Queensland between 1995/6 and 2002/3. Of the 1040 individuals captured, 662 individuals were released alive, 333 individuals died and condition was not recorded for 45 individuals.

Over the same 8-year period in New South Wales, 530 rays were captured in mesh nets. Of the 530 individuals captured, 319 individuals were released alive and 211 died in the mesh nets.

Hence, relatively large numbers of rays are captured and killed in mesh nets and drum lines used in Shark Control Programs. A total of 544 rays died in Queensland and New South Wales between 1995/6 and 2002/3, which is equivalent to an average mortality rate of 68 individuals per year.

Although a large number of rays are captured in mesh nets and drum lines, shark and ray experts consider that Shark Control Programs alone are not likely to cause a ray species to become eligible for listing as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Conclusion: The TSSC considers that the threatening process is not eligible under this criterion as the process is not likely to cause a native species or an ecological community to become eligible for listing as Extinct, Extinct in the Wild, Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable.

B. Could the threatening process cause a listed threatened species or a listed threatened ecological community to become eligible to be listed in another category representing a higher degree of endangerment?

C. Does the threatening process adversely affect 2 or more listed threatened species (other than conservation dependent species) or 2 or more listed threatened ecological communities?

There are ten listed threatened species which are currently captured in mesh nets and drum lines used in Shark Control Programs. For each of these listed threatened species, the assessment against criteria B and C is presented together.

Catch data from the Queensland and New South Wales Shark Control Programs is used to analyse the impact of the Shark Control Programs on each of the threatened species. Both historical catch data and recent catch data are presented (where available), but recent catch data (1993-2003) has primarily been used to assess the current impact of the nominated threatening process on each species.

Recent catch data for the Queensland Shark Control Program (1992 - 2003) was provided by the Queensland Government Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Catch data from the NSW Shark Control Program was provided by NSW Fisheries (1950/1-2002/3 for shark species and 1995/6-2002/3 for non-shark species).

Grey Nurse Shark (Carcharias taurus)

The Grey Nurse Shark (east coast population) is listed as critically endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. In the Recovery Plan for the Grey Nurse Shark, Shark Control Programs were identified as one of the threats to the species.

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.

Large numbers of Grey Nurse Sharks were caught and killed in mesh nets and drum lines in the early years of the Shark Control Programs. In Queensland, a total of 90 Grey Nurse Sharks were caught between 1962 and 1972 (Environment Australia, 2002a) and 90 individuals were caught over the same period in New South Wales (1962/3 - 1971/2). This is equivalent to an average of 18 Grey Nurse Sharks killed each year.

Fewer Grey Nurse Sharks have been caught in mesh nets and drum lines in recent years, which is considered by experts to be representative of reductions in population size. Over the last 10 years (from 1993/4 - 2002/3), 19 Grey Nurse Sharks were captured in mesh nets and drum lines in New South Wales and Queensland (11 individuals were caught in mesh nets and 8 were caught in drum lines.) Of the 19 captured Grey Nurse Sharks, 7 individuals were released alive and there were 11 mortalities, an average of approximately 1 mortality each year. (Condition was not recorded for 1 individual.) In addition to the recorded mortality of one Grey Nurse Shark per year, there may be post-release mortality of some individuals that are captured and released alive from mesh nets and drum lines.

The Recovery Plan states that, due to their small population and slow reproductive rate, any killing, taking or injuring of a Grey Nurse Shark is likely to have a significant impact on the population.

Assessment against criterion B: Although the loss of small numbers of Grey Nurse Sharks is likely to have an impact on the population, it is considered that the current mortality rate in mesh nets and drum lines, even taking into account the uncertainty of post-release mortality, is not likely to cause the Grey Nurse Shark to become eligible for listing as extinct in the wild.

Assessment against criterion C: The number of Grey Nurse Sharks currently killed in mesh nets and drum lines is low but, due to their small population and slow reproductive rate, any mortalities are likely to adversely affect the species and may result in further population decline. Hence, it is considered that the death of Grey Nurse Sharks in mesh nets and drum lines is likely to have an adverse effect on the species.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 13:29

An excellent link.

http://qz.com/166072/western-australias-...mers-any-safer/
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 13:32

...and this supports my claim that surfing is the issue. 60 attacks globally over 10 years. Massive. NOT.

Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 13:37

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.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 13:49

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 .
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 13:56

"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.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 14:24

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.
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 15:26

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 sharks……
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).
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 15:30

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. "
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 15:50

pmsl.. I didn`t think anyone would jump on the 6,000 figure
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 16:14

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
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 16:32

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 .
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 17:02

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.
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 21:06

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
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 21:52

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
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 13/02/2014 23:44

Online threats for shark victim's partner

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/02/13/16/05/online-threats-for-shark-victim-s-partner




Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 15/02/2014 21:10

This guy has to be dreaming!!

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/br...k-1226828025811
Posted by: Golden State

Re: sharks - 15/02/2014 23:09

This would be even more hilarious if it weren't so true ...

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

Re: sharks - 15/02/2014 23:22

Hahaha .Gold !! Pretty much nailed it.
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 16/02/2014 12:11

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
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 16/02/2014 18:27

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 .
Posted by: T_D_S

Re: sharks - 16/02/2014 19:22

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
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 16/02/2014 19:42

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
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 16/02/2014 20:26

I think your both confusing that ,
there was only inference of personality in my post .

for starters i was attacking the use of statistics in this rediculously emotional torrent of posting on this topic .

secondly i whole heartedly and vehemently am discussted that Cold front continues to equate surfing to actually being " just a Hobbie " ....

just because pro divers know the dangers what makes them go through with it .
$$$$ ... i can guarantee if some people didn't have a taste for " top shelf " crustaceans ..... that they wouldn't take so many risks ..
This kind of arguement equates to drug dealers and the risks they take and know .....

TDS ... nothing i said was aimed at you .. only your " hell bent " take in defending statistics that you felt attacked ...

Please don't take this personally ... Thats whats wrong with this topic ... People feel like its going to effect them ... Just like GW ....

i think you guys need to take a rest , if you are being effected this heavily from idle banter .....

CF , lose the superiority complex that hamstrings you .... and take life a little less serious ...

"The biggest howls of protest come from a minority of the surfing community and the understandably emotional girlfriend of one of the victims."

do you realise how stupid this comment is ... One person lost their loved one , others have lost friends . No ones giving death threats to public figures , and be little ing people via constant spam in internet threads , and out getting stuck into government workers for doing their Job . ...

My association with this topic is a call for people with clearly too much time on their hands to wake up to themselves ....
get a grip ... everyone .
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 16/02/2014 20:45

Next you'll be telling us that money isn't the motivator for the cull. The tuna fishermen support it because they are being paid to do it and the government support it because they believe this misguided policy will promote tourism which Barnett has admitted to directly. It's all about money $$$$$$.

Where your rubbish above falls over is that you have only ever attacked one side of the issue so spare me your total garbage about your only reason for being here. You ruined that when you started with the intelligence based on geography rot.

Originally Posted By: S .O.

I'm an east coaster thats lived on both sides of the fence , but i hate Both sides picking on the other . For me , ( and countless studies suggest ) levels of intellect are only hindered as one decides to move towards the equator .....


Southern Victoria is NOT on the east coast either. It's an eastern state but on the southern coast.

Originally Posted By: S .O.
i was attacking the use of statistics in this rediculously emotional torrent of posting on this topic .

secondly i whole heartedly and vehemently am discussted that Cold front continues to equate surfing to actually being " just a Hobbie " ....



confused Emotional torrent?

If you're heading where I think you are with surfing being a spiritual experience you'll have no trouble seeing the hypocrisy in culling marine life for the experience.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: sharks - 16/02/2014 20:50

Shark shields better than drum lines: ALP

Shark shields used by the navy and police divers can reduce attacks without harming the animals and are safer than the West Australian government's controversial drum line approach, the opposition says.

Labor says up to 30,000 shields, which emit an electric field that repel but do not harm sharks, are sold globally every year and there is no record of anyone wearing one being killed by a shark.

Shark shields can cost up to $600 each, but opposition leader Mark McGowan said they were more effective than drum lines, which he said created hysteria, killed smaller sharks and cost millions of dollars.

"They're like a seatbelt in a car. They don't absolutely make you safe, but they make the situation better," he told reporters on Sunday.

Mr McGowan said grants could be offered for surf life saving clubs to lease shark shields and subsidies could be provided to surfers, divers and others at risk to purchase shark shields.

Tour guide Elyse Frankcom, who was attacked by a 3.5m great white shark in 2010 while snorkelling among dolphins with tourists, believes a shark shield saved her life.

The shark bit her legs, but she activated the device before passing out as a tourist helped her.

"Despite blood being in the water, despite an attack already, the shark was not seen once the shark shield was on," she said.

"I do definitely believe that this shield saved my life."

Fisheries Minister Ken Baston agreed shark shields had shown promise, which was why more than $220,000 had been given to the Oceans Institute at UWA to test and improve existing shark deterrents, like the shield.

WA company Shark Shield has also been awarded $300,000 over two years to develop new surfboard fins with an in-built electronic shark deterrent.

"It is intended to develop a deterrent device that can be retro-fitted to all modern surfboards," Mr Baston said.

He said they were part of a $22 million strategy including aerial patrols, jet skis, tagging, research and drum lines.

Currently, bull, tiger and great white sharks longer than three metres that are caught on drum lines within one kilometre of parts of the WA coast are being shot dead and discarded at sea.

There has been no official report yet into how many sharks have been caught, but it is thought to be more than 50, with seven killed.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/21500029/shark-shields-safer-than-drum-lines-labor/
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 16/02/2014 20:59

Have a listen to the end of the video in Jax' link Yasi. It backs what you posted and says attacks have dropped 97% by adopting a non lethal approach.
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 16/02/2014 21:02

i haven't culled anything and haven't officially supported it .

I'm just sick of listening to those extremely opposed .

I do surf , and its got nothing to do with spirituality . I do however like surfing in Remote dangerous locations . not for the danger its just that you need to encounter danger to find and use spots a little out of the way or too hard for lazy people . I need also to escape the Metropolis's that effect my sanity , and much of that is to do with some of the emotive ramblings that get discussed in these threads .
Life is afar more simple in remote area's so i feel i need to experience it irregularly to escape the rat race . Its quiet and peaceful , and gives me time to reflect .
Now some people move away from the metropolis's or to more Nthn regions to espcape reality , the law or whatever .

Southern Victoria , and South Australia is just as much home turf . Is the home of GW's in Aust .... never have i called for protection in my local waters , and never have there ever been any whatsoever protections here , quite the opposite .Victoria leads the world in Marine and coastal parks .
And never have i stopped using them even hours after attacks nearby whilst in SA .

As for WA well thats for the populace of WA to decide ... and no one else ....
I felt that the years i have lived there taht i understand the politics , and more imprtantly understand their contempt for " Easterners " sticking their nose in things ....


As for the intelligence ... to take the words form Lee . " it was purely from some science I've read " ... its not racial , its not motivated its just factual that societies frutehr form the equator have advanced faster .... attack the science not the messenger .
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 16/02/2014 21:08

shark shields do not work ...
ask all those SA abalone diver friends of yours ...

they attract sharks in from far off distances , and only make them repell once within a metre or two ...

There is no way a GW with its mind in attack mode and approaching prey at great speed will stop at the last second by something powered by batteries smaller than your fist ....

And yes I've spoken to dozens of people who have owned them and some that have tested and or tried to defend them to others that have used them .
next .....
Posted by: T_D_S

Re: sharks - 16/02/2014 21:15

Originally Posted By: S .O.

As for the intelligence ... to take the words form Lee . " it was purely from some science I've read " ... its not racial , its not motivated its just factual that societies frutehr form the equator have advanced faster .... attack the science not the messenger .


Again, remind me where I said this???

If you are going to "quote" me... can you be factual? Or are you just trying to be a smartass? I'd has it a guess the later rings true! smirk
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 16/02/2014 21:16

Yeah we should all just shut up and ignore this ridiculous policy because we are from the east. What an extraordinary statement. You do realise you don't reside in WA yeah? Yet here you are crazy

...and I hate to state the obvious but if you stayed out of the thread by your own admission you wouldn't need to visit dangerous ,remote locations to surf. It' not science. Not rocket science or otherwise. It's basic stuff.

However that isolation you crave is exactly that spirituality I touched on above and I get it. But you cannot expect that everything below the surface make way for you. You really need to take some of your own advice. Only one side of this debate has actually brought the science you refer to to the table.

I am far from emotional on this topic. Infact I have laughed so hard tonight my sides are hurting . The people fighting against this cull can see the answer to saving people from being eaten by sharks is as simple as staying out of the water, where as the other side has choked back tears whilst arguing to kill sharks so they can surf. 81% of Australians can see just how basic it is.

I doubt you even see the contradiction in your statement about abalone divers being paid. Many of their licences are worth several $million a year but they aren't crying out for sharks to be removed and have a healthy respect for them.

Yet the vast majority of surfers are there for pleasure just as I was. If I get back down to the surf I won't hesitate to re-enter the surf. I love it. But I am also prepared to accept the risk.
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 16/02/2014 21:30

Lee ...

I didn't per say Quote any exact words , just words to the effect like
" based on your numbers the statistics do not ring true to your own statement... what's wrong with being scientific about something??? " ....

I have enjoyed your posts for years ... lets not stop that ...

CF .
You don't understand W Aussies's .. I do i lived there for years .
No you should tend to your own flock and fix the abhorrent policies that QLD produce with netting before you start empowering yourself to tell people from WA to sort their [censored] out ....

Where have i said that i need have everything culled below the surface , before i enter the water ... truth is i've probably been closer to more whites than most rec. divers . just i haven't seen them .

If you tell me that a AB diver is in for the love ... i'll choke ...
they are mercinaries and nothing short of it . Only for the love of more money do they do it ... I know many ab divers ... I don't hold it against them , but i also hold them in the same high esteem as miners for their environmental contributions ;-)

obviously if you are laughing at others misfortune , then you are not human .

get to know the local politics , get to know the opposition .. clearly you don't know either .
claiming me to not know both , is your first mistake .
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 16/02/2014 21:45

Yeah I'm laughing at other's misfortunes? What a desperate and absurd notion. You really are misguided and clearly an expert on WA too so the great shark debate is over yeah? Many of those people on the beach at Cottesloe were surfers !! Of course you've spent all your life across the southern seaboard .No doubt out of fear you'll somehow end up less intelligent if you progress northward. crazy

Glad to know it was only my first mistake though. Cheers for that.

Your attempts to stifle discussion by suggesting everyone NOT in WA is ill-informed or out of touch is concerning. Read back where I too once had an encounter with a Great White. Not a WA one but a great white just the same. Or didn't it understand WA politics when it came in for a look so it doesn't count? I was in WA before you were born for the record. Next you'll be telling me all those people on Cottesloe Beach were from Cairns too.

TDS you should be feeling all warm and fuzzy about now .

Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 16/02/2014 22:36

Please name a surfer you know that was at Cottesloe . I knew a couple , doesn't bother me either as it s in their neck of teh woods .
You said i wasn't an east coaster .... but if you had indeed spent time their you would know that anyone not in WA was an " Easterner " .
And perhaps you feel as though you know this as you are now on the same side of the Brisbane line as them ....
Good on you , i feel enlightened that it did not see you fit to eat ...
you should oblivously keep on educating the masses of your extensive knowledge of the subject .... lets be honest the experts know sweet F all about whites . why should anyone else be fit to comment ...

i didn't say you couldn't have a opinion , i just wish that you wouldn't ram it in the face of others or judge those that oppose it . me i'm just sick of hearing about it .... its a speed bump in the car crash that is modern society ... be influential , not disruptive .
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 16/02/2014 22:51

Originally Posted By: S .O.
I don't expect sharks to be removed


Originally Posted By: S .O.

I don't support culling


It appears you have changed your mind.

Originally Posted By: S .O.
... lets be honest the experts know sweet F all about whites . why should anyone else be fit to comment ...


Yet here you are and unintentionally supporting the argument that more research is required as suggested by scientists and shark "experts" due to a lack of knowledge of the species as opposed to culling them because we don't know what detrimental effect a cull may have on the species. Particularly given it now appears they take much longer than originally thought to achieve sexual maturity.

This has been put to the WA government for the record. Tourist dollars take precedence over common sense. .

The swearing isn't necessary either.

Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 17/02/2014 00:05

I have just watched 60 minutes here regarding the shark cull debate in WA and what a 'real' and interesting take on things it was. Puts a lump in your throat hearing the story of the girlfriend of the latest attack victim. That's one story of many here in WA. One person amongst the many hundreds/thousands that are personally affected by these attacks.

Like I have said in the past I have been a fence sitter on this issue for a long time but recently and especially after tonight I am tending towards a managed cull mainly because of the radical single minded beliefs of the anti cull people. Unable to see both sides of the story and realise the issue currently at hand.

I know Coldfront will come back quoting something or putting up several arguments or putting endless crazy crazy crazy emotive icons to belittle his opponents in this attempt to debate this issue but if people just had a more well rounded understanding on the issue in the areas and towns then they would understand that a strictly managed shark program is worthy of a trial in the current time and situation.

This thread over the recent years has only ever popped up with the next fatal attack. This has been fairly regular during recent years. No doubt the shark management programs being implemented in WA currently will not stop the next attack but it has reached a stage where something had to be done. Its a hard issue but I think people need to be a bit more understanding of the entire issue rather than just jump on their personal bandwagon and expressing their hardline approach because it seem like the hardline approach is making people look heartless to those that have experienced such huge losses.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 17/02/2014 00:14

Interesting follow up interview on 60 minutes.

Extended interview 60 minutes
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 17/02/2014 00:31

Still trying to use predetermination to stop opposing views I see Popeye. If you read S.O's posts you'll see the continued contradictions. If you'd like me to link up your emoticon filled swipes at Qld just sing out. It's great to see you support a cull because others are opposed Popeye. That's a logical reason.

You still have radical and common sense confused. By your own admission directly above you have stated the cull won't stop the next attack and that is why I am so deeply opposed to it. You've admitted it won't work but want it anyway. And I'm radical.

Thousands affected from 7 attacks in 3 years? Really?

You have car accidents and shark attacks confused. Yeah it's tragic that someone was attacked but guess what. Nothing you or that silly government of yours do will bring him back. NOTHING.

S.O's original post was right in one way and you've just highlighted the fact. The call for culls is an emotional one. Which has always been the strongest argument against it. It should be based on fact not emotion. Do you think Channel 9 give a toss about that victim's girlfriend? Do you not see the coincidence in a story on 60 minutes and another a few days ago with a guy that had his hand bitten appearing on a current affair? Now they'll find something else to exploit while you share in that girl's grief.

MONEY. That's all they care about. Preying on human emotions. They ran a story on an idiot that walked straight past a croc warning sign and stood at the edge of water fishing . You can guess the rest. Darwinism at its finest and yet they made out that the guy had done nothing wrong to demonise crocs.

My letter to the show was edited massively to suit their agenda. I wonder Popeye if you sit down and watch videos about car crash victim's girlfriends after they are cleaned up by a drink driver? It happens every single week and affects a damned sight more people and is people killing people. But 60 minutes knows it won't get an audience. They want to support the cull purely to force a reaction so they can milk it for all they can get. It's good business. They got you watching didn't they?

The victim's girlfriend has been paid and now they will move onto the next story while she mourns. Don't believe me? Watch the show next week.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 17/02/2014 00:52

Yawn...... Your arguments bore me to tears. Sorry Coldie but lately your long winded responses filled with quotes has done nothing but remind me again how to reference things. I am sure you got good marks at school but you still havn't scored well with me. Wrap a black balaclava over your head, jump on a surfboard and join the nutters over here in WA cutting baits off drum lines. Actually you should be able to head down to your local beach in Cairns and do that. lol What a joke this whole debate is. You guys don't have a leg, actually a toe to stand on. Give up before you make more of a fool of yourself.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 17/02/2014 01:12

Isn't it great that 60 minutes gave a real life story regarding the issue. Rather than people ranting and raving crap from a far.

I guess it gives people a better view on the real issue and what it is like on the ground here in WA rather from their secure little netted beaches and drum lined riddled beaches. People have been put off speaking up. I ask the question in general conversation daily to people and you would love to know the response I get. Yeah sure the majority of people see it as a controversial issue but its definitely split 50/50 at the moment. And honestly people who say they are against it are only following the flock in what they think they should be saying. The more the East coast netting and drum line programs are brought to the attention of Australians the better. It just makes the whole argument void.

If people want to say "let WA lead the way" haha OK then well lets see you guys get 12 people killed by Great whites and then see your responses.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 17/02/2014 01:20

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Thousands affected from 7 attacks in 3 years? Really?


A lot of those people attacked had families, close friends, work colleagues, school friends, where known amongst townfolk, sporting teams the list goes on. Easily 10's of thousands.

OK if you want me to be more realistic in the figures I would say its a national issue and a lot of Australians have had an opinion, have voiced their thoughts and have been influenced by various means to come up with an opinion. So its a national issue 22+ million people.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 17/02/2014 03:39

I decided to get in contact with a fishing friend of mine, to get his opinion on the cull. He has done extensive fishing along the south west, and also did a couple of years on the tuna farms in Port Lincoln area. This is his opinion.

The Western Australian government used to appoint a license for a person to shark net. The license was given to a person (not a vessel), and was non transferable. The last person who had this license stopped netting in 1999. He mainly fished around the Esperance area. Which my friend suggested is also a juvenile breeding ground for the Great White.

After the Great White had become a protected species, the government had put a stop on allowing Cray fisherman to put hooks on their pots. He thought this was amusing, as he had never known of anyone catching Great Whites this way. Although they used to catch heaps of Tiger Sharks. As he said there is an abundance of Tiger sharks. So they should have been able to keep this practise going.

With the population explosion of seals along the south west coast of WA, he said it is a major reason for the increased amount of Great Whites coming further up the coast. As well as following the whale migration.

He had also seen an increase in the amount of Great Whites in the Port Lincoln area in five years he was there.

However, when I asked him what he thought of the cull he said it was laughable. He couldn't believe that the government was wasting all this money on the baited drum lines. If the government was trying to protect people from shark attacks from Great Whites then this method was useless. The only chance they have of catching Great Whites greater than three metres was using either whale, or seal meat on the hooks. The only time he suspects that he caught a Great White on a hook was when he was fishing down near the Islands off Port Lincoln. He caught a seal accidentally on a 20 mm steel cable line. They had turned their back to get tools to release the seal when something had taken the seal whole. It moved the boat around for about five minutes before it snapped the cable. So it was pretty large in size, that is why they suspected it to be a Great White.

I asked my friend whether he thought bait lines would attract more sharks to the coast. He said it won't make any difference. Look at how many Cray pots are put along the coast with baits in them.

My friend isn't against culling the sharks at all. He said how the government has gone about it was stupid in his eyes. Barnett was using it for a political tool, to show voters that he was trying to do something. And certainly not for peoples safety. If he was serious about protecting peoples lives he would have given a few people licenses like they used to have on the quiet. This would of fixed the problem, and the public would be dumb the wiser.

Of course this is only one person's opinion, but I wonder how many other people from the fishing industry feel the same way. Again I have to stress as to whether there was a lot of research that went into this current bait drum line policy. Is it the best solution to fixing a problem were peoples lives are at risk.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 17/02/2014 07:57

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Yawn...... Your arguments bore me to tears.


That's a mature response. You've played right into the hands of the media by your own admission. That piece on 60 minutes (which I didn't get sucked into watching) was designed to do exactly what it did to you. An ecotourism operator calling for the cull of a protected species?

Good post Adele .
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 17/02/2014 08:44

Originally Posted By: Adele
Again I have to stress as to whether there was a lot of research that went into this current bait drum line policy.


Apparently Barnett was given advice from quite a few researches and fishermen in the lead up to the cull and ignored the advice not to go ahead because the overall consensus was that it won't work.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 17/02/2014 17:09


Reading what Adele has posted I totally agree with that professional fisherman, one of my friends who fished sharks in down the Augusta area in the 90s had said similar things i.e. as soon as they stopped fishing the sharks as a by catch in South Australia then the numbers of Great Whites in Western Australian waters seemed to increased substantially.

I spend thousands of hours in the water down the south coast of W.A as a surfer when I was younger and only once did I actually see a Great White Shark swim past. Although there was an occasion down Black Point where something knocked me off my board just after sunset as I was finishing up on a wave. I didn't see it but had a graze on my calf from it. One of my mates who was just paddling in said it was a shark but he only got a glimpse of the tail of it so wasn't sure what type it was.

I don't agree with Barnett's methods of shark culling and are more in favour of using electronic devices as deterrents that seem to be working .
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 17/02/2014 17:51

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Originally Posted By: Adele
Again I have to stress as to whether there was a lot of research that went into this current bait drum line policy.


Apparently Barnett was given advice from quite a few researches and fishermen in the lead up to the cull and ignored the advice not to go ahead because the overall consensus was that it won't work.


an interesting word. apparently.... appearing as such but not necessarily so.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 17/02/2014 18:10



Always had a deep respect for lots of marine animals including sharks of any species when I was in the water.

There is one underlining question that seems to mystify a lot shark attacks which is that unlike a lot of crocodile attacks on humans ...why don't the sharks eat their victims after an attack ?

I read that this maybe because they are not used to seeing humans in the water and are not sure if they are edible or not ..so they have a bite and reject us as a food source. Are they mistaking us for other animals ?

And yes I know some people have been eaten up completely but in the majority of cases the victim of a shark attack dies of loss of blood or from their injuries.
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 17/02/2014 19:37

Originally Posted By: desieboy
I don't agree with Barnett's methods of shark culling and are more in favour of using electronic devices as deterrents that seem to be working .


quoted previously by @-yasified-shak;
Tour guide Elyse Frankcom, who was attacked by a 3.5m great white shark in 2010 while snorkelling among dolphins with tourists, believes a shark shield saved her life.
The shark bit her legs, but she activated the device before passing out as a tourist helped her.
"Despite blood being in the water, despite an attack already, the shark was not seen once the shark shield was on," she said. "I do definitely believe that this shield saved my life." end quote….

the pattern told by most gws survivors is, shark hits, then for whatever reason does not continue the attack and heads off.

Now the lady above activated her device after shark contact, was this attack the hit and head off like other survivors or did the shark shield stop the shark continuing to attack??

Can anyone say for sure which was the case?

this article is about 1 and half year old,video shows failure of electronic shark deterrent

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/nationa...r-1226492350934
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 17/02/2014 20:33

One of our ex guides was working alongside that girl that was attacked. He saw the shark come up from the bottom through the group and attack her. He was under the impression that there was no activating anything after she was attacked. Not sure what they were trying to achieve by saying so. I didn't think it was a GWS either. He was pretty shaken up 3rd day on the job and that happened. I spoke to him the day it happened.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 17/02/2014 20:38

Also guy did a kayak trip from Perth to Albany a few years back and he was trailing a shark shield out the back. He encountered numerous Great white sharks that actually came in to investigate the shark shield before moving on. Others that have kayaked the same coast have never seen anything. I think those things attract sharks.

If you have a mate using one and your in the water with him I think it would be a scary situation to be in. Shark gets attracted to the shark shield and then looks to you nearby. Bugger that.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 17/02/2014 23:12


Oh well there we go ...saw a thing from Hawaii that showed they were quite effective but maybe it was another product will have a look and get back . Anyway I thought those shark shields were o.k but not according to what i just seen on Gad's link .Glad I didnt go out and buy one especially if I had a 6kg piece of Tuna hanging around my leg and there was a GWS hanging around...lol
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 18/02/2014 14:32


From the local newspaper today:

"A TOTAL of 66 sharks — including a 4.1 metre tiger shark, but not a single great white shark — have been caught on drum lines in three weeks under the State Government’s controversial kill policy."

Well it doesn't seem like there having much success catching them..

Poor tiger sharks getting a hammering ...
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 18/02/2014 15:04


Also from today news:

"In the South-West, a contractor has caught 23 sharks since January 25, killing 13 tiger sharks over three metres in length and releasing six smaller sharks."

I don't remember that many people being attacked by Tiger Sharks in W.A .




This is why this shark culling is a load of crap it becomes so
indiscriminate.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 18/02/2014 16:07

Desieboy getting knocked off your board at Black Point would have got your heart hammering - not a spot you'd want to get badly damaged and then pull off a cliff climb and a bush bash before even getting back to a sealed road that's still in the middle of nowhere.

If the drums had been allowed to go in straight after the last attack behind Gracetown, while the whales were still migrating south, there would have been pointers caught. The drums went in right at the end of the migration, you're lucky to see a humpback at the end of January down there. Big blues, but not humpies with their calves. No doubt they would have followed the humpbacks well into the Southern Ocean by January 25th and then headed across to the Bight to clean up any weak/sick/small right whale calves still there before the trek back to the Antarctic. And then there's the Bremer Canyon, when does that fire up? I don't think this is the time of year to expect white pointers to be caught north of the Capes.

Yeah Popeye, a friend tested a shark shield in the hope of using it for work ab diving and surfing and had one sniffing around within minutes. He said he won't be using one. I'll chase him up for the story again, I think it involved the shark actually attacking the shield.

Regarding Elyse Francom, it does seem strange that she was wearing one but it was switched off - might interfere with the dolphins perhaps? Bit of a catch 22 in that line of work if that's the case. Could be compulsory to wear one with workers insurance policy?
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 18/02/2014 17:23




Yes Jax Black Point was one place that used to put the fear of God into me ...with those big cliffs facing the right hander the isolation and the huge amount of fish in the water it was a bit scary especially that day I was knocked off my board as it was very overcast except for the horizon which was clear.

I've also read that a majority of shark attacks happen on overcast days ...when I was working as a diver in Broome we saw more sharks around when it was a bit overcast too..

In Stradbroke Island QLD I had a huge Tiger Shark come right underneath me , then surfaced and turned right in front of me. Caught the next wave in quick fast. But I must say that me and my mate had been warned by the locals about going surfing at first light especially where the boat fishos were out there , but we couldn't sleep on the beach because of the mosquitos so we hit the water before sunrise. The sun never really came up that day and by 8am it was pissing down.

One of my friends was attacked at Cactus in South Australia and required 165 stiches on his waist and legs ..the GW then chewed up his surfboard with its head right out of the water ..he was very lucky to survive.

As I said previously mentioned always a deep respect for the ocean itself and what resided in it and always realised the risks and dangers involved when entering the water. I was a lot more worried about falling off the top of a big wave and hitting the reef/rocks than worrying about sharks..
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 18/02/2014 17:30

Originally Posted By: desieboy

Oh well there we go ...saw a thing from Hawaii that showed they were quite effective but maybe it was another product will have a look and get back . Anyway I thought those shark shields were o.k but not according to what i just seen on Gad's link .Glad I didnt go out and buy one especially if I had a 6kg piece of Tuna hanging around my leg and there was a GWS hanging around...lol


there are different types?/models? of the electronic devices on the market. Other types may or may not work, have any been tested in the circumstances of a shark in full on attack mode.

Most attack survivors did not see the shark prior to the impact.

I must admit I`m a little surprised that a 4+ metre shark was caught.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 18/02/2014 19:08

Why are you surprised about that Gad?
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 18/02/2014 19:23

Originally Posted By: Jax
Desieboy getting knocked off your board at Black Point would have got your heart hammering - not a spot you'd want to get badly damaged and then pull off a cliff climb and a bush bash before even getting back to a sealed road that's still in the middle of nowhere.

If the drums had been allowed to go in straight after the last attack behind Gracetown, while the whales were still migrating south, there would have been pointers caught. The drums went in right at the end of the migration, you're lucky to see a humpback at the end of January down there. Big blues, but not humpies with their calves. No doubt they would have followed the humpbacks well into the Southern Ocean by January 25th and then headed across to the Bight to clean up any weak/sick/small right whale calves still there before the trek back to the Antarctic. And then there's the Bremer Canyon, when does that fire up? I don't think this is the time of year to expect white pointers to be caught north of the Capes.

Yeah Popeye, a friend tested a shark shield in the hope of using it for work ab diving and surfing and had one sniffing around within minutes. He said he won't be using one. I'll chase him up for the story again, I think it involved the shark actually attacking the shield.

Regarding Elyse Francom, it does seem strange that she was wearing one but it was switched off - might interfere with the dolphins perhaps? Bit of a catch 22 in that line of work if that's the case. Could be compulsory to wear one with workers insurance policy?


Given this point you have so clearly made why is it that we don't just knock the humpacks over instead. It would be a far more effective way of ensuring GWS don't attack people(if you remove the food source the sharks will go elsewhere). I reckon it would be a great idea. We could use the oil to light lanterns on dark foggy nights and sell the meat to the Japanese for a tidy profit at the same time. I can't really see any difference between Humpbacks and the sharks really. They are both just biological creatures .
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 18/02/2014 19:26

Because it is not the humpbacks eating people Brett...
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 18/02/2014 19:31

Originally Posted By: Jax
Because it is not the humpbacks eating people Brett...


So in other words you are more concerned about petty revenge than actually stopping people being eaten. Funny because that is not what you have actually said in all your posts. C'mon. At least be honest with everyone. If revenge is what your after then man up and say it!
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 18/02/2014 23:09

What is it with people putting words in my mouth in this thread? No Brett, it's not "revenge". It's common sense. And as much as you think the majority don't agree with me, certainly among water users, the majority do. Go back through this thread, somewhere I posted a link to a poll run in a water users forum. 87% are in favour. And given they are the ones likely to see a shark to appreciate its beauty, or to be eaten or attacked by it, in my opinion, they deserve to have a say. And the east coasters most unlikely to be affected really ought to stay out of it, particularly given the fact it happens in that backyard already, and has for a very, very long time. You still have sharks, and shark nurseries. So your arguments about collapsing the ecosystem etc etc are basically a load of scaremongering rot.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 18/02/2014 23:24

Originally Posted By: Jax
And the east coasters most unlikely to be affected really ought to stay out of it,


It's not going to happen wink

Great Whites are protected under federal law ,not just in WA. Or did Barnett tell you otherwise?
Given the massive migration of oceanic sharks some of those swimming around in WA no doubt came from the nursery on the east coast .

Maybe someone can show us all when the last attack in WA from a tiger shark occurred? After all that's all these halfwits are catching.

No wonder the tossers killing them are putting up an argument to do it. $5705 a day to kill a protected species. Now that's what I call a conflict of interest.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-...3-1226812860599

Originally Posted By: Jax
basically a load of scaremongering rot.


Couldn't agree more. Especially the call to kill these magnificent creatures. Surfers calling for the cull either need to grow a pair of nads, man up and take responsibility for their surfing hobby or stay out of the water.





Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 18/02/2014 23:39

Originally Posted By: Jax
And the east coasters most unlikely to be affected really ought to stay out of it,




....and the relative rarity of attacks would suggest you're most unlikely to be affected either .
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 19/02/2014 01:07

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Originally Posted By: Jax
And the east coasters most unlikely to be affected really ought to stay out of it, particularly given the fact it happens in that backyard already, and has for a very, very long time. You still have sharks, and shark nurseries. So your arguments about collapsing the ecosystem etc etc are basically a load of scaremongering rot.



Just putting my comment back in the context it was intended.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 19/02/2014 01:10

That's a shame .It was so much more logical the other way laugh

http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking...9-1226830498060

"Sharon Burden, whose 21-year-old son Kyle Burden was killed by a great white shark while he was bodyboarding at Bunker Bay in Western Australia in 2009, joined a protest on the steps of state parliament on Tuesday, calling for the catch-and-kill policy to be dumped."

I've got a beauty of a link but I'll save it for tomorrow. It supports Brett's "revenge" comments earlier and shows just how stupid WA's environment minister is when claiming this program to be a success.


I'll answer my own question on Tiger Sharks regarding attacks seeing as how Jax chose to ignore it like he has all the other evidence showing just how ridiculously dumb Barnett and his rabble are.

One attack in 34 years.
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 19/02/2014 03:54

Originally Posted By: Jax
Why are you surprised about that Gad?


I can`t be bothered searching up figures and I`m sure someone will search for Qld/NSW official figures on species and lengths of sharks caught on drumlines in their shark control programs, if they feel the need.

The last time I looked at figures, maybe 2006-9?, the (by memory??) average tiger shark caught was 2.4m, the gws- 2.6m. in Qld.


One does not hear of too many 4+ metre tiger sharks being caught, on drumlines not on the east coast anyway, in saying that, I am aware of a 4.5m tiger being caught at Yarroomba Qld in January 2013


I`m not a well of knowledge on sharks but I would hazard a guess and say a tiger shark that size would be about 40+years old, with a reported natural life span of 40+ to 50 years.

I feel it would have been a smart move to have performed an autopsy on the 4.1m to see if there was a health /age related reason that it took the baited hook.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 19/02/2014 05:42

Originally Posted By: Jax
What is it with people putting words in my mouth in this thread? No Brett, it's not "revenge". It's common sense. And as much as you think the majority don't agree with me, certainly among water users, the majority do. Go back through this thread, somewhere I posted a link to a poll run in a water users forum. 87% are in favour. And given they are the ones likely to see a shark to appreciate its beauty, or to be eaten or attacked by it, in my opinion, they deserve to have a say. And the east coasters most unlikely to be affected really ought to stay out of it, particularly given the fact it happens in that backyard already, and has for a very, very long time. You still have sharks, and shark nurseries. So your arguments about collapsing the ecosystem etc etc are basically a load of scaremongering rot.


I am not actually putting words in your mouth Jax. Just coming to a conclusion through a process of elimination. You have clearly stated you believe action needs to be taken to save human lives from these shark atacks. You also said that GWS were not being currently caught because the whale migration is over(which would also suggest you believe they will start being caught again once the next migration begins). This would suggest that the only reason they are in the area is because of the whales. If that is the case then removal of the whales would put an end to the GWS attacks. Now. Considering the relative ease of nailing the whales it would make far more sense to do that than try and get rid of the Great whites hanging around as the whales are visible and the hunt can be selective and far more effective. You won't be wiping out the entire species as most whales return to the same breeding grounds each year meaning only the west coast humpacks will be reduced(I won't call it a cull). Seeing as you are only concerned about saving lives then surely you would wan't the most effective technique to be employed. If that is not the case and you want a less effective technique employed that focuses on killing the species involved in the incidents then it can only possibly be considered as an act of revenge can it not?
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 19/02/2014 09:45

Jax. …. In my previous post re: why I was a little surprised, a combination of the early hour of the morning and new medication dosages was not the time to do a reply.

I inadvertently missed putting line fishing/game fishing along side of drumlines re:“One does not hear of too many 4+ metre tiger sharks being caught, on drumlines not on the east coast anyway”, as at this point in time, this form of fishing would be the only common factor on both coasts where large sharks are concerned
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 19/02/2014 16:33

Don't be surprised to see more large ones caught here Gad, it's early days yet and there have been a lot of large sharks sighted in recent years. Seems there are still big ones over east, that tiger you mentioned in Yaroomba was huge. Then there's the biggest shark caught in nets along Qld in 2012 which was a 5.5m tiger at Emu Park. Both of those are bigger than the one that has been confirmed to have killed Zach Young at Campbell's Beach, Korora NSW.

Not really sure why CF is so certain only one attack can be attributed to a tiger in the west (or a species specific count anywhere for that matter) when so many attacks are by an unidentified species. That and the number of people that simply disappear while swimming and diving.

Brett... lol. I can't respond to your whale stuff. Maybe someone else will waste their time on that one.
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 19/02/2014 16:51

Originally Posted By: Gad
Originally Posted By: desieboy
I don't agree with Barnett's methods of shark culling and are more in favour of using electronic devices as deterrents that seem to be working .


quoted previously by @-yasified-shak;
Tour guide Elyse Frankcom, who was attacked by a 3.5m great white shark in 2010 while snorkelling among dolphins with tourists, believes a shark shield saved her life.
The shark bit her legs, but she activated the device before passing out as a tourist helped her.
"Despite blood being in the water, despite an attack already, the shark was not seen once the shark shield was on," she said. "I do definitely believe that this shield saved my life." end quote….

the pattern told by most gws survivors is, shark hits, then for whatever reason does not continue the attack and heads off.

Now the lady above activated her device after shark contact, was this attack the hit and head off like other survivors or did the shark shield stop the shark continuing to attack??

Can anyone say for sure which was the case?

this article is about 1 and half year old,video shows failure of electronic shark deterrent

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/nationa...r-1226492350934

add on link re: shark deterrent electronic devises.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/full-coverage/sharks/a/21526294/doubts-over-shark-deterrent/
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 19/02/2014 16:58

Originally Posted By: Jax

Brett... lol. I can't respond to your whale stuff. Maybe someone else will waste their time on that one.


only marine creatures that can be blamed are the sharks causing violence in the first place, they certainly aren't helping the protected species cause in WA ….
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 22/02/2014 02:45

Now that I've seen what it was she actually used, I'm quite amazed that Elyse Francom managed to reach down to her ankle, drag the shark deterrent in, and get it oriented correctly to switch it on, straight after being bitten twice by a massive white shark but right before passing out and sinking. (There's a picture of her holding one at the yahoo news link Gad supplied two posts back^^)

So, to follow up on my friend's shark repellent story I mentioned a page back. He tested the bracelet/wristband variety - others available at the time (this was a couple of years ago) were like the one in the picture - bulky, attached at the ankle and trailed behind in the water - so not ideal for surfing.

There were six sharks hanging about the boat while they pulled a cray pot, five bronzies and one large bull. The pot was pulled, the sharks turned away and left, and he lowered the deterrent into the water tied to a rope. Almost immediately all six sharks were back, and the large bull didn't hesitate at all, just latched straight onto it. He was able to pull it free of the shark's mouth. Everyone there decided they wouldn't be using the bracelet for surfing, or for anything else. He said he thinks they're not around anymore, which is probably a good thing...
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 22/02/2014 13:04

Honestly. If people don't have the ability to understand a point being made I don't see the point in continuing. Go ahead and kill everything. In the long run who really cares. While your at it I suggest you go out and wipe out eucalypts since one was responsible for a viscous attack on three people yesterday resulting in the death of an 8 year old girl. Horrible species those trees. Absolute killing machines. I'm outa here.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 22/02/2014 13:27

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
Honestly. If people don't have the ability to understand a point being made I don't see the point in continuing. Go ahead and kill everything. In the long run who really cares. While your at it I suggest you go out and wipe out eucalypts since one was responsible for a viscous attack on three people yesterday resulting in the death of an 8 year old girl. Horrible species those trees. Absolute killing machines. I'm outa here.


Amen to all of that. Total stupidity. "Please vacuum the pool of all things so I can go surf Mr Barnett" (resort manager).

Funny how too it all started because of an increase in Great White attacks to a massive two per annum yet they haven't caught a single great white on the lines. Jax is quick to jump on data supporting one Tiger Shark death in 34 years but failed totally to produce anything to the contrary despite demanding many pages back that I back up my claims. Where is your evidence Jax? Instead now that the evidence is in that this is the single most stupid thing Barnett has done they respond with "boring Coldie ,cold one" or "I am opposed to people who oppose" such as S.O did. Seriously what the hell? Extraordinary. For those that can see this for what it is which is a government's knee jerk ,ill-conceived madness there is no considering both sides simply because there is no other side. The other side is STAY OUT OF THE WATER OR GROW A PAIR.


Staying out of the water will reduce your chance of being killed by a shark to zero !!!!! Unless of course one is lifted in a water spout and lands on you which of course will have Barnett crying out for another cull.

Your state environment minister should be fed to one for his ridiculous claims that this program has been a success. How exactly has it been a success? I am reading reports of people now staying out of the water because of the drum lines and rightfully they should be concerned. They are catching undersized sharks ,many of which have drowned on the hooks including black tips and makos. Good luck finding the last time one of them was involved in an attack on man.

...and what of the picture where fisheries are hiding something under a tarp? Success? All the WA government have succeeded in is bringing out the shallow nature of some people who expect everything to get out of their way so they can enjoy their HOBBY .

There are just as many Great Whites swimming around in WA as there were when this CULL started. Any of you considered that fact?

Except of course now they are being attracted to the animals dangling off fish hooks just off your beaches.

Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 22/02/2014 13:58

Oh, there you are CF (is CF alright to use - I was ok with "Jex" when you used it twice in the same post, by the way, it had a kind of friendly ring to it). I've waited days now for the spectacular link you promised, but it looks like you've given up. Maybe to focus your efforts on the bait lines in your immediate area? Anyway, there hasn't been an attack in WA since the drum lines went in. So far so good eh?
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 22/02/2014 14:42

Originally Posted By: Jax
Oh, there you are CF


Look up the page laugh

Given the enormous odds of being attacked by a great white to begin with you can put that down to law of average or are you really that silly you can't see what is staring you in the face?

Last time I looked I was an Australian so Australia is my immediate area so I'll focus my efforts there , particularly as I know how much love there is for us east coasters and that spectacular link you are waiting for will be posted when I am ready . I knew it would get you going wink . Telling us go look at our own backyard when that is exactly what we are doing in here smacks of a desperation to control the conversation. Very poor form.

I think the balance of supporting evidence has become heavily skewed towards those opposed to culling so how about you start putting up some logical counters yourself instead of running on petty fear and "because he said/she said" ?

I have signed many petitions requesting the removal of shark control measures in Qld over the years but it seems our government is as thick as yours.

"So far so good eh"?

If you consider the slaughter of marine creatures good and are still sidelining the fact no great whites have been caught than I guess it reflects your sad distorted view of the world. Just like Brett was alluding to.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 22/02/2014 14:45

...and just in case you missed it.

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
"Sharon Burden, whose 21-year-old son Kyle Burden was killed by a great white shark while he was bodyboarding at Bunker Bay in Western Australia in 2009, joined a protest on the steps of state parliament on Tuesday, calling for the catch-and-kill policy to be dumped."



If she can see how wrong this is why can't you?
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 22/02/2014 15:58

Continually posting and re-posting the same bold and over-sized text does not prove that one person's view somehow equals all victims families are anti culling. Sharon Burden has her opinion, and she's certainly entitled to it. But she doesn't represent every other person touched by the same tragic circumstance. What is not being said by those people speaks a lot louder in my opinion. Who is using "he said/she said" to make a point?

And yes, you will find a few others like Sharon, if you look hard. But for the number of victims and the number of people related to them, publicly announced anti-cull support is pretty thin.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 22/02/2014 16:28

No need to look hard. She's the norm not the exception wink

Perhaps by reposting it will eventually sink in but I won't hold my breath .

Originally Posted By: Jax
But for the number of victims and the number of people related to them, publicly announced anti-cull support is pretty thin.


But didn't Popeye say it affects thousands? Maybe you can organise a pro-cull rally? Let's see if 6,000 people can turn up at Cottesloe just to put things into perspective .
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 22/02/2014 16:49

She's not the norm, nor can you prove she is. You can't have that one both ways CF, lol.

And if you can't see how it affects thousands of people, well, um...

And 6000 wont' be attending a pro cull rally, there's no need. You could try and get one going over there though, maybe it will catch on...
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 22/02/2014 18:22

Originally Posted By: Jax
6000 wont' be attending a pro cull rally


We know.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 22/02/2014 20:27

It would be a spectacular display of unity on this contentious issue if it were proved in a national referendum that the anti shark management crowd are as right as they think they are. Just imagine this being put to every person in the country...

IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE ANSWERING THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:
The Australian Federal Government will order all shark management hardware to be removed from Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland beaches if it is found that the majority of Australians oppose shark management strategies. This means all physical protection against shark attacks on humans will no longer be provided on any Australian beach. This hardware consists of bait lines introduced in 2014 in Western Australia; bait lines and shark mesh nets introduced in 1962 in Queensland; and shark mesh nets introduced in 1937 in New South Wales. See Appendix A1 for a comprehensive list of all beaches currently utilising shark management strategies.

Q. In light of the above information about shark management strategies in Australia, are you:

A) In support of continuing shark management in Australia (continue using the nets and bait lines)

B) Not in support of continuing shark management in Australia (remove all nets and bait lines permanently)

C) Undecided
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 01:31

Yeah I wish we could do that with a lot of things. At a guess
A) 6 million
B) 6 million
C) 11 million

Of which most of C) are just to scared to say they approve of A)
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 10:37

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Yeah I wish we could do that with a lot of things. At a guess
A) 6 million
B) 6 million
C) 11 million

Of which most of C) are just to scared to say they approve of A)


True Popeye. Perhaps take C off the list. When the majority of eastern states crew realised that answering B would result in their gear being permanently removed...well, let's just say it's easy when the consequences are on the other side of the country.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 10:56

Originally Posted By: Jax
it's easy when the consequences are on the other side of the country.


ZzZzZzZz Still banging out that crap Jax? Last time I looked 83% of Australians were opposed to the cull and 78% of West Australians were opposed and which, as it is more than blatant that you two struggle with basic maths is approximately 4 out of 5 people regardless of which state they are from.

Save the money from your failed referendum and buy some floaties instead to go with your blow up wading pool.

Maybe you can tell us how netting sharks of Cairns Beaches can save swimmers from this?

http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns...w-1226834271510

CULL THE JELLY FISH.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 11:02

Just because you missed it last time..........


The horrors of false security


From a certain angle, this clinical weighing of policy and statistics seems ghastly. Even a single fatal shark attack means that someone suffered unimaginable physical and mental anguish. Yet one of the most notorious recent examples of such a death highlights not the successes of the shark control program, but its failures.


+


In 2006, a pack of bull sharks attacked Sarah Whiley while the 21-year-old swam with friends from her church group in the murky late-afternoon waters off a sleepy Queensland beach town called Amity Point. No aerial patrol was available the day of the attack. Late afternoon is a notoriously dangerous time to swim, particularly given that fishermen were using live bait nearby and that the previous night’s storms had clouded the water. And even though locals generally refuse to swim in the area because they know it’s “teeming with sharks,” as The Age reported, there were no signs alerting swimmers to the presence of sharks.


+


No signs, no patrol, no warnings. But Amity Point did have one thing: drumlines.(The local tides and water depth in that particular area are too strong to permit nets.) The local community pushed to be part of Queensland’s drumline pilot project as a way of attracting visitors, as The Age reported, although some locals believed the baited drumlines attracted the sharks that killed Whiley to the area. A later government review questioned whether the area should have been protected in the first place, given the “large population of transient sharks in the area that would not be fished down” (pdf, p.28) and an abundance of food sources that “outclassed” the bait.


+



A sign at Balmoral Beach, Sydney. Flickr user Lawrence Murray

Sarah Whiley clearly had no idea of the acute danger of swimming when and where she did. But she obviously didn’t know that. The circumstances surrounding her death hint that shark control programs that emphasize capture can inadvertently create more danger, by lulling beachgoers into a false sense of safety.


+


It’s a phenomenon that policy makers worry about. ”It is difficult to determine if the nets actually prevent attacks, however they do provide a perception of security for beach users,” said a 2006 report prepared for Dunedin, a city in New Zealand that scrapped its shark net program in 2011.


+


The Australian government echoed these concerns (pdf, p.40) in a recent report on protecting its great white population. ”Balancing perceptions of public safety (and subsequent pressure on governments to ‘act’ after incidents of shark attack) with conservation remains a significant issue with respect to possible actions taken that can increase threats to the species,” said the report. “Public education and demystifying white sharks in the public domain remains a priority.”
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 11:16

It's about time you brought some actually facts to the debate rather than peddling fear to support your claims and trying to silence opposition by claiming you have some sort of ownership because you live in WA. The last fatal shark attack was in SA and the one before that was in NSW. In both cases the friends and relatives came out in support of leaving the sharks alone.

So far I've seen evidence of approximately 10 people who support culling great whites. You, Popeye, a Victim's girlfriend (understandably emotional) ,some toss who's hand was bitten and was then paid by channel 9 to jump on board, a pro fisherman being paid $5700 a day to kill them , two very stupid politicians, one other in here and S.O who is opposed to opposition .

Yet I saw 6,000 on one beach saying no cull. Good luck finding majority support. FACT is it simply isn't there. Thankfully "most" Australians are mature enough to want to co-exist with their environment nowadays. "Silent majority" is a Barnett slogan. Everyone I talk to is opposed. EVERYONE. But then I don't associate with people who adopt a "if it moves kill it" attitude. That minority group usually attracts its own.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 11:27

Well honey, make a push for a national referendum. You're convinced you're right, stop signing pointless petitions and get a serious lobby group together.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 11:32

Originally Posted By: Jax
Well honey, make a push for a national referendum.


Honey? Sorry lady but I'm spoken for.

There is no need for a referendum. 83% of Australians do not support culling sharks. Still struggling with that basic maths ?

Now how about a response to the Amity Point post above?
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 11:41

If the majority of Australians are anti cull I have to laugh at them. Fix the issue that's been going on for decades around Australia before jumping on the WA bandwagon. Arguments against a cull in WA are mostly pointless when it already goes on interstate.

The issue needs to be tackled across the country before any point you put forward CF is taken seriously by me. I can see your argument but your debating something that is currently happening daily and for a long time. Makes no sense. If Aussies want to put there support behind it then remove them all and deal with the consequences.

As for jellyfish cull as you mentioned. Last time I was in your neck of the woods a saw a heap of jellyfish nets all over nth Queensland Beaches. Shark net/jellyfish net OK whats your point. Qld does that to. Maybe they don't cull jellyfish but the focus again is on protecting you Qlders that want to swim. You argument again fails to convince me.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 11:43

So you think those nets are to catch jellyfish? Oh please. Those fixed nets you see are there to create a barrier. That's all. ...and they don't stop irukandji jelly fish so often you'll see people inside the nets wearing stinger suits.

Occasionally you'll see someone swimming just up the beach in a pair of shorts and nothing , Darwinism wink . A bit like surfers surfing at dusk on remote beaches.




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/02/21/19/50/public-comments-on-wa-shark-cull-pour-in


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/lat...6-1226830305795
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 11:48

Yes Nth QLD jellyfish nets are used to prevent the majority of jellyfish entering swimming areas.

Or am I wrong are they used to keep the water clean from sea weed or something?
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 11:50

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
So you think those nets are to catch jellyfish? Oh please. Those fixed nets you see are there to create a barrier. That's all.


A bit like the drum lines at Amity Point.

Great to see you answering your own Questions CF. Your intelligence on the issue is becoming clearer now. Thanks.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 11:51

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Originally Posted By: ColdFront
So you think those nets are to catch jellyfish? Oh please. Those fixed nets you see are there to create a barrier. That's all.


A bit like the drum lines at Amity Point.

Great to see you answering your own Questions CF. Your intelligence on the issue is becoming clearer now. Thanks.


Oh dear.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 11:56

Oh, I think Popeye's spoken for too CF.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 11:57

Oh dear, CF until you can justify the varied techniques used at protecting human life upon entering the Ocean in Qld what basis is your argument for a few shark drumlines in WA which are being used in an attempt to protect the WA people. Are we lesser a people than everyone else.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 11:58

Originally Posted By: Jax
Oh, I think Popeye's spoken for too CF.


Snap. laugh
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 12:01

Dear Popeye


The horrors of false security


From a certain angle, this clinical weighing of policy and statistics seems ghastly. Even a single fatal shark attack means that someone suffered unimaginable physical and mental anguish. Yet one of the most notorious recent examples of such a death highlights not the successes of the shark control program, but its failures.


+


In 2006, a pack of bull sharks attacked Sarah Whiley while the 21-year-old swam with friends from her church group in the murky late-afternoon waters off a sleepy Queensland beach town called Amity Point. No aerial patrol was available the day of the attack. Late afternoon is a notoriously dangerous time to swim, particularly given that fishermen were using live bait nearby and that the previous night’s storms had clouded the water. And even though locals generally refuse to swim in the area because they know it’s “teeming with sharks,” as The Age reported, there were no signs alerting swimmers to the presence of sharks.


+


No signs, no patrol, no warnings. But Amity Point did have one thing: drumlines.(The local tides and water depth in that particular area are too strong to permit nets.) The local community pushed to be part of Queensland’s drumline pilot project as a way of attracting visitors, as The Age reported, although some locals believed the baited drumlines attracted the sharks that killed Whiley to the area. A later government review questioned whether the area should have been protected in the first place, given the “large population of transient sharks in the area that would not be fished down” (pdf, p.28) and an abundance of food sources that “outclassed” the bait.


+



A sign at Balmoral Beach, Sydney. Flickr user Lawrence Murray

Sarah Whiley clearly had no idea of the acute danger of swimming when and where she did. But she obviously didn’t know that. The circumstances surrounding her death hint that shark control programs that emphasize capture can inadvertently create more danger, by lulling beachgoers into a false sense of safety.


+


It’s a phenomenon that policy makers worry about. ”It is difficult to determine if the nets actually prevent attacks, however they do provide a perception of security for beach users,” said a 2006 report prepared for Dunedin, a city in New Zealand that scrapped its shark net program in 2011.


+


The Australian government echoed these concerns (pdf, p.40) in a recent report on protecting its great white population. ”Balancing perceptions of public safety (and subsequent pressure on governments to ‘act’ after incidents of shark attack) with conservation remains a significant issue with respect to possible actions taken that can increase threats to the species,” said the report. “Public education and demystifying white sharks in the public domain remains a priority.”
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 12:03

But if he's happy to call you dear back again, then, lol. Look, I agree with everything Popeye has just said, I don't know why you can't see the hypocrisy of you being so full on CF against WA's stance. There should be massive media footage of 6000 people on east coast beaches demanding their government pull in their nets and bait lines. But is there? No, there's a few hundred people on a netted beach in Manly squawking about WA. And a couple of Cairns locals in here doing the same. Go figure.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 12:06

If you cannot differentiate between a net barrier that was designed to separate swimmers from box jelly fish in shallow water and killing Great Whites that are listed as a "vulnerable species" under national LAW with hooks then you should be the last person trying to belittle other's intelligence Popeye.

Brett was spot on. What staggers me the most is that someone involved in eco tourism would support it. The penultimate hypocrisy.

All the evidence is in that drum lines DO NOT work.

That's your cue to read the big post above Popeye wink

Pssst Jax , there were protest on the east coast on the same day . In fact there were protests in South Africa too.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 12:11

ColdFront said: You just don't get it. All the evidence is in that drum lines DO NOT work.

Well, gee, you lot over there must be a bit slow then to have kept it going for half a century while it so obviously isn't working. There's really no excuse for it still happening either, according to CF 87% percent of then entire country don't agree with the silly things.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 12:14

Here Jax. I overestimated you it seems.

Originally Posted By: ColdFront



The horrors of false security


From a certain angle, this clinical weighing of policy and statistics seems ghastly. Even a single fatal shark attack means that someone suffered unimaginable physical and mental anguish. Yet one of the most notorious recent examples of such a death highlights not the successes of the shark control program, but its failures.


+


In 2006, a pack of bull sharks attacked Sarah Whiley while the 21-year-old swam with friends from her church group in the murky late-afternoon waters off a sleepy Queensland beach town called Amity Point. No aerial patrol was available the day of the attack. Late afternoon is a notoriously dangerous time to swim, particularly given that fishermen were using live bait nearby and that the previous night’s storms had clouded the water. And even though locals generally refuse to swim in the area because they know it’s “teeming with sharks,” as The Age reported, there were no signs alerting swimmers to the presence of sharks.


+


No signs, no patrol, no warnings. But Amity Point did have one thing: drumlines.(The local tides and water depth in that particular area are too strong to permit nets.) The local community pushed to be part of Queensland’s drumline pilot project as a way of attracting visitors, as The Age reported, although some locals believed the baited drumlines attracted the sharks that killed Whiley to the area. A later government review questioned whether the area should have been protected in the first place, given the “large population of transient sharks in the area that would not be fished down” (pdf, p.28) and an abundance of food sources that “outclassed” the bait.


+



A sign at Balmoral Beach, Sydney. Flickr user Lawrence Murray

Sarah Whiley clearly had no idea of the acute danger of swimming when and where she did. But she obviously didn’t know that. The circumstances surrounding her death hint that shark control programs that emphasize capture can inadvertently create more danger, by lulling beachgoers into a false sense of safety.


+


It’s a phenomenon that policy makers worry about. ”It is difficult to determine if the nets actually prevent attacks, however they do provide a perception of security for beach users,” said a 2006 report prepared for Dunedin, a city in New Zealand that scrapped its shark net program in 2011.


+


The Australian government echoed these concerns (pdf, p.40) in a recent report on protecting its great white population. ”Balancing perceptions of public safety (and subsequent pressure on governments to ‘act’ after incidents of shark attack) with conservation remains a significant issue with respect to possible actions taken that can increase threats to the species,” said the report. “Public education and demystifying white sharks in the public domain remains a priority.”
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 12:17

For you Popeye.

63% of stings occur inside the nets. sleep


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jellyfish_stings_in_Australia
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 12:48

Just out of Interest what is Nth QLDS procedure if a 4 metre croc sits 20 metres off a popular beach like Palm Cove or Port Douglas Beach for a few days. Do they just leave it be or try to catch it and remove it?
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 13:00

They don't catch crocs on Nth Queensland beaches wink

But then anyone with the most basic knowledge of crocs knows that when they are seen near beaches they are transient. They don't "spend a few days" and are looking for a lagoon or creek to move into. Look it up.

They are left to move on.

Brett and I have already been through the whole crocodile issue with you Popeye. You should be more concerned with that short term memory issue.

Start a thread on crocs. laugh
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 13:17

ColdFront said: But then anyone with the most basic knowledge of crocs knows that when they are seen near beaches they are transient. They don't "spend a few days". Look it up.

Quote:
THE crocodile which has been stalking Broome's Cable Beach this week has not been seen in the past 24 hours, wildlife officers say, in a sign the tourist spot may be reopened.
On Thursday wildlife officers contemplated shooting the 2.5m crocodile which was continually lurking off Cable Beach, after failing to scare it away or capture it.
The crocodile forced the closure of the popular tourist beach over the past five days as it kept returning to an area off the surf club. Link


Quote:
Callan Ihle from Cardwell Butchery, said the croc had been regularly spotted swimming at least 20m offshore for several weeks.

“It’s a regular. In the afternoons you can see it swim south, and the next morning it swims north,’’ he said.

“Every couple of days you’ll see it. There’s also a bigger one, probably 4-5m long that you’ll see about once a month. Link
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 13:22

Funny, I just read the comments from the second of those two stories I linked. Second comment was: "Crocs have been breeding up since the 70s , they have lost all fear of man and are in a lot of populated areas. As with everything when numbers get out of control you need to cull , in time they will breed up again. Simple really." That's probably one of the east coasters who is happy to have shark nets and bait lines.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 13:23

Yeah thanks for helping me with my short term memory issue CF by posting your Sharon Burdon and Amity point cut and pastes half a dozen times over the last few days.

Hang on... Maybe you have a short term memory issue. But if that's your basis for argument for this week. Great to see you beat it to death over and over.

Yeah big croc has been cruising Cable Beach and Town for a few days now. Great pics going around. Just wondering if its OK to set a few drum lines for it, shoot it get some advice from Qlders as to what they do considering they are the leading example of how to protect their people lol..
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 13:44

Oh, gosh Popeye, you mean it is happening again? That story ^^ was from 2010. Funny, someone ought to tell the crocs that anyone who knows anything knows they are just not supposed to do that.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 13:55

Woops, never mind.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 13:58

Yet the news report said it was spotted on Wednesday and has not been seen since though people should exercise caution . Not "over the past days" as Popeye claims.

At least try and be honest.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: sharks - 23/02/2014 15:35

Originally Posted By: Popeye
As for jellyfish cull as you mentioned. Last time I was in your neck of the woods a saw a heap of jellyfish nets all over nth Queensland Beaches. Shark net/jellyfish net OK whats your point. Qld does that to. Maybe they don't cull jellyfish but the focus again is on protecting you Qlders that want to swim. You argument again fails to convince me.


I think the nets are there to keep the crocks in! evillaugh


Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 24/02/2014 11:15

The reason why I am a member on this forum is because I am a weather freak. I love the science of it, and how it is discussed on the threads within this forum.

The shark cull that has been introduced in WA lacks any scientific reasoning. Having sharks nets and drum lines on the East coast and in South Africa, and that we should do it too is not enough reasoning to me. They could have looked at other places like Hawaii and Brazil into an alternative and more successful solution.

I am saddened to see my state under the firing line because of the knee jerk decision by Barnett. Not to mention the wasted tax payers money, on a stupid decision that isn't going to fix any thing except killing sharks in vain. Western Australia could have been the state that implemented a shark policy, that outshone the eastern states barbaric ways, and proved to every one how they considered not only trying to protect the public, but in a sustained environmental solution.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 24/02/2014 13:44

Of those who stand in agreement of it, none I'm aware of are arguing against working toward improving the methods in future.

However, while some people thought it was enough to chuck ideas back and forth in a 13 year talkfest and do nothing, other people were being permanently damaged and dying, and increasing numbers of large sharks capable of causing more of the same were being reported near busy beaches. Something had to be done, and good on Barnett for doing it now.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 24/02/2014 22:57

Originally Posted By: Adele
The reason why I am a member on this forum is because I am a weather freak. I love the science of it, and how it is discussed on the threads within this forum.

The shark cull that has been introduced in WA lacks any scientific reasoning. Having sharks nets and drum lines on the East coast and in South Africa, and that we should do it too is not enough reasoning to me. They could have looked at other places like Hawaii and Brazil into an alternative and more successful solution.

I am saddened to see my state under the firing line because of the knee jerk decision by Barnett. Not to mention the wasted tax payers money, on a stupid decision that isn't going to fix any thing except killing sharks in vain. Western Australia could have been the state that implemented a shark policy, that outshone the eastern states barbaric ways, and proved to every one how they considered not only trying to protect the public, but in a sustained environmental solution.



Amen. A sentiment reflected here.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/23/western-australia-shark-cull-great-whites
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 25/02/2014 01:16

Typical... That story lost me at "the goal of the cull is to seek out all potential killer sharks of more than three metres and most likely "maneaters" within WA coastal waters."

That kind of reporting is doing nothing for the cause of the anti-cull crowd because it makes them look like exaggerating liars. Why? Because like the so-called "reporters", they parrot that rubbish as though it's true, which it is not. The goal is to catch tiger, bull and white sharks over three metres that find their own way to drum lines set at a handful of WA beaches in the south west.

That article would have someone who didn't know better believing boat loads of gun toting shark hunters are on the loose all the way from Esperence to Broome.

Seriously, someone ought to put their passion into starting Queenslanders Unite to Eagerly End Rotten Shark-management or something.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 25/02/2014 02:14

Originally Posted By: Jax

However, while some people thought it was enough to chuck ideas back and forth in a 13 year talkfest and do nothing, other people were being permanently damaged and dying, and increasing numbers of large sharks capable of causing more of the same were being reported near busy beaches. Something had to be done, and good on Barnett for doing it now.


This comment from you seems to state the same as the heading on the article that you believe is sensationalised. There appears to be contradiction in your argument.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 25/02/2014 08:53

Yes Adele his justification for something that the evidence suggests is a waste of time and not necessary is becoming more desperate by the day.

Anyone with their eyes open and the capacity to absorb the information laid out in this thread knows that this is stupid policy by a stupid government .

The remainder are being guided by fear and ignorance.

Originally Posted By: Jax
That story lost me


It happened long before that story.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 25/02/2014 09:09

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/23/western-australia-shark-cull-great-whites

From the article.


"Surely the people responsible for the planning and implementation of a shark culling programme should listen to the scientific community of the world, consider the impact that the culling of these species will have on the wider ecosystem and acknowledge that previous culling programmes have not been successful?"

and...

" even shark attack victims shows there is little justification for these actions"

Let me guess? They aren't helping the cause either?
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 25/02/2014 09:28

Channel 9 have been showing Sarah Shark the past 2 Sunday's, its a series of 6 episodes, next episode for this neck of the woods is for 10.30am Sunday, check your local guide. I missed the the first episode unfortunately and can not find any video on the net.

I highly recommend it!!

Link to her website
http://www.sarahshark.com/
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: sharks - 25/02/2014 12:29

Originally Posted By: Jax
Of those who stand in agreement of it, none I'm aware of are arguing against working toward improving the methods in future.

However, while some people thought it was enough to chuck ideas back and forth in a 13 year talkfest and do nothing, other people were being permanently damaged and dying, and increasing numbers of large sharks capable of causing more of the same were being reported near busy beaches. Something had to be done, and good on Barnett for doing it now.


I'm not having a go at you Jax or it's not a Queensland based attack but I'm confused, i though that you were all for conservation? after all you started a thread a little while back called "The Oceans are broken".

Humans can not have everything all their own way, after all we have laid claim to the land and expect to own the oceans as well? humans know the risk of entering the water, no matter in what fashion or where it is, and after all it is the sharks backyard,(as they are the top predator) and like every human on the planet they want to eat also.

Humans are already putting pressure on the oceans and fish stocks, how far do we really want to take it before everything else on the hit list is wiped out?
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 25/02/2014 12:43

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Yes Adele his justification for something that the evidence suggests is a waste of time and not necessary is becoming more desperate by the day.

Anyone with their eyes open and the capacity to absorb the information laid out in this thread knows that this is stupid policy by a stupid government .

The remainder are being guided by fear and ignorance.

Originally Posted By: Jax
That story lost me


It happened long before that story.


Quit with the personal insults CF, it's getting old. You bleated somewhere pages back that I started it by calling you a twit while you conveniently ignored that was a result of all your baiting and trolling comments - which are no longer visible because they were deleted by a mod. And you conveniently ignored, again, that your next batch of deleted comments were given with the warning to stop baiting and trolling. I see the same is happening in the political thread.

And that story lost me at "the goal of the cull is to seek out all potential killer sharks of more than three metres and most likely "maneaters" within WA coastal waters."

Why? Because the goal is to catch tiger, bull and white sharks over three metres that find their own way to drum lines set at a handful of WA beaches in the south west.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 25/02/2014 13:38

Originally Posted By: Adele
Originally Posted By: Jax

However, while some people thought it was enough to chuck ideas back and forth in a 13 year talkfest and do nothing, other people were being permanently damaged and dying, and increasing numbers of large sharks capable of causing more of the same were being reported near busy beaches. Something had to be done, and good on Barnett for doing it now.


This comment from you seems to state the same as the heading on the article that you believe is sensationalised. There appears to be contradiction in your argument.


Adele, the headline had nothing to do with my comments... It was, "Western Australia's shark cull will hit breeding stock of great whites".

Shark attacks began coming more regularly in WA starting with Ken Crew (and I only use his death because that was in 2000, there was a death three years before that, which was one of only four in 50 years). It was then that this debate began, and came up again and again with every one of the following 12 deaths in WA. It got really hot when there were three deaths in one year, 2011.

Every time it came up, people holding your view got their way by forcing the government to back down and do nothing. If there's a better way that doesn't involve killing large sharks that hang about in populated areas, then why are we still talking about, why hasn't some passionate soul who can't stand another minute of seeing precious sharks being killed -- as happens elsewhere in this country -- found the solution, and why hasn't it been implemented everywhere else that needs it?

One small area in Brazil is apparently having success in towing sharks away, ironically from a beach that didn't have a problem with sharks until the port was built. And what are the government going to do, knowing this is the result of building such a port on this stretch? Oh, they're planning on building another one just down the road. I wonder, have they got shark friends out there checking on what the actual mortality rate is when sharks are towed out to sea and relocated?

There might be a reason it is working so well. Maybe large healthy sharks are now just lurking out there waiting for the easy feed of fresh but weak and exhausted sharks to be let off their tow lines? Maybe I'm wrong about that, maybe the sharks go back out to deep water and just decide that it's nicer out there in the desert, to hell with going to where the food is, like the easier than ever stuff they've been getting fat on while following ships about the place... Maybe they end up being quietly sold to shark finners, there's still a massive issue with that black market in that part of the world after all.

The WA government is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. At least now it will put pressure on those who are determined there is a better way to actually get about finding one instead of doing nothing except getting back onto their soapboxes with each new death.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 25/02/2014 14:15

That article was drawing attention to the Pacific Ocean Yasi, in particular the radiation from Fukushima being the problem, along with the rubbish.

Cleaning up the mess in the ocean won't stop sharks attacking humans, that's a whole other problem. And yes, I am for conservation, in a lot of ways. Including conserving human life on popular West Australian beaches. I think there is a balance, and too many large sharks near popular recreation areas is not good. It's been better before, as four deaths in 50 years would indicate.
Posted by: gazzatsv

Re: sharks - 25/02/2014 15:08

I just find this as being at the height of arrogance. As a species we go into another species home and because we get attacked we somehow have the right to threaten the species who is entitled to live where they have for millions of years. Just because we can doesbt mean we should.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 25/02/2014 17:58

Spare me your innocence claims Jax. You've done more than your fair share of attacking others who don't share your view. If you wish to make comments about the political thread do it there, not here. Useless page filler?

If you were really for conservation you'd see how silly it is to be killing sharks so you can go for a swim.

Gazza hit the hail on the head. It is arrogance to kill these sharks when all the evidence has shown it doesn't work.

...and yes your "ocean is broken" thread is a contradiction.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 25/02/2014 18:13

Originally Posted By: Jax
At least now it will put pressure on those who are determined there is a better way to actually get about finding one instead of doing nothing except getting back onto their soapboxes with each new death.


Easy fixed. Swim in a pool.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 25/02/2014 18:24

Surfer's plea to end shark cull

A surfer who lost two mates to fatal shark attacks says he does not believe the State Government's catch-and-kill policy would have saved them and asked politicians to stop interfering in people's lives and environments.

Rob Alder spoke out at a community forum in Margaret River last night which addressed the government's controversial drum lines policy.

Mr Alder was one of the first people on the scene when fellow surfer Nick Edwards was attacked by a shark off South Point in Gracetown in 2010.

He helped pull his friend onto shore and administered CPR but Mr Edwards could not be saved.

A Gracetown local, Mr Alder was also a friend of Chris Boyd, who was also attacked in November surfing off Umbies break.

“The government can’t legislate away risk, they simply cannot do it,” Mr Alder said.

“As a surfer I know it is a risk but it is a risk that I chose to take when I go into the water.

"To the Government--please don’t interfere with my right to experience the ocean in its natural, wild state.

“If I wanted something controlled, I'd swim in a pool."

Mr Alder said shark attacks were random acts of nature.

"The shark that took Boydy (Chrs Boyd) swam right past another surfer and took him."

Jess Mooney, girlfriend of shark victim Kyle Burden who was attacked in Dunsborough in 2011, also attended the forum and gave a teary address thanking people for speaking out against the shark cull.

Mr Alder and Ms Mooney were among about 300 South West locals who attended the forum organised by local Steve Tribbeck.

Mr Tribbeck said he was thrilled with the turnout but disappointed that more people from the “other” side of the debate did not attend.

The Fisheries Minister Ken Baston and the fisherman contracted to bait and monitor drum lines in the South West were invited to the forum but did not attend.

Mr Tribbeck said he had wanted to create an open forum for people to get educated on both sides of the debate.

Given the absence of State Government representatives, the discussion last night was largely one-sided with the majority of the crowd against the baited drum lines policy.

Members of the audience called for more “science” based policy and accused the Barnett Government of “knee-jerk” reactions to the spate of shark attacks.

Many also expressed fears that the drum lines would attract more sharks to the area and make conditions more dangerous.

Sea Shepherd director Jeff Hansen and University of WA marine scientist Jessica Meeuwig also addressed the forum.

Mr Hansen spoke about the biodiversity risk of culling sharks and Professor Meeuwig presented an argument for baited drum lines that did not kill sharks but worked on a tag and release basis. She said a trial of this policy off the coast of Brazil had reduced shark incidents by 97 per cent.

Under the State Government’s plans, commercial fishermen are contracted to set and monitor drum lines off Perth and the South West beaches to kill sharks bigger than 3m.

The first shark captured under the policy was a 3m tiger shark off the coast of Meelup Beach near Dunsborough.


Source.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/21310285/


These links shatter claims that the surfing community want these sharks killed.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 25/02/2014 18:49

Here's another.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-03/carmody-in-defence-of-the-great-white-shark/5183396
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 25/02/2014 18:55

Originally Posted By: Jax
It's been better before, as four deaths in 50 years would indicate.


Yes. That's what population growth does. According to surfing bodies around Australia they didn't have wave rage either once upon a time but it is commonplace nowadays as the popularity of the hobby has exploded in recent years.

Maybe we need to thin down surfer numbers?
Posted by: Markus

Re: sharks - 01/03/2014 15:25

Rather cool video, especially at the end showing a large gathering of sharks.

Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 01/03/2014 18:03

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Originally Posted By: Jax
It's been better before, as four deaths in 50 years would indicate.


Yes. That's what population growth does. According to surfing bodies around Australia they didn't have wave rage either once upon a time but it is commonplace nowadays as the popularity of the hobby has exploded in recent years.

Maybe we need to thin down surfer numbers?


Finally we agree on something ...... less surfers would be good ... ;-)
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 01/03/2014 18:08

Good video Markus. A marine biologist friend of mine took a video of more than 100 hammerheads swimming together off Orpheus Island back in the mid 90's. Amazing sight.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 07/03/2014 17:05

Drumlines seem to work in QLD. Great white in March. Shouldn't they be down in SA/TAS/VIC at this time of year?

3.5m Great White Shark killed off Gold Coast Beach.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 07/03/2014 19:58

Yeah just saw that on the news. Following the sun? Just shows how little is known and adds plenty of support to calls to research them instead of killing them.

They interviewed several surfers on that beach where it was caught as well. None supported culling. Must be a WA thing. At least you know now they are attracted to the baits. More reason to stay out of the water and away from these fierce human destroyers yeah.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 07/03/2014 20:06

Ha a quick google search hardly comes up with anything on this. If it was such a big issue then why is this not plastered everywhere across the country. Leave WA alone and fight the battle in your own state. What a joke. First Great white to be culled since this issue has come to the attention of Australia and its not such a big issue anymore. Hope they protest the $&^% out of this in QLD and the East if they don't then maybe more attention needs to be focused there. Maybe QLD is the next port of call for Sea Shepard.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 07/03/2014 20:13

Leave WA alone? LOL. I didn't realise great whites recognise state borders.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/03/.../?spt=hts&or=10
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 07/03/2014 20:15

Not sure what you mean Coldie. I meantlLeave WA alone in regards to the drumline issue if your state is practising it.

3.5metre giant lol. I would maybe say average size Great white. Imagine all the shivers down the spine from all the swimmers and surfers. So glad they are protected by all those drum lines from such man eating giants. lol. What a joke.

Giant White Pointer caught.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 07/03/2014 20:16

Ahh so you found something on google?

Cheers for highlighting how the media created hysterics in the first place.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 07/03/2014 20:18

You've taught me well how to dig deep and drag up crap off Google.

Anyway back to cyclones. I find this whole issue a joke. Attention needs to be focused on this as a national issue and this QLD capture and 'cull' is perfect example of this. I have always based my beliefs on this. Get rid of the drumlines and nets across the whole country and then you have a leg to stand on. Protecting the lives of Australians on the East coast but let WA people get munched. Joke. Other wise leave WA alone.
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 07/03/2014 20:22

Yep saw that on the news this morning, according to the news the drumline was only 300 metres from shore, they may aswell put the drumlines behind the breakers!!!
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 07/03/2014 20:27

Yeah almost as bright as the clowns in WA that took some drum lines down during an event recently .Speaks volumes. By their own admission these were taken down for fear they may attract sharks to the area. Absolute morons.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-17/shark-drum-lines-removed-for-rottnest-swim/5265262


Maybe if they attach surfers to the hooks they'll catch more?


Originally Posted By: Popeye
You've taught me well how to dig deep and drag up crap .



I only need to read your comments in the cyclone threads to know you already had this mastered. Constantly trolling Qlders with repeated remarks about weak lows getting names yet here you are demanding we stay out of WA's issues. That's known as a double standard.
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 07/03/2014 20:36

Yeah enough said in there last sentence!!

"It's probably better in the interest of public safety to remove any impediments."
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 07/03/2014 20:38

Originally Posted By: EddyG
Yeah enough said in there last sentence!!

"It's probably better in the interest of public safety to remove any impediments."


Yep speaks volumes.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 07/03/2014 20:40

Removing drumlines from an area where thousands of people are conducting a swimming race is common sense. People can twist what they want into that story but ultimately with thousands of people and hundreds of support boats in the water it just not ideal to have chains and floats and hooks sitting in the path of swimmers from a safety perspective.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 07/03/2014 20:42

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Removing drumlines from an area where thousands of people are conducting a swimming race is common sense. People can twist what they want into that story but ultimately with thousands of people and hundreds of support boats in the water it just not ideal to have chains and floats and hooks sitting in the path of swimmers from a safety perspective.


Yeah of course it's a twisted story laugh After all Barnacle is an honest premier. laugh wink
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 07/03/2014 20:45

I'll bet this surfer who lost two mates is twisting the story too yeah?

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Surfer's plea to end shark cull

A surfer who lost two mates to fatal shark attacks says he does not believe the State Government's catch-and-kill policy would have saved them and asked politicians to stop interfering in people's lives and environments.

Rob Alder spoke out at a community forum in Margaret River last night which addressed the government's controversial drum lines policy.

Mr Alder was one of the first people on the scene when fellow surfer Nick Edwards was attacked by a shark off South Point in Gracetown in 2010.

He helped pull his friend onto shore and administered CPR but Mr Edwards could not be saved.

A Gracetown local, Mr Alder was also a friend of Chris Boyd, who was also attacked in November surfing off Umbies break.

“The government can’t legislate away risk, they simply cannot do it,” Mr Alder said.

“As a surfer I know it is a risk but it is a risk that I chose to take when I go into the water.

"To the Government--please don’t interfere with my right to experience the ocean in its natural, wild state.

“If I wanted something controlled, I'd swim in a pool."

Mr Alder said shark attacks were random acts of nature.

"The shark that took Boydy (Chrs Boyd) swam right past another surfer and took him."

Jess Mooney, girlfriend of shark victim Kyle Burden who was attacked in Dunsborough in 2011, also attended the forum and gave a teary address thanking people for speaking out against the shark cull.

Mr Alder and Ms Mooney were among about 300 South West locals who attended the forum organised by local Steve Tribbeck.

Mr Tribbeck said he was thrilled with the turnout but disappointed that more people from the “other” side of the debate did not attend.

The Fisheries Minister Ken Baston and the fisherman contracted to bait and monitor drum lines in the South West were invited to the forum but did not attend.

Mr Tribbeck said he had wanted to create an open forum for people to get educated on both sides of the debate.

Given the absence of State Government representatives, the discussion last night was largely one-sided with the majority of the crowd against the baited drum lines policy.

Members of the audience called for more “science” based policy and accused the Barnett Government of “knee-jerk” reactions to the spate of shark attacks.

Many also expressed fears that the drum lines would attract more sharks to the area and make conditions more dangerous.

Sea Shepherd director Jeff Hansen and University of WA marine scientist Jessica Meeuwig also addressed the forum.

Mr Hansen spoke about the biodiversity risk of culling sharks and Professor Meeuwig presented an argument for baited drum lines that did not kill sharks but worked on a tag and release basis. She said a trial of this policy off the coast of Brazil had reduced shark incidents by 97 per cent.

Under the State Government’s plans, commercial fishermen are contracted to set and monitor drum lines off Perth and the South West beaches to kill sharks bigger than 3m.

The first shark captured under the policy was a 3m tiger shark off the coast of Meelup Beach near Dunsborough.


Source.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/21310285/

Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 07/03/2014 20:49

Anyway. Seems like your on fire tonight Coldie so I will leave you to battle by yourself. Couldn't be bothered. Give me a yell when something is being done about removing the drumlines in QLD. Then I will take you seriously. bounce bounce
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 07/03/2014 20:51

Yeah I noticed you can't come up with a logical response to that link above. No amount of google digging will ever find a rational justification for culling great whites when the victims friends and families are queuing up to condemn it.

Pssst They are from WA wink

Chow.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 08/03/2014 02:30

Well that puts an end to my friends theory that great whites won't be caught on drum lines (unless they used seal or whale bait).

I agree with you Popeye, that it is very hypocritical that people are only targeting WA against shark culling. I can only dream that both WA and QLD would implement a similar strategy to NSW, and not kill Great Whites due to being a protected species.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 08/03/2014 09:32

Except they're not hypocrits. I petitioned the Queensland government to remove lines and nets Adele. So no ,it's not hypocritical. The protests at Cottesloe beach and the ones that coincided with it on the east coast were for the removal of the lines around the country. Not just in WA. So no, it's not hypocritical. What is hypocritical is someone who works in eco tourism supporting a cull. It doesn't get anymore hypocritical than that.

Maybe people should actually have taken the time to read the articles instead of assuming it was only pertinent to WA. The outcry is because the west used to be the rational one on the shark issue .Now it has simply joined the other clowns.

....and once again, those 6,000 people at Cottesloe were largely from WA !!!!

The fact that your theory has been debunked about great whites on drum lines only gives weight to the FACT that there are still as many great whites in WA waters as there were before the CULL started but they are now being lured to where people swim by dead tiger sharks hanging off the hooks. Around 70 tiger sharks hooked but no whites? Alarm bells should be ringing for anyone entering the water. That is of course if the ocean is thick with great whites to begin with as Jax claimed when he/she completely ignored the fact they were listed as vulnerable and protected under federal law due to plummeting numbers.

Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 09/03/2014 11:10

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Yeah I noticed you can't come up with a logical response to that link above. No amount of google digging will ever find a rational justification for culling great whites when the victims friends and families are queuing up to condemn it.

Pssst They are from WA wink

Chow.



...As in canine or food? Too funny.

Yeah, you won't get a "logical response" to the furphy that "victims friends and families are queuing up to condemn it". Same few people quoted in every story you can find to link does not equal a tidal wave of people. Keep trying.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 09/03/2014 11:17

Go back and read the links Jax wink They are all different people laugh

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
I'll bet this surfer who lost two mates is twisting the story too yeah?

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Surfer's plea to end shark cull

A surfer who lost two mates to fatal shark attacks says he does not believe the State Government's catch-and-kill policy would have saved them and asked politicians to stop interfering in people's lives and environments.

Rob Alder spoke out at a community forum in Margaret River last night which addressed the government's controversial drum lines policy.

Mr Alder was one of the first people on the scene when fellow surfer Nick Edwards was attacked by a shark off South Point in Gracetown in 2010.

He helped pull his friend onto shore and administered CPR but Mr Edwards could not be saved.

A Gracetown local, Mr Alder was also a friend of Chris Boyd, who was also attacked in November surfing off Umbies break.

“The government can’t legislate away risk, they simply cannot do it,” Mr Alder said.

“As a surfer I know it is a risk but it is a risk that I chose to take when I go into the water.

"To the Government--please don’t interfere with my right to experience the ocean in its natural, wild state.

“If I wanted something controlled, I'd swim in a pool."

Mr Alder said shark attacks were random acts of nature.

"The shark that took Boydy (Chrs Boyd) swam right past another surfer and took him."

Jess Mooney, girlfriend of shark victim Kyle Burden who was attacked in Dunsborough in 2011, also attended the forum and gave a teary address thanking people for speaking out against the shark cull.

Mr Alder and Ms Mooney were among about 300 South West locals who attended the forum organised by local Steve Tribbeck.

Mr Tribbeck said he was thrilled with the turnout but disappointed that more people from the “other” side of the debate did not attend.

The Fisheries Minister Ken Baston and the fisherman contracted to bait and monitor drum lines in the South West were invited to the forum but did not attend.

Mr Tribbeck said he had wanted to create an open forum for people to get educated on both sides of the debate.

Given the absence of State Government representatives, the discussion last night was largely one-sided with the majority of the crowd against the baited drum lines policy.

Members of the audience called for more “science” based policy and accused the Barnett Government of “knee-jerk” reactions to the spate of shark attacks.

Many also expressed fears that the drum lines would attract more sharks to the area and make conditions more dangerous.

Sea Shepherd director Jeff Hansen and University of WA marine scientist Jessica Meeuwig also addressed the forum.

Mr Hansen spoke about the biodiversity risk of culling sharks and Professor Meeuwig presented an argument for baited drum lines that did not kill sharks but worked on a tag and release basis. She said a trial of this policy off the coast of Brazil had reduced shark incidents by 97 per cent.

Under the State Government’s plans, commercial fishermen are contracted to set and monitor drum lines off Perth and the South West beaches to kill sharks bigger than 3m.

The first shark captured under the policy was a 3m tiger shark off the coast of Meelup Beach near Dunsborough.


Source.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/21310285/

Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 09/03/2014 12:03

Originally Posted By: Jax


...As in canine or food? Too funny.



Too funny indeed.

http://www.internetslang.com/CHOW-meaning-definition.asp

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chow

2. Another word for bye

Maybe they should use it on shark hooks. It works well on surfers.


Ciao wink
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 09/03/2014 12:17

Originally Posted By: Jax
does not equal a tidal wave of people.


Please link me to where I used this term or made this claim.
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 11/03/2014 10:34

Coldfront ,

You are wrong on the GW front .... A 5M< GW shark was caught last week off Gracetown .....

Only 1.5M longer than the 3M one off Pt Danger Qld/Nsw border , but probably twice the jaw circumference , and nearly twice the weight . Rumour has it , it took a while to get it to the boat .
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 11/03/2014 15:27

Originally Posted By: S .O.
Coldfront ,

You are wrong on the GW front .... A 5M< GW shark was caught last week off Gracetown .....



Can you link me to the article regarding the Gracetown capture please? I've googled Deep, Deep ,Deep and can't find a single article on it.


Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 11/03/2014 15:32

Originally Posted By: S .O.
Coldfront ,

A 5M< GW shark .....

Only 1.5M longer than the 3M one off Pt Danger Qld/Nsw border ,


confused ? Barnett style maths right there !!
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 11/03/2014 16:38

hahha ,

Google won't help you .... I know because of a witness ....

obviously typing is not my forte . whatever exact size they are ( which both are estimates ) has very little to do with this topic or how corect the statement is .... My point was that it makes national news when something breask the surface in QLD , whilst in WA things are a little more low key and far less sensationalised ... Probably just like weather analysis from both sides ....
Meanwhile in SA , and certain parts of VIC , things that would make the most hardened ab diver cringe happen alot more than you think .... Some hardcore guys with the most knowledge and experience in these matters pretty much refuse to do it anymore . Not that they are piping up about it .
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 11/03/2014 17:03

So again. Where is the evidence of this 5 mtr shark that was caught?

Your credibility fell to pieces when you decided to take a side to oppose opposition. Absolutely ridiculous !

My mate saw a Yeti on Bondi Beach last week in the middle of the day. No-one else did though.

Psst 6,000 people protesting a shark cull on WA's prime beachfront for the world to see is NOT supporting your "Far less sensationalised and low key" statement.

Especially when a croc in croc habitat is making the news almost daily over there.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 12/03/2014 12:17

Originally Posted By: ColdFront

Especially when a croc in croc habitat is making the news almost daily over there.


No it isn't. Why make things up?

Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/03/2014 14:28

Broome isn't croc habitat?

You guys have been making up all sorts of things to try and justify this cull. Glass houses..
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 12/03/2014 16:07

No Cold Front, the bit you made up. It isn't making the news almost daily over here.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 12/03/2014 16:11



Sorry Jax but you got that wrong Broome has always been a croc habitat its just that they nearly got exterminated during the early pearling days when in the off season they would hunt them for there skins. Only since they have been protected have we seen a recurrence of them around the area especially at Williecreek and Roebuck Bay.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 12/03/2014 16:37

No Desiboy, I meant it wasn't "making news almost daily" as CF stated. I know Broome is croc habitat, glad I never saw one outside the croc park when I lived there.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 12/03/2014 16:46



Ok sorry Jax misread your post ...yes I havent heard of the croc thing that much at all especially not daily...
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/03/2014 18:55

Google "Broome crocodile" .Hardly low key as S.O claimed.

...and no Desieboy you didn't misread his post at all. It was poorly written to begin with.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 13/03/2014 11:38

CF what are you on about? Google news, full coverage has four results, from last month. Must be getting wobbly up there, don't lose your saddle ladder.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 13/03/2014 12:19

Cheers Jax. I was directing. It was popeye that made all the noise about it. Popeye from WA. Cheers for your help.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 13/03/2014 14:50

Yeah its massive news for all of 2-3 days a year in Broome.
Posted by: crikey

Re: sharks - 13/03/2014 18:15

Saw a pod of some 40+ Dolphins at Fingal Heads lighthouse vantage point today.
Some were surfing the shore break by the rocks.
Some got very close to boogy boarders on south fingal beach
Shark 3.4m was caught last week off schnapper rocks on the drum lines at the ROXY PRO surf comp
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 16/03/2014 20:22

40+ dolphins is a good sized pod Crikey, that would have been something to see. I have a photo somewhere of one leaping out of a wave right next to a surfer, amazing how small a person is next to a dolphin; and another with about a dozen surfing inside a wave.

That was a GIANT shark caught at the women's surf comp apparently...To explain, I somehow managed to find the UK Daily Mail version of the story, they certainly ran with the 'everything is bigger in Queensland' thing, lol. They reported that there have been "102 giant sharks caught off popular Queensland beaches so far this year".
Posted by: crikey

Re: sharks - 16/03/2014 20:36

They were brown/fawn dolphins jax. I have been trying to locate the species on google
Not sure
But found this snap on wikopedia of dolphins surfing schnapper rocks just a few km from Fingal head so it must be common
These look darker than the ones l saw

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

As for this shark at roxy pro. Our media said it was a rare event and the shark should have been down south. LOL

Another attack off NSW coast last week . A man got bitten on his flippers while wading waist deep!
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 17/03/2014 00:58

Brown/fawn coloured dolphins sounds like the common dolphin Crikey, maybe. Depends on how the light is hitting them when you see them or when they're photographed, sometimes they look quite brown and others times almost black and white. Google pics - Common dolphin

Surprising that the man was bitten by a shark while in waist deep water, some would have you believe that sticking to the shallows is supposedly a sure way to avoid shark attack. There's that theory debunked, again.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 17/03/2014 01:18


There has been quite a few recorded shark attacks in shallow waters that fatal one at Cottesloe beach awhile back and he was in just over knee deep water... seen a couple myself too.

Theres one right there ...

Posted by: crikey

Re: sharks - 18/03/2014 21:14

NSW news breaking tonight. A little girl bitten by a shark? at lennox head
Nth nSW coast
Also a young male boarder hit by a dolphin on NSW coast the other day. Bruising to his side as the dolphin nose hit his hip region
maybe the fishing trawlers have pinched all their food?
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 19/03/2014 00:31



Hope little girl ok ...yes must be only a small percentage of food in the water for the sharks to feed on compared to what there was years ago .Remember when I was a commercial diver we used to see so many bait balls in the water with all sorts of creatures feeding off them such as Tuna ,Mackeral ,and sharks always present to strike on the feeders. The sea used to be bubbling with life but now those bait balls are fairly rare events to see.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 19/03/2014 10:01

Now being suggested it could have even been a Mackeral. Certainly a possibility as they will both react in a similar fashion to a hand splashing in the water(especially if that water is stirred up by wave action reducing the visibility)
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/04/2014 21:31

Must of been diving next to one of those drum lines.

Divers remains found with shark bites
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 03/04/2014 00:43



I wonder if they just had a bit of a chew on him because he was floating around in the water for so long....or was he attacked ?

Was a bit of an overcast day on Saturday too down there ....
Which seems to be when a lot of attacks seem to happen..
Posted by: mattsphat

Re: sharks - 03/04/2014 09:58

And another one.. http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/...x-1226873154777
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 03/04/2014 11:01

Tathra ahh that's terrible news. Beautiful area. That area I think is known for its big whites back in the whaling days. I wonder what type of shark it was.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 03/04/2014 11:55

Tathra wharf has always been known for sharks. Fisherman chased them there for years(and big ones of many varieties). Apparently fishing for them was banned there a number of years ago due to the fear of them attracting the sharks. Definitely a good way to instill a false sense of security as it would have no effect really. Sharks didn't go there because of the fisherman. Fishermen went there because of the sharks.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 03/04/2014 16:00

I am amazed at the frequency of attacks these days. It seems to be headline news regularly. WA surfer, Coffs Harbour Boogie boarder, SA Spearfisherman, Potential WA diver and now NSW ocean swimmer. That's 4 possibly 5 since November across the country. Just an observation but there has been a lot lately and right across the country not just WA. I hate hearing that headline. Sends shivers down my spine but its a risk people take. Just not a nice way to go.
Posted by: Golden State

Re: sharks - 03/04/2014 18:34

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Tathra ahh that's terrible news. Beautiful area. That area I think is known for its big whites back in the whaling days. I wonder what type of shark it was.


surely a GW or a very big tiger shark ...they're the only two that could 'turn the lights out' that swiftly and leave only remains of a victim behind.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 03/04/2014 19:24

Yeah I heard a news report saying the lady swimming turned back by herself as she normally did. As the rest of the group was returning they encountered the shark in the water and huddled together to get to shore. Group looked for their friend in the club showers but couldn't find her. Eyewitness from the shore said they saw something large mauling an object in the water. Nasty.
Posted by: Billy_SYD

Re: sharks - 03/04/2014 22:43

We should encourage the japs to hunt sharks in our waters. Keep the fin soup customers happy as well as our bathers!
Posted by: Ronfishes

Re: sharks - 03/04/2014 22:46

Beautiful spot Tathra, that's for sure. I spent many a day fishing off that wharf in my teens. Shark fishing was banned back then so has been banned for around 20 years I'd say. Saw quite a few sharks there. Not once did I consider jumping in around there, swam at the beach plenty though.
Posted by: Golden State

Re: sharks - 04/04/2014 14:42

interesting that the husband of yesterday's victim in Tathra describes the shark as being a Bronze Whaler ... obviously I'm not going to second guess an eye witness but I'm extremely doubtful a bronze whaler could kill a human so quickly and leave so little of the body behind .. pretty macabre I know.

I'd bet my left nut a GW was responsible for this one and the incident in WA on the diver too.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 04/04/2014 15:57

Big Bull shark is highly likely as well. April means the last of warm water on the south coast as a general rule and the biggest fish are usually at the extremities of the currents. I wouldn't have a go at pegging the species but I would probably put it down to one of 3 species. White, Tiger or Bull. All 3 attain a large size and the smallest of the 3(the Bull) is an aggressive species(although that term can be misleading-bold would be a better description). Big Tigers are usually more associated with deep oceanic waters(on the southern NSW coast) but are quite happy to enter shallow areas if the food is there and Whites are whites.
Posted by: Dawgggg

Re: sharks - 05/04/2014 16:29

I honestly cant think of anything worse other than getting eaten by a shark.

I would hope you would pass out very quickly from blood loss and a massive drop in blood pressure pretty much instantly if the teeth hit a main artery.
Posted by: Weary

Re: sharks - 06/04/2014 18:25

Originally Posted By: Trav dawwggg
I honestly cant think of anything worse other than getting eaten by a shark.

I would hope you would pass out very quickly from blood loss and a massive drop in blood pressure pretty much instantly if the teeth hit a main artery.

Being death rolled by a croc, no quick out there
Posted by: LightningGus

Re: sharks - 06/04/2014 19:28

Originally Posted By: Weary
Originally Posted By: Trav dawwggg
I honestly cant think of anything worse other than getting eaten by a shark.

I would hope you would pass out very quickly from blood loss and a massive drop in blood pressure pretty much instantly if the teeth hit a main artery.

Being death rolled by a croc, no quick out there


Agreed, give me a shark over a croc any day. Or getting mauled by a lion, bear etc. I would definitely rather be attacked by a shark, apparently far less painful as their teeth are so sharp you barely feel a thing. (Until your out of the water that is eek)
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 16/04/2014 13:42


Big 5 metre GWS hanging around Albany for a feed on a dead whale..

5metre Great White shark lurking
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 17/04/2014 16:18

Originally Posted By: Trav dawwggg
I honestly cant think of anything worse other than getting eaten by a shark.

I would hope you would pass out very quickly from blood loss and a massive drop in blood pressure pretty much instantly if the teeth hit a main artery.


Being staked to the ground in the path of a nest of Army ants. I reckon that would really suck.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 01/05/2014 15:53


All that effort and they didn't catch one Great White.
Although the government did kill a lot of sharks none of which has been attributed to a fatal attack on a human in W.A in the last 40 years. shocked

"Although the final cost of the trial is unknown and the Government is yet to release final figures for the number of sharks and other animals caught, it is understood not one great white shark was caught on a line."
Posted by: Markus

Re: sharks - 01/05/2014 16:36

Considering great whites are supposed to be so problematic in numbers and dangerous to public safety over there that is one hell of a fail. Waste of money, and all that was achieved was a bunch of dead tigers.
A few deaths a year for the past few never constituted a statistical trend anyway, sillyness all round.
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 01/05/2014 17:17

They probably didn't catch many/any due to the fact thta they only seem to proliferate the area in Spring - Early Summer.

Obviously of the fact that this is when they are following the whale migration , and also that the GWS is smarter than they think .
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 02/05/2014 11:56


Have to laugh only a few days after the government pulls in the drum lines ...a 4 metre GWS appears along the metro coast ..seems the Great Whites are a lot smarter than the ones who are trying to catch them...
Then again we are talking about the W.A government.. wink
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 02/05/2014 12:58


Sorry here is the link associated with my post above .

4 metre GWS off Perth
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 05/05/2014 15:22


Very rare shark

Wow this one is rare...
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 09/05/2014 13:38



Wouldn't like this to happen when out in an inflatable, just a bit scary.

GWS attacks inflatable boat
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 26/05/2014 17:54


If you want to attract a few sharks especially GWSs this is what you need on one of the metro beaches.A head of a sperm whale 3 metre long and 1.5 metre wide. Whale head washed up at local Perth beach

Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 27/05/2014 00:24

Originally Posted By: desieboy

If you want to attract a few sharks especially GWSs this is what you need on one of the metro beaches.A head of a sperm whale 3 metre long and 1.5 metre wide. Whale head washed up at local Perth beach





That would have been like finding a bag of gold once upon a time, a head full of spermacetti just washing up on the beach.

I wouldn't be too worried about the sharks just yet, they're most likely busy eating the other 10 or so metres of this whale, should keep them busy for a while. Pretty bizarre though that it has been completely decapitated - it's not exactly a slender neck to chomp through...
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 24/06/2014 22:01

I wonder if they will catch a few great whites this upcoming drum line season? I think they should start up a TV series a bit like COPS or CUSTOMS WATCH. But instead Perth GREAT WHITE HUNTERS.
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 25/06/2014 09:25

Well hopefully whoever did this are caught and punished hard!!
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2373317/shark-shooters-in-line-for-huge-fines/?cs=316
Posted by: Homer

Re: sharks - 28/06/2014 23:06

At least they won last night.

Homer
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 18/07/2014 15:28

Poor bugger choked on a seal.

Shark dies choking on seal.

At least chew before you swallow. lol
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 18/07/2014 15:46

His mum obviously never taught him table manners. I saw something about a dfferent shark recently dying because it had a Lion fish stuck in its throat. Must be the in thing at the moment.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 22/08/2014 16:51


Not good when your looking straight down the throat of a shark .
Lucky it didn't rip through his jugular vein.

shark attack in W.A frown

Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 22/08/2014 21:42

YOUCH!!!! Poor bugger. Nasty scars for life from that little spearfishing trip. I wonder if it was a reef shark? or something more like a whaler, small Tiger or something. Hope this isn't the string of shark news that hits WA about this time of year through Oct-Nov and Dec.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 09/09/2014 14:06


Definitely that time of year again....

This time an attack along a popular place Clarkes Beach, Byron Bay.

Shark Attack at Byron
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 09/09/2014 14:41

Yep. Poor bugger. At least he went doing something he loved.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 09/09/2014 16:48

Never nice to hear of these attacks. Lets hope the shark moves on and doesn't mistake another person in a wetsuit for food. Not good for Byron Bay either. With its coastal ocean lifestyle incidents like this will put a little doubt in peoples minds for some time to come.

Never nice to see footage on TV with family mourning at the scene. Turned on ABC 24 to see the wife being escorted away looking distraught. Media need to be a bit more tactful in what they show. If that's possible.
Posted by: Dawgggg

Re: sharks - 09/09/2014 18:45

The media makes me rage with the reporting of shark attacks.

The only organisations bringing up the need for a cull are the media. Argghhhh.
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 10/09/2014 09:22

Originally Posted By: Trav dawwggg
The media makes me rage with the reporting of shark attacks.

The only organisations bringing up the need for a cull are the media. Argghhhh.


Yeah Trav, the media don't really care what happens as long as the news sells.
It was only a couple of weeks ago the media were talking about getting rid of the nets on the GC because of a couple of whales had been caught in the nets, now the same mob are pushing to have nets put in at Byron Bay!!
Go figure!!
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 12/09/2014 10:36

One can only hope that Tiger from the Predators does not hold any grudges!

WA shark cull: Drum lines dumped after EPA recommendations
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-11/wa-dumps-shark-drum-lines-after-epa-review/5737526

Drum lines will not be deployed off WA beaches this summer after the state's Environmental Protection Authority advised against extending the Government's controversial catch and kill shark policy.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 12/09/2014 11:27

Yes it was always a very controversial subject the ole drum lines. Lets just hope WA goes fatality free for a few years to settle the whole issue down. It was getting out of control there for a while with the numbers of people being killed.

I am sure the drum lines didn't influence the attack free period when they were deployed but I would hate to see the outcry when someone gets attacked in a few weeks time and then another and another. I will give it to Christmas to see what unfolds but honestly I think the waters off the SW will be pretty sharky for the next few months.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 12/09/2014 12:26

It should be Pretty sharky given that is id still whale migration season. The whites will undoubtedly be following the whales picking off the weaker calves.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/09/2014 12:58

Originally Posted By: Gad
WA shark cull: Drum lines dumped after EPA recommendations


Common sense prevails.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 12/09/2014 13:39

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Originally Posted By: Gad
WA shark cull: Drum lines dumped after EPA recommendations


Common sense prevails.


I know the EPA is there for good reasons but its a pity this announcements was made 24hrs after the biggest bungle in EPA history with huge conflict of interest processes in mining project approvals.

EPA would be on everyone's dodgy books at the moment and for some time to come. Different topic I know but just adds to the fuel that will no doubt come when people start getting snapped up over the next few months. YUM YUM.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 12/09/2014 19:43

Agree Popeye. The descision was politically based for sure as most of the EPA's descisions are. The right descision in my mind regardless of how many people get eaten. Now if only they would get rid of them over here too.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/09/2014 20:18

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Originally Posted By: Gad
WA shark cull: Drum lines dumped after EPA recommendations


Common sense prevails.


I know the EPA is there for good reasons but its a pity this announcements was made 24hrs after the biggest bungle in EPA history with huge conflict of interest processes in mining project approvals.

EPA would be on everyone's dodgy books at the moment and for some time to come. Different topic I know but just adds to the fuel that will no doubt come when people start getting snapped up over the next few months. YUM YUM.


They are a government department so are open to the usual threats when a government wants things done a certain way. I'm not sure what you are referring to with the mines but here in Qld the government simply change laws without consultation and bypass the EPA completely

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-12/la...ing-lea/5741032


Regardless of the controversy the mining issue has most people seething against the miners whereas the shark cull had majority support to stop it. In this instance the EPA will appear like the good guys and maybe that was their only agenda?

Perhaps Barnett can put up the $600,000 he was paying his commercial fishing mate towards funding tag and track and maybe then he'll be taken seriously in his claims that his concern is public safety and not how he polls.

I'd be prepared to wager that the guy taken at Byron was swimming amongst more than one great white. It is the eastern most land point on the Australian mainland and the Humpbacks come in very close there every year at this time on their way back south to Antarctica.

Had the government started a properly funded satellite tracking program years ago they'd know so much more than they do now about the habits and issue appropriate warnings. With the Humpback whale's population growth near double digits each year it is reasonable to expect more GWs will interact with humans as the food source increases.



Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 21/09/2014 13:27

Originally Posted By: Popeye
I wonder if they will catch a few great whites this upcoming drum line season?


Not in WA smile
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 21/09/2014 16:56

Ahhhh should be able to drown a few on drumlines in NSW and Qld though. poke wink Nahh don't want to drag up old debates but it will be interesting to see if there are any attacks in WA over the next 3 months. Be nice to go a few years without someone getting munched over here. Mind you the attention of late has been focused more off SA with that young spearfisherman being taken earlier in the year, NSW with the Tathra fatality and now Byron Bay. The attacks are being spread a bit more and taking the focus off WA.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 21/09/2014 20:15

No-one wants to see people taken but the drum lines don't work. The next step is to get rid off them in eastern states. Victoria doesn't use then or nets and hasn't had an attack in 27 years despite great whites being present and plenty of surfers in the water. More natural prey perhaps? There is obviously a reason for it.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 21/09/2014 23:31

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
No-one wants to see people taken but the drum lines don't work.


When was the last attack a drum protected beach in Queensland? Never, that's when. Not one.

Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 22/09/2014 00:55

Really? You've forgotten already Jax?

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Woman_killed_in_shark_attack_at_Amity_Point,_Australia


How's that theory working for NSW lately? Most of the sharks caught in nets up here are caught on their way out. Very telling.

Maybe you can tell us all how many Great Whites were caught during Premier Colon Barnacle's trial? Those were the species you tried to justify the drum lines for after all. NONE. EVER .Not one wink

It seems those of us opposed to the CULL had the last laugh .

Happy surfing .
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 22/09/2014 11:21

Amity Beach doesn't have drum lines. Other beaches on the island are protected by drum lines.

You're right, no great whites were caught here, due to the timing. Now and for the next few months is the time to catch that species, which is not when the trial took place. Now and for the next few months is when most attacks in WA happen too.

By the way, it was three species that were targeted in that trial, not just that one.

Really, if people want to save the plight of the shark, they ought not worry about the few hundred caught around an entire country on drum lines over a period of months, and focus instead on the tens and hundreds of thousands caught for their flesh and fins and oil around the planet, every year.
Posted by: T_D_S

Re: sharks - 22/09/2014 11:47

Originally Posted By: Jax
Amity Beach doesn't have drum lines.


Really???

https://www.daff.qld.gov.au/__data/asset...ookout-edit.pdf
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 22/09/2014 11:54

My mistake. (...CF's link clearly states that "other beaches on the island are protected").

Anyway, Queensland has had one attack at a drum protected beach in more than half a century, I'd be happy to see the same odds over here.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 22/09/2014 14:33

Originally Posted By: Jax
My mistake.


Not the first.

Originally Posted By: Jax
I'd be happy to see the same odds over here.


Easy fixed. Stay out of the water or lobby that moron Barnett to invest in tag tracking or the new "kelp nets" that are showing promising results.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 22/09/2014 15:57

Nice of you to edit that personal insult in after posting cold front. If you were to empty your pm folder I could have put this there - not the first time. Seems not much changes with you. All yours pal, I'm not prepared to go through all this crap with you again. Ciao, and happy trolling.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 22/09/2014 16:55

Still playing the victim ? I read your post before you edited it sunshine. Glass houses and all that. Good luck over coming that fear of the ocean. Maybe time to find another hobby or swim in a pool?

Logic and ration won the day.
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 22/09/2014 22:18

Déjà Poo: The feeling that we've had this crap before ...
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 22/09/2014 22:39

For those interested in the actual topic here is the clip from 60 minutes where Allison Langdon dived without a cage and contains info on the trial of artificial kelp. Brave girl. I'm not sure I would get in without a cage.

http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/the-great-white-part-2/xsr3gpp
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 23/09/2014 12:05


Have to agree with what that bloke said in the video ..maybe because of dwindling food sources the big guys including GWSs further up the the food chains may be trying different things on the menu.
The video showed that the sharks definitely didn't want to attack the divers who showed less fear in that particular area anyway. May be a few factors in that though..e.g same sharks may have seen a lot of divers there over time .

I personally know sharks can be frightened by purging your regulator close to them as we used to have to do this with reef and whaler sharks that got too friendly when we were working the pearl shells on the bottom , especially when we were cleaning shells.

Very few victims of shark attacks actually get completely consumed by sharks...most get bitten and then unfortunately die from their injuries.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 23/09/2014 12:14

Originally Posted By: desieboy


Very few victims of shark attacks actually get completely consumed by sharks...most get bitten and then unfortunately die from their injuries.




Very true. in fact Jax' claims regarding Queensland attacks even with the correction he made are still untrue. There have been several whilst nets have been in place .It's just that the attacks were not fatal.

Glad you took the time to watch the video Desie. Education is the key.

Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 23/09/2014 12:19

Actually don't really buy into the lack of food being a reason for attacking humans. To be honest I think it is more likely to be the other way around for most attacks. Especially in realation to Australia where most attacks are either Bullsharks or Whites. Attacks seem t be more prevalent when there is a specific food source in an area that the sharks are targeting. For Bullsharks it is often when bait fish are flushed out of estuaries by heavy rains and for whites it seems most attacks are either in the whale migration season or around seal colonies. Ad the reason that divers are attacked less often is because they are less active in the water. Sorry but surfers and swimmers could not possibly do more to look like an easy target and an animal in distress in need of being picked off.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 23/09/2014 12:21

Loved it how they chummed up the water with blood and fish to attract the Sharks to the area then jumped in. Asking for trouble that bloke. Would have made a great news story with a 60 minutes reporter being munched on camera. Stupid woman. No doubt there would have been some form of 'Bang stick' on hand if things got nasty. I am sure if things went pear shaped that story wouldn't have made it to TV.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 23/09/2014 13:26


Not long after I quit the Pearl Farm there was an unfortunate incident when a diver was attacked and eaten by numerous sharks.

The area No39 where the divers were turning shells was renowned for 2 things ..schools of trevally and smaller sharks.
The diver was working on a day in a 7 meter tide and the visibility was only about 4 meters and he was completely surrounded by a large school of fish .His diving buddy had seen a few sharks working the school and picking off fish on the peripheries and noticed a couple of bigger sharks joining into the action.
Suddenly a big whaler appeared and was thrashing through the school and came upon the diver during what seemed to be a frenzy and latched onto his arm and basically ripped it from the diver.
Smaller sharks appeared and with all the blood and excitement they also attacked the diver and unfortunately as his buddy said ,when he went over to see what was happening he saw lots of sharks feeding on his buddy's body.
Only small wetsuit and bone parts were all that remained when they tried to retrieve his body.

Personally I think the shark that attacked him first was that frenzied it became a case of mistaken identity and the poor diver was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 23/09/2014 13:46

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
Sorry but surfers and swimmers could not possibly do more to look like an easy target and an animal in distress in need of being picked off.


I agree with that but not the rest of it. The whites are probably migrating with the whales more often due to the near extinction of Southern Bluefin which when in abundance would have been an easy food source.

South Africa is the only place on earth where humans swim amongst a know bull shark without ever recording an attack colony due to an abundance of natural prey.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 23/09/2014 14:01

Australian fur seal numbers have never recovered either despite protection after the fur trade stopped and it too is due to over fishing. They are also a preferred food source for great Whites.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 24/09/2014 00:48

Originally Posted By: ColdFront

South Africa is the only place on earth where humans swim amongst a know bull shark without ever recording an attack colony due to an abundance of natural prey.


Not sure how that happened. It should have read.....

"South Africa is the only place on earth where humans swim amongst a know bull shark colony without ever recording an attack due to an abundance of natural prey."
Posted by: pogonantha

Re: sharks - 24/09/2014 06:59

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Originally Posted By: ColdFront

South Africa is the only place on earth where humans swim amongst a know bull shark without ever recording an attack colony due to an abundance of natural prey.


Not sure how that happened. It should have read.....

"South Africa is the only place on earth where humans swim amongst a know bull shark colony without ever recording an attack due to an abundance of natural prey."


Dont sweat it coldie,at least it gave you an excuse to quote yourself again.. wink

I wish I knew so much about sharks that I could make such an absolute statement as you have done..are they really such simplistic creature's..?
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 24/09/2014 09:12

Ahh Coldie will do anything to 'Drum' it into people.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 24/09/2014 10:13

Originally Posted By: pogonantha
..are they really such simplistic creature's..?


Are you trying to determine where they rank alongside yourself? Limit your catch, don't catch your limit.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 14:17

News just In on abc shark attack near esperance wa

Esperance shark attack: Man seriously hurt at Wylie Bay
Updated 2 Oct 2014, 1:51pmThu 2 Oct 2014, 1:51pm

A man has been attacked by a shark near Esperance in southern Western Australia, police have said.

The attack happened at Wylie Bay this morning and the victim is understood to have sustained serious injuries.

A spokesman for the water police said the attack happened about 11:00am (AWST).

He said the man's injuries were not believed to be life-threatening.

The victim has been taken to hospital.

More to come.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 14:21

One news article says he lost both arms. Will wait to see if that is true. Lucky to be alive if it is the case.
Others say bitten on both arms.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 14:30

More likely the latter one Popeye. At least would assume so if the report said they were not life threatening injuries.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 14:40

The more news feeds I read say he lost both arms. Nasty....

The spokesman said the incident happened about 11am and advised the man had been bitten on both of his arms. The person who called the ambulance said the man had lost one arm from the wrist and other from the elbow, along with suffering lacerations to a leg.

Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 15:35


Says the surfer lost part of both arms and also suffered leg injuries in the attack.
8 years ago someone lost their leg in Esperance from a shark attack.
Yet to determine what type of shark though but a GWS was spotted there just recently about 50 meters off the beach.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 15:36

Sounds like it. Mind you I will still wait untill the hub hub dies down before I have zero doubts. But if he did lose both arms or part thereof it almost sounds like he was trying to fight it off. Poor bugger.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 18:24

A WA Fisheries spokeswoman confirmed late this afternoon a 3-4.5m great white shark has been captured and would be killed.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 18:27

Great. REDNEKS UNITE!!!
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 18:32

Shark attack story
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 18:34

I wonder how they caught it? Drum lines for 5 months and nothing. First attack since and they catch it within 5 hours.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 18:41

At a beach 500km from where the drumlins were and by a species not even caught on the lines. Cue the knee jerk rubbish again. The attack is unfortunate but the guy was reportedly 150 mtrs behind the break where they are known to hunt.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 19:44

Not sure what your getting at there Coldie. The question I asked was I wonder how they caught it?
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 19:50

It will be interesting to see if the caught shark was responsible for the attack!!
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 20:32

" A 3-4.5m white pointer was caught on a baited drum line and destroyed late this afternoon."
He must of been hungry to take from a drum line. I thought those things didn't work.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 20:46

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Not sure what your getting at there Coldie. The question I asked was I wonder how they caught it?


I don't see anywhere where I quoted you.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 20:51

What happens when a young shark forgets its place in the order.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/v...australia-video
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 20:53

Yep fair enough.

I wonder if catching it was as simple as chumming and dragging baited lines through the water similar to what they do around the Neptune Islands shark cage diving to attract the sharks to the cages. Sharks learned habits may be their downfall.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 20:57

I wonder if their learned habits of being chummed and teased and fed to draw them in towards cages with humans inside is a reason why attacks have increased in the last decade with the increasing popularity of shark cage diving in S A.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 21:06

News just then said first responder on the beach spoke to the young guy moments after the attack and the victim said he thought he was attacked by 2 sharks in a feeding frenzy and he thought they were bronze whalers and not great whites. Talk about throw a spanner in the whole story.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 21:13

With the money Barnett has wasted so far they could have put a tracker on this one and learnt plenty from it. After all it is now a man eater. Killing it won't help the guy that was attacked.

An opportunity wasted and another protected species killed.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 21:14

Ah doesn't matter. They'll just keep randomly killing until they get the right one or not. But it'll make Em feel better. That's what a limited brain pan does.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 21:18

In all honesty I think the next 10 weeks is not going to be good news in regards to shark attacks in wa. Let's hope there are no more attacks but with the amount of recent inshore sightings around the sw then it can only mean frequent encounters between people and sharks. This will be a heated topic no doubt. Gather your quotes coldie. Lol. Jax where are you haha.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 21:31

`What the debate doesn't need is someone trolling it encouraging conflict. Your mate has said he won't be back so maybe this being the third time he has said it he may honour it. He's too emotionally involved for the victims . The thing is that I understand the human emotional factor and always have done but I will not succumb to some misguided fear about these creatures.

I witnessed enough flip flopping in this thread last summer to last a life time. Stupid comments like "Now I am off the fence to oppose you for opposing the cull". Seriously? Who the heck does that? Nothing will EVER change my stand point on conservation of Great White sharks. There is no grey area here. They are listed as vulnerable for a reason and that should be respected.

Finally it seems that Barnett is listening to reason and will be installing barriers. They wouldn't have done jack however to prevent this attack.

Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 02/10/2014 21:48

People are entitled to their opinions. I hope you have been moving forward with your strong beliefs and recommending the QLD government remove those hundreds of Drumlines in your safe beaches to protect your precious people. Ahh what the heck capture and kill a few crocs while your at it to. lol
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 03/10/2014 02:12

Apparently they have caught and killed a 2nd shark tonight in the same area. Those drumlines are working well. Better get them back out there. crazy wink
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 03/10/2014 08:07

Your dead right Popeye. Rednecks are not jut restricted to WA. QLD has plenty of them too ad there brain pans are generally about the same size and only have the ability to work in shortsighted mode.
Funny thing about this episode is it sounds like in their hunger for instant revenge the authorities have likely killed two of a protected species even though it has been reported that they were Bronzies that did the damage(very likely considering the nature of the attack).
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 03/10/2014 15:00


Yes Brett, Revenge it seems can be a terrible thing.

They put the drum lines to catch GWSs last summer and caught Tigers and Whalers and disposed of quite a few of them.
Then they catch on the drum lines GWSs when the culprit is a Bronze Whaler .

Next thing they will catch a Grey Nurse and kill that as well... shocked

They can't get it right and the stupid West Aussie government is just clutching at straws trying to find a solution.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 03/10/2014 15:18

Originally Posted By: desieboy


Next thing they will catch a Grey Nurse and kill that as well... shocked

They can't get it right and the stupid West Aussie government is just clutching at straws trying to find a solution.


They cannot get it right because culling simply does not work. I see that stupid premier is flapping his gums again today. Clown hasn't learnt a thing.

It was the surfer that said it was two Bronze whalers but he is being over ridden.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 03/10/2014 15:23

Well. My personal opinion is that it doesn't eve matter if culling worked(and as CF says it is highly dubious as to whether it does). I contest that everyone that has been attacked has made a conscious decision to put themselves in a position where an attack was possible. It is there right to make that decision but they should accept the consequences of it. What is so hard about that?
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 03/10/2014 16:11

My opinion is this. Darwin harbour trap and remove crocodiles, same with Litchfield, Katherine Gorge and many other places, QLD Similar systems in place with crocodiles In populated Nth Qld towns and cities, Shark drumlines and nets on Qld popular beaches, NSW shark nets on popular beaches.

WA arhh jump in the water you decide to be in their habitat you need to expect to be eaten. Whilst I agree with that I still find it hard that there is not a basic level attempt in WA at protecting metropolitan beaches considering the level of attacks that have occurred. YEAH YEAH YEAH fellas talk it up as much as you like from the other side of the country but when it comes down to it WA and Australians right to enjoy our coastal waters is being influenced hugely. YEAH YEAH YEAH swim in a pool bahaha. Try telling that to generations of West Aussies that have grown up swimming and recreating in our waters. From what I can see and hear from people nearly everyday through work is people are Sh!t scared of WA waters. Be it crocs in the Nth or Sharks down south. Its a pity its come to this and yet people cry sooky lala when the government attempts to at least alleviate peoples fear by attempting the basic level of protection. Last I heard EPA was Australia wide. Maybe they need to dig out the documents already in place and make comment on those ridiculous netting and drumline practices in Place but OH NO that would risk all those precious populated areas in NSW and QLD. OH no we cant have that. Its BullSh!t. And you guys know it so get off your high horse red neck crap and focus on the tossers in your own state first.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 03/10/2014 16:20

Spoke to a high school teacher from Busselton today. He is or should I say was right into surfing. He was mentioning that the numbers of kids in the school that used to surf 10 years ago compared to now has been more than halved due to the kids being sh!te scared about being out in the water. Doesn't that suck. People now go to the beach but they barely go more than waist deep these days. Diving operations going quiet. Unless you hear the real story of whats unfolding it hard to know how much this has influenced people.

One croc surfing a wave on Cable Beach last year going viral on the social media now makes the majority of people think there are crocs swimming the coast every day around here. Well fark I havnt seen any sign of that and I have been on the waters every day for 14 years.

I don't see a problem with protecting some beaches areas from Sharks in WA purely to satisfy peoples anxiety a little. Yeah tough luck sharks I know but hey something has to be done and I can see the headlines in 4 weeks time when some young surfer or kid or adult gets taken again off the WA coast. And another and another.................
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 03/10/2014 16:21

I say the same thing about the crocs and sharks over here Popeye. I reckon leave em where they are. Not that anyone listens but what would you expect.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 03/10/2014 16:29

So no one listens in QLD and that's what you expect yet here in WA we are told to toughen up and deal with it. Yeah I agree take all those drumlins and nets down and let the odd fatal attack through on Bondi Beach, off Noosa, A few croc attacks in Townsville and Cairns and lets see them cry when people freak out visiting these places. Perfect example of this in Byron Bay. I feel sorry for the place must be the worst thing to happen to a place like that with someone getting attacked 20 metres off the coast. The place where little kids learn to surf and all the fun Aussie beach lifestyle is born.

Well that's what has happened here 11 times. Margaret River, Yallingup, Bunker Bay, Safety Bay, Rottnest Island, Cottesloe Beach, Wedge Island, Abrolhos islands. Tainted in a big way.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 03/10/2014 16:38

No I don't really expect people in WA to listen to my opinion either. I just put it out there.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 03/10/2014 16:41

Originally Posted By: Popeye
and lets see them cry when people freak out visiting these places.



...and there it is. The real reason we should all be supporting a cull. GREED. I'll be sure to keep the croc thread going. I fact I think I might start a face book page highlighting the obvious danger of using canoes and kayaks in crocodile domains and spread the word. of course the reality is that these animals are a major tourism attraction but let's wet our pants instead.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 03/10/2014 16:44

Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Originally Posted By: Popeye
and lets see them cry when people freak out visiting these places.



...and there it is. The real reason we should all be supporting a cull. GREED. I'll be sure to keep the croc thread going. I fact I think I might start a face book page highlighting the obvious danger of using canoes and kayaks in crocodile domains and spread the word. of course the reality is that these animals are a major tourism attraction but let's wet our pants instead.


Whats that supposed to mean? Talk about steeping low mate. Good onya. Brain pan is definitely lacking up your way heat getting to you.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 03/10/2014 16:47


On a personal level when I was down Busselton in Feb swimming with my 8 year old daughter I felt so glad and was so much more relaxed with the shark net on the outside perimeters of the new U shaped jetty.

When I was swimming only 20 meters off shore at Mandalay beach near Walpole ,I kind of always had my eye out for anything that remotely looked like it had a fin on it's back. wink

I suppose that reassurance with the nets is what it may take at the more popular swimming places.I did noticed the nets their using couldn't catch a shark or fish if it tried but were nice and thick to stop animals coming through it. But hey W.A is a huge state and you definitely have to be taking a few chances in 99% of the ocean here.

When we were surfing a lot especially in remote spots e.g Black Point etc we always knew things could get nasty at any time cause we continually saw the bad guys .We were made well aware of the fact that we were out there with the sharks and accepted the dangers. wink

Maybe the dangers have increased in the last few years as the statistics truly point in that direction.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 03/10/2014 17:17

Love the Channel 9 East Coast news feed on TV. "Two sharks killed after attack on surfer South of Perth yesterday." Yeah sure its South of Perth 1200kms of coastline south of Perth or the equivalent length of the entire NSW coastline. Goes to show how much they know about WA. lol.

A bit like saying Shark attack south of Brisbane in Tathra. Or Shark attack East of Melbourne at Byron Bay.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 03/10/2014 18:09

They do the same thing over here Popeye. If it's north of about Rocky it's generally referred to as North QLD. Kinda makes you laugh.
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 03/10/2014 23:04

Originally Posted By: Popeye
Originally Posted By: ColdFront
Originally Posted By: Popeye
and lets see them cry when people freak out visiting these places.



...and there it is. The real reason we should all be supporting a cull. GREED. I'll be sure to keep the croc thread going. I fact I think I might start a face book page highlighting the obvious danger of using canoes and kayaks in crocodile domains and spread the word. of course the reality is that these animals are a major tourism attraction but let's wet our pants instead.


Whats that supposed to mean? Talk about steeping low mate. Good onya. Brain pan is definitely lacking up your way heat getting to you.


How disgustingly pathetic.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 03/10/2014 23:33

I agree . Money should never be a motivator to justify killing our wildlife.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 04/10/2014 13:35

This was in the news today.

Tough line on sharks in W.A
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 04/10/2014 16:56

Pointless but expected
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 04/10/2014 17:42

Barnett banging his chest. Yep pointless but expected.
Posted by: Hurricane force

Re: sharks - 04/10/2014 20:44

One would wonder if a person who makes these decisions understands the importance of the species!!!
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 12/10/2014 00:30

Attack on an inflatable boat off Dunsborough this evening. Lucky boys. Would have been a scary few minutes getting back to shore.

Shark attack on inflatable boat
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 12/10/2014 01:08


That would be pretty scarey seeing a shark attack your inflatable knowing that there is only a few millimeters of rubber between you and those nasty sharp teeth. shocked
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 12/10/2014 02:18

Just like Popeye, I am wondering how they can catch and kill two Great Whites in a couple days off bated drum lines, when they didn't catch any last year at all even with all those numerous bate lines and extra days or should I say months. The statistics just don't add up. Either they changed the bait that was used last year, or they killed the sharks in another way. I am intrigued as to why Barnett would even state how they were killed to the media. Maybe there is a hidden agenda here.

As for why people are too scared to get into the water now in WA, is because they are now educated and aware of the potential risks involved. In QLD the public don't get into the water either, due to the risks of stingers, crocodiles, and sharks. However there is still a huge amount of tourists that come to this state. Maybe WA needs a new advertising campaign for tourism. That businesses who once relied heavily on water sports may need to re-evaluate their business strategies.
Posted by: Adele

Re: sharks - 12/10/2014 03:06

The debate on whether a protected species such as the Great White shark being culled or moved if possible due to the potential risk to human safety argument, has really been argued in the area that I live in at the moment. No it isn't the Great White shark, as I live in Middlemount QLD about three and a half hours drive from the coast (just as Jax pointed this out once LOL). The animal that is being judged is another protected species the fruit bat. However, the argument is the the same for both of these protected species. Both have the potential to kill a human being. Some of you may ask if my views has changed now, and the answer is no. What I have done is not to get into the emotional hype that some other residents in town have done. Instead I have educated myself and my family of the potential risks associated with this animal, and we are now aware of what actions are required if we come into direct contact with this animal. Yes a shark may kill you instantly, but the fruit bat can still kill you slowly if you don't get the right medical treatment straight away. Maybe we can all argue about whether fruit bats should be relocated or culled on it's on thread as well. Jax your more than welcome to join in the argument as well.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 14/10/2014 12:44

Maybe have to start another thread up Adele in the lounge section about bats. As far as the culling etc of Great Whites that is a giant political football .Personally I don't agree with any culling at all.

Better education as to the dangers of being in the water in a shark's domain should be the way to go.

After all they do live in the water and we don't! No one is forcing us to go into the water .It's depends on a personal decision based on our own experiences and calculations as to the risk factors and then its up to each individual to make their own choice.

Cloudy days seem to be the worst for attacks so if its overcast and you see a fin cruising the circuit ...look for a pool to swim in. wink


Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 14/10/2014 14:15

Originally Posted By: desieboy

Better education as to the dangers of being in the water in a shark's domain should be the way to go.

...look for a pool to swim in. wink




I love your attitude Desie.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 14/10/2014 14:20

Education? That'll never work. People already know the dangers. It should just be a matter of saying 'deal with it'.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 14/10/2014 14:32



Making people more aware of contributing factors that may put them in increased danger of an attack , couldn't be a bad thing in my opinion.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 14/10/2014 16:00

Yeah, but poeple don't want to know Desiboy and you can't help those who don't want to help themselves. o different to those that live in Cyclone, flood or fire zones and don't understand the dangers. It doesn't matter what you do you'll never beat it into their dense skulls
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 15/10/2014 13:14

Where is the outrage for this?

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/15/snake-bite-kills-man-in-western-australia
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 15/10/2014 19:07

Both work well... poke wink



Posted by: Dawgggg

Re: sharks - 17/10/2014 08:37

Shark attack on NSW central coast.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 17/10/2014 13:08

It was a surfer attacking a shark apparently.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-17/girl-bitten-by-shark-at-nsw-beach/5820848
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 17/10/2014 14:20

Still better hunt it down. NO shark has the right to use OUR beaches. We built them and we own them.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 17/10/2014 17:52



She is a bit lucky though...

But people just have got to learn that sharks always have right of way on a wave. wink....and don't fall off your board right in front of a shark. frown
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 17/10/2014 18:05

The girl left the hospital after a few stitches and headed down the street for some well deserved flake and chips. lol. Payback.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 17/10/2014 18:23

Haw, haw, haw. We haven't heard that one several times already. Haw, haw, haw. I'm in stitches .Haw, haw ,haw. Because the shark responsible is in a Fish and Chip shop already. Haw, haw, haw.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 17/10/2014 18:43

Glad you liked it Coldie.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 31/10/2014 15:52

Amazing photo sequence of surfer and Great White shark off Esperance recently.

Great White in Esperance
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 31/10/2014 17:00


Yes good pictures Popeye.Good thing the water is so clear down there and easier to spot, when its strong onshore the clarity changes pretty fast as it kicks up off the sandy bottom.

Would be kind of hoping that I would be catching that wave in asap if it was me. wink
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 31/10/2014 17:10

Awesome pics. And I like his attitude as well. And his response. It may have saved his life.
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 31/10/2014 17:40

Yes great set of pics indeed!!

Whats more disturbing is the way people talk to one another in the comments below the pics!! lol
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 01/11/2014 14:18



Even if they haven't got anything to protect humans against sharks in the water ...someone has invented something to protect dogs.

Shark Fin Life Jacket - Protect your dog grin

Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 03/11/2014 17:35

By the way did anyone hear about the boy attacked and killed by lightning while swimming at a beach a couple of days ago. I really think something needs to be done about this viscious phenomenon or we won't be able to go swimming at the beaches we own.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 12/11/2014 17:10

A dive they'll never forget from my own experience a long time ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-11/ad...counter/5883164
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 30/11/2014 11:27

A teenager had a bit of a touch up surfing in WA yesterday. Back in the water today.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/wa-news/boy-bitten-by-shark-at-port-bouvard-20141129-11wmzz.html
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 01/12/2014 01:31


Yes shark had a bit of a chew ..hes a good tough kid.
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 03/12/2014 17:10

Originally Posted By: desieboy

..hes a good tough kid.

yes, probably a country lad, ever noticed how out in the country areas, the school zones are marked 80kph laugh
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 15/12/2014 15:38

A teenager passed away after a shark attack on the reef today.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 15/12/2014 16:25


Yep poor bugger ...interesting to see if they find out what type of shark..?

Shark attack in QLD
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 15/12/2014 16:29

That will be released later no doubt. Not much point speculating.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 16/12/2014 13:12


Quote from the ABC news on the shark attack.....No attacks in 25 years in Cairns ? Is that true?

Also if fish involved then its does tend to attract sharks ...my mate spend an extra hour and a half under water last year trying to get back to his boat while hooker diving, fending of white and black tips who wanted his catch which he had in a dive bag attached to a buoy.

Quote :

The teen had injuries to his right upper leg into his groin and his right upper arm, Cairns Queensland Ambulance spokesman Greg Thiedecke said

Mr Thiedecke said shark attacks in the region were rare.

"I grew up in Cairns and ... [there's been no shark attacks] in my 25 years of service, so it is very rare," he said.

A shark researcher said it was likely the shark that killed the teenager was after the fish he had caught.

Richard Fitzpatrick from James Cook University said a shark does not have to be big to cause fatal injuries.

"There's a few different reef sharks out there. But until bites are identified, size ratios and the radius of the bite and all that kind of stuff it'd be a bit hard to determine exactly what species it was," he said.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 16/12/2014 13:48

Originally Posted By: desieboy

Quote from the ABC news on the shark attack.....No attacks in 25 years in Cairns ? Is that true?





Yes. But this was 100 k's north of Cairns and there was a fatal attack in that area a decade ago. The Whitsundays hadn't had any recorded attacks for a century then they had 2 in one year (both non-fatal) .Considering the millions of people who dive on the reef he was certainly unlucky.

The area is a favourite spot for spearfishermen apparently so perhaps the sharks are more aggressive there as a result. It's also known for large whalers. They are known to head up rivers and it's fairly close to the mouth of the Daintree River. Though the species responsible hasn't been verified yet.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 16/12/2014 14:22

I don't think the type of shark is really all that important. It's a shark. Tragic but it happens
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 16/12/2014 14:26

Not sure where anyone said it was important?

Meanwhile Great Whites and inflatables don't mix .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCUc3U8WVMo
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 20/12/2014 14:04


If your a Great White in W.A you better stay away from the coast or else . frown

Shark catch and kill

The decision comes under the State Government’s guidelines for the take of a shark posing a serious threat to public safety.”

Government gone drum lining again...
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 20/12/2014 18:23

Neckminute. Honestly it's like a redneck convention isn't it?
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 21/12/2014 00:44


The shark is monitored for 2 years done nothing just been doing normal shark things but it comes in towards the coast and suddenly its on the government hit list .
Doesn't seem right to me..
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 21/12/2014 00:51

Brian Guest was taken this week back in 2008 in the same spot 25metres off the beach. While its unlikely to be the same shark, there would be a lot of people in the local community being reminded of this particular attack.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 21/12/2014 01:01

Originally Posted By: desieboy

The shark is monitored for 2 years done nothing just been doing normal shark things but it comes in towards the coast and suddenly its on the government hit list .
Doesn't seem right to me..



That's because it's not right. Great Whites regularly come in close where there are swimmers. I can even show you one captured on google earth just 150 mtrs from swimmers if you're interested. The only reason more don't show is because of the surface condition when the aerial shots were done.. The trackers of California reveal exactly the same thing. The last 3 fatal attacks have been on the east coast . Yet I didn't hear so much as a murmur about calls for a cull from anyone.

Your premier is a clown Desieboy. He is acting more out of spite against the EPA than out of ration simply because he can't be told. If they know where the shark is because they can track it then it is more logical to issue warnings of a shark in the area than to wait until one without a tracker takes its place.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 21/12/2014 01:58

The shark detection stations worked well the other day when down Meelup Beach Dunsborough/Margaret River area. Rocked up to beach, overcast cold day but jumped in anyway. Kids having a blast, phone rings at the life saver caravan and beached closed straight away. 4 metre Tiger tagged set off the transmitter and beach was closed. First closure for the summer apparently. Trust us to be the only clowns in the water. lol.

Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 21/12/2014 13:35



That happened to me too Popeye last Feb down at Meelup beach a Tiger shark spotted from a helicopter ..the shark was around the corner at Eagle Bay.
They closed the beach for about an hour.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 21/12/2014 13:42



I saw a documentary on sharks made here in Oz recently and the experts where saying that the younger sharks about 2-3 metres were more likely to attack a human because they are testing out what they can eat and what is less palatable as a food source.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 29/12/2014 16:22

Possible reports of a fatal shark attack near Albany. Only just in so will wait and see. Not good news.

Albany Fatal Shark attack WA
Posted by: S .O.

Re: sharks - 29/12/2014 16:45

No good ...
Cheynes was a whaling station at some point .
It's definitely not a photo of it in that article .
I saw a tv show the other night that showed that locals still do netting there for salmon once a year .
Is a nice spot , and occasionally gets waves in rare spring summer conditions .
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 29/12/2014 18:19


More information coming in now ...


Shark attack in Albany
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 29/12/2014 19:04

Poor bugger 17yo by latest reports.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 29/12/2014 19:07

Barnett will no doubt be doing some game fishing these holidays. I wonder if he will catch anything.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 29/12/2014 19:38



Hard to believe how many attacks have been occurring recently.

What is going on?
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 29/12/2014 21:50

Combination of coincidence and more people in the water basically. That along with the constant increase of marine mammals and an increase in certain baitfish species in close( in my guess produced by the 2010-2011 La-nina floods), which attract the sharks in would pretty well account for it I reckon.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 29/12/2014 22:23

Spear fishing, deep water, known Great White shark area. Served up on a platter. Time for Barnett to fluff his chest again. 3 fatal attacks on the eastern sea board in the past year and no calls for a cull.

Jaws is on TV in a few minutes. Digitally remastered.
Posted by: Popeye

Re: sharks - 29/12/2014 22:35

What's there to ask for, they already have drum lines and nets in place on the Eastern Seaboard and have for years. Not going to bother getting into that argument again. Enjoy your movie. Maybe get onto the producers and request them to digitally remaster it so Jaws doesn't get culled lol.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 29/12/2014 22:43

Yeah those drum lines on the eastern seaboard did a sterling job of saving the last 3 victims. Or rather they simply proved they don't work. Culling those two Whites in October didn't save this guy did it?

The shark in the movie is rubber. Just thought you should know.

...and Desieboy the increased pressure on our marine species by us may be a contributing factor. Particularly Tuna stocks.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 30/12/2014 00:02



That was what I've been thinking all the way along less food available so might as well give other things in the water (e.g humans) a try.

But that doesn't exactly explain why the sharks aren't actually eating us with most of the attacks.?

Could that be because they are still evolving to eat us because afterall we havent been in the water for all the years they have been ?...
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 30/12/2014 00:15

Last two attacks were spear fisherman who had both killed fish.

As for not eating , great whites test bite first and with varying force. This guy wasn't on the menu. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and got a test bite to his leg that proved fatal from early reports. If it had of been a full blown assault there would be no leg.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 30/12/2014 09:09

Gotta love the mentality of rednecks. The shark was shot in the mouth with a spear gun. It isn't going to eat but rednecks put out drum Lines anyway. Oh well. I suppose if you can't get the shark responsible you may as well kill as many random ones as possible to exact revenge. No different to the useless wastes of oxygen over here that kill crocs for no reason.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 02/01/2015 20:06

Great white dies in nets off Bondi beach in November, and the WZ shark supporters failed to post their outraged disgust. Amazing.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-19/gr...i-beach/5903578
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 03/01/2015 14:47

Hey Jax, 2 days into a new year and bored already laugh

rednecks, uneducated,if you don`t want to be eaten by a shark stay out of the water, listed as vulnerable, clutching at straws, REDNEKS UNITE!!!, swim in a pool, knee jerk reactions, absolute morons….

did I miss anything smile
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 03/01/2015 15:06


Yes don't dip yourself in whale oil before swimming... wink
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 03/01/2015 17:23

Bored? No, I just happened to come across that article and was genuinely surprised it hadn't made the grade for a damn good bagging in this forum.

I see this redneck term used around here a lot. Has anyone ever bothered looking that one up to see what it means or where it even came from? Happy new year anyway, here's hoping not too many people get eaten by sharks.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 03/01/2015 17:35

While there are plenty of rednecks over here Jax they aren't the real problem now. It is the fact that the pollies are to spineless to remove the nets despite the fact they are useless. If they do and someone gets attacked it will be used as political ammo against whoever can be held responsible for their removal. Different dynamics in play. Over here the croc issue is the closest to the WA shark issue.
Posted by: Jax

Re: sharks - 03/01/2015 19:21

The term "redneck" originated in the US, in the 1800s and has nothing to do with anything it is used for so often here. But it sounds good I guess.

Am pretty happy to see the last of the whales gone now for their summer run to the Antarctic. My guess is that Albany attack might have been one hanging about trying to pick up a stray calf if there was one for the taking, there would still be mothers trying to fatten up calves before heading off.
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 03/01/2015 22:12

Originally Posted By: desieboy

Yes don't dip yourself in whale oil before swimming... wink


I use tuna oil in my bullshark berley mixes, that brings them in.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 04/01/2015 15:53



The reason I said whale oil is my dad used to use it for fishing many years ago when it was readily available at the local fishing shop .The whale oil used to attract the fish ,i.e (tailor and kingfish) but he did used to catch a lot of small bull sharks as well.

Recently when my brother and I were clearing out dads old shed we found a full bottle of whale oil ...not sure what to do with it but going to keep it but won't be using it for fishing. wink

Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 06/01/2015 15:10

Redneck...

1/ a person or institution that is extremely reactionary

2/ A person regarded as having a provincial, conservative, often bigoted attitude.

Pretty much sums up the attitude of those wanting to kill great whites after attacks. Particularly Barnett where it comes to bigots and conservatives.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 06/01/2015 15:28

Meanwhile it seems the term can't be applied to these guys who had the best interests of the shark in mind.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...nd-harbour.html
Posted by: pogonantha

Re: sharks - 06/01/2015 19:06

Geez Coldie, what are you reading...?...that really is a provincial newspaper story..!..

"He decided to hand it to his brother Jaan who first thought it was a whale".....Quite hilarious story but I guess they have to sell papers..lol

but yes I'm totally on your side when it comes to this ridiculous reactionary drum lining as well as the practice of beach netting of sharks..I personally think its just as bad as killing Whales,Tigers,Elephants,Rhino's,Gorilla's etc etc...

We place such an inflated sense of importance on ourselves at the total expense of all these magnificent creatures...shame on us..!..
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 06/01/2015 19:15

Originally Posted By: pogonantha
Geez Coldie, what are you reading


Bits and bobs laugh I stayed away from the rest of that page wink

Originally Posted By: pogonantha

We place such an inflated sense of importance on ourselves at the total expense of all these magnificent creatures...shame on us..!..




Plenty of evidence of that in this blog unfortunately.
Posted by: pogonantha

Re: sharks - 06/01/2015 19:38

Without actually undertaking a survey,I have a horrible feeling that most people that support shark culling are not people that have an inherent love of the ocean or indeed have or spent much time in it unfortunately...its a bit like the terrorist threat..all so much more scary from the lounge chair in front of the telly..
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 07/01/2015 14:06

Interestingly some of them opposed claim to be surfers but I agree they have missed the connection with their environment.

I stayed out of the terrorist thread. So much propaganda by both sides but if most people understood the injustice being done to Palestine they may shift their view a little. The media have a lot to answer for.
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: sharks - 07/01/2015 14:06

Interestingly some of them opposed claim to be surfers but I agree they have missed the connection with their environment if they are.

I stayed out of the terrorist thread. So much propaganda by both sides but if most people understood the injustice being done to Palestine they may shift their view a little. The media have a lot to answer for. So much emotion in that thread and like this one people let their fear of the unknown cloud their judgement. Nothing will change until we accept that we are not the master species. Remove the rest and see how long we survive.
Posted by: Gad

Re: sharks - 07/01/2015 15:03

Originally Posted By: desieboy


The reason I said whale oil is my dad used to use it for fishing many years ago when it was readily available at the local fishing shop .The whale oil used to attract the fish ,i.e (tailor and kingfish) but he did used to catch a lot of small bull sharks as well.

Recently when my brother and I were clearing out dads old shed we found a full bottle of whale oil ...not sure what to do with it but going to keep it but won't be using it for fishing. wink



I think as the fisho`s of, ‘dad`s old shed’ generation are rapidly passing on, quite a lot of partly used bottles of forgotten/tucked away whale oil get thrown away, with most not knowing what is/was in the bottle.

The genuine,full strength whale oil, stank to the high heavens, you only needed a couple of light pours into a bucket of burley mix. (dependent of course, on what made up the dry parts of the mix)
Posted by: EddyG

Re: sharks - 07/01/2015 15:19

Something a little different, brown snake swimming between the flags!!
It's not just the great whites you have to worry about.


http://www.greatlakesadvocate.com.au/sto...forster/?cs=445
Posted by: Xamgin

Re: sharks - 12/01/2015 17:40

Cheers!
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 13/01/2015 13:17



Sharks are getting frisky on the East Coast. surfers and sharks
Should they be allowed to chase fish that close to those surfers. shocked confused laugh Trolling..... wink

Probaly happens all the time but if theres a helicopter overhead...


Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: sharks - 13/01/2015 13:31

The sharks are not hunting close to the surfers. The surfers are surfing close to the hunting sharks. Big difference and puts the responsibility where it should be.
Posted by: desieboy

Re: sharks - 13/01/2015 13:45


Nice to know your on the ball Brett... wink
You know I was baiting you though... cool

Must