We as rec-fishers are only allowed keep the smaller sharks that measure 700 mm between fins and then the Government announces their intention to remove the larger sharks that come to close to shore by the commercial guys so where does the science stand in all of this. My opinion. The inmates have taken over the asylum for the mentally ill and it's important for us the people who still have a functioning brain to treat it as a giant leg pull or as Buswell might do , dry humping someone else's leg.
In reference to "local whites" I bet the operators at Seal Island Sth Africa & the Neptunes in South Oz would have names for their pets...
Sure they are migratory when natures doing its thing but we change nature and these beasts are becoming far to prolific along our coasts unfortunately for them.
thing is , reading his statement below , i cant see how legaly he is going to be able to kill large GW ,
he talks about sharks in a general sense , thus it fits in wth federal policy and it seeems like there doing something , however as most fatal attacks here are blamed on GW ,im not sure this will help alot ,
you know, everyone should be free to voice there concerns one way or another ,
it really is irrelavant if you use the water or not , if your living near one of these surf breaks etc, or you know a person who has been a fatality etc etc
might sound harsh ,but no one is a ''special'' case
iv never lived in margs , grew up in busso, however we spent so much time on that coast as kids in the 60s, 70 s almost everyweekend , still do often enough ,
having fished, swam , dived, snorkelled all along there it really irks me when the new locals who now live there start up with points about their spots , and how it is especially affecting them as surfies , divers or whatever ,
its all our coast, no one has any special rights to it imho , live there or not
im going down on friday to put some pots in , and get wet for some abalone , it is a risk , now greater than ever before to enter the water near cape mentelle to injidup ,
id advise people to sit down with their familys and have a discusion about how they feel if their loved one is regularly entering the water, , suss out how they feel , and think about that , accept the risk and the impacts it will have for you and the ones you love and love you , then make the choice , go or dont
this latest gov release, wont really have abig impact imho ,
they havent been able to catch one GW shark yet ,they have not even worked out any details on how there going to do it or who will do it ,
dunno if id want to be entering too far out along there knowing all the baits are set 24/7 attracting and catching sharks , too many unanswered questions and possibilitys yet to go high fiving
goes without saying it would be much better if they banned cage diving as well in all states too
reeks of a public feel good /appeasment strategy for mine
hezzy
New measures to combat WA shark risks
Tuesday, 10 December 2013
•Government announces baiting and catching initiative for heavily used beaches
•Faster, more aggressive response after attacks with more vessels
•Long-term coastal zones established with protection measures determined by local communities
Premier Colin Barnett and Fisheries Minister Troy Buswell today announced new measures to address public safety and help mitigate the risk sharks pose to water users.
These include:
•Setting baited drum lines to catch large sharks one kilometre from shore, with vessels monitoring the drum lines. These drum lines will be set along heavily used beaches in the metropolitan area and the South-West, and will be deployed 24 hours a day initially from January 2014 through until April 2014.
•Boosting the response to shark attack by immediately setting drum lines, leaving them in place for longer and setting them in a wider area. More vessels will be available for faster response to an attack.
•The long term establishment of specific Coastal Shark Management Zones along the coast, to be determined by geographical and environmental features and water use profiles (for example, swimming, surfing, diving).
•Developing a ‘Tool Kit’ for communities in each zone in partnership with the State Government to mitigate the risks of a shark attack at local beaches. Measures could include education pamphlets, aerial and beach patrols, signage, providing beachside trauma packs and the deployment of drum lines. Each plan will be reviewed annually.
•A community recovery policy to ensure support for communities affected by a shark attack.
Mr Barnett said the new measures would improve public safety and build on the State Government’s strong approach to shark hazard management.
“These new initiatives come on top of a raft of measures the State Government already has in place to protect beachgoers, like increased aerial surveillance, beach patrols, shark tagging and a trial of a shark enclosure in the South-West,” the Premier said.
“We are aware of the risks sharks pose to our beach users and the Western Australian way of life and we are implementing strategies to reduce these risks.
“But whatever the State Government does to try to minimise the risk there are still no guarantees, it is very important for Western Australian ocean users to always be aware of the risks of entering the water and to take responsibility for themselves.”
Mr Buswell said the new strategy was a result of extensive consultation with stakeholders and should help Western Australian beachgoers make responsible decisions when using the water.
“Through our new response plan the State Government will become faster and more proactive in catching and removing sharks after an attack. Beachgoers should have more security when using the water,” he said.
“These measures are just another step in the State Government’s long term shark strategy which will include the establishment of Coastal Shark Management Zones.”
The State Government has consulted with the Federal Government about these measures.
“The preservation of human life is our number one priority and these measures are designed to do that, with minimum impact to the surrounding environment,” Mr Buswell said.
The Minister said the strategy would enable Western Australians to make responsible decisions about their water-use.
Fact File
•Includes reduced response times to a fatal shark attack and monitored zones
•WA waters will be divided into Coastal Management Zones and specific shark mitigation plan or ‘tool kits’ will be developed according to needs
•The South-West and metropolitan regions will be priority regions for the initial risk assessment
•The WA Government has allocated more than $20million over four years to 2015-16 for shark hazard mitigation strategies
•Any shark sightings should be reported to Water Police on 9442 8600
•Anyone wanting to receive alerts about shark sightings or detections can follow @SLSWA on Twitter or refer to the Surf Life Saving WA Facebook page
•General information on sharks is also available online via the Department of Fisheries’ shark information pages at the easy to remember web address of http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/shark
Premier’s office - 6552 5000
these Big fellas in question are top of the food chain predators and setting drum lines for large sharks is another way of DEPLETING their food source, is it not ??.
If the big fellas in the area of these drum lines, I'm sure any large sharks caught will be an easy meal.
The ocean is a wilderness, take your risk, Above or Below.
So we will have drum set about 1k off shore to remove sharks greater than 3 m. I think it is a move in the right direction.
1, It will reduce the amount of sharks within the local area.
2, It will aid in the tagging of sharks under 3m. ( wont do much for the bigger models )
3, It will give "real" data for reseach into sharks and their movements, numbers etc.
Will it reduce the risk of a shark attack to 0%? no, as long as there are sharks in the ocean there is a risk.
But it will reduce the risk back to what I believe to be an aceptable risk.
Over time, we may find why we have had a spike in shark attacks, if and when that happens, and another way is found to reduce the risk to water users without the removal of sharks greater than 3m, then I would support that.
IMO this is a win for reseach and a win for water users.
Some sharks will be killed ( greater than 3m ), yes, but these are the ones that are the greatest risk to humans using the water at these localities.
I dont understand how some people can say that removing all 3m+ sharks in these locations will not reduce the risk to water users.
Anyone who spends time in or near the water knows there has been an explosion in shark numbers, and the social and economic consequence in people/shark interactions need to be addressed. I'm a life-long surfer/diver even I've started wavering whether the risk is worth it - so I wonder how many others have stopped these healthy pursuits and how many potential tourists has stayed away from our state? And I strongly dispute these nonsense arguments that you are more likely to die on the roads. If you took a line through how many hours per head of population were spent on the road (huge) vs how many hours were spent per head of population were spent in the water (relatively small) - I'm sure you would get a wholey different stat.
great thread... i just dont understand why no one really talks about the millions of dollars put in place to prevent all the other"things" that kill people more than sharks..
Drunk drivers ... do they do random breath testing which would cost alot of money for supplies and enforcement/ more police stricter policies come into play....IMO its at least a step in A direction to try to put some money towards fixing a problem right or wrong they are starting to do something like they did with all the other new law and crimes that come up when a bad situation occurs they change policy.. Think alot of the people throw out alot of facts but overlook all the things that have already been done to counteract or fix those actions to lower the statistics.
The media can be blamed for this, watch them flip the story over when they start killing the sharks. They dont care which way it goes, just want the audience!
Given the opposition to the culling, the government would want to factor in additional resources to guard those drums!
what will the mood be when the gov strategy is in place AND another shark fatality still occurs ?? cause id say the odds are fairly reasonable that is what will occur ,
then what ?
cause i still didnt read where he stated they will kill one GW , let alone a heap of them ?
just a general reference to sharks , so i dont think this will be the cure that lots of peeps hope it will be
@ hezzy, "they havent been able to catch one GW shark yet ,they have not even worked out any details on how there going to do it or who will do it".
Fisheries have already caught and tagged great whites in the cockburn sound, using the method described....
@catch.fish completely agree, and with regards to resident GW, I have been told by fisheries that there can be resident GW's. There is supposably one that tracks daily around carnac island to the D9, and the cockburn sound all year round. How true that is I don't know.
The problem is all these misconceptions, he said she said statistics, theories, myths, patterns etc.
At the end of the day human life will always be valued greater than a sharks. Yes research is needed, how much? who knows? How long will it take for a breakthrough system that can be implemented to save lives? Probably too long. In the mean time, thinning out a few sharks is not going to be the worst thing. And how can all of these self proclaimed ecologists/biologists know that killing the larger sharks won't help the situation? Even if it has the potential to save one life isn't it worth it? The problem is some people are becoming reactant, they often try to fix a problem rather then preventing it. It seems a lot of people that are against getting rid of a few of the bigger sharks, don't have any better idea to back themselves up with.
Okay so tagging sharks, so a beacon has gone off alerting 'someone' a 5 metre GW is lurking around a particular beach in the early hours of the morning. How is that going to help the person that's in the water swimming and oblivous to the situation.
I think getting rid of some of the sharks will obviousy never stop attacks, but know one can disagree that it won't help reduce the chance of them, no matter how effective it may be. At this point and time I think the right move is to thin out the bigger sharks, it will reduce a bit of the risk, help repair tourism/media reports, and give people a sense that something is being done. Meanwhile, continue to research and look for a better alternative.
Doesn't look like these were bled and put in a ice slurry I'm disgusted.
I find it interesting that the Non cullers keep preaching research research and more research, can one of you research preachers please explain how this will reduce attacks. I agree the fact that we need to know more about the life cycle and movements of any shark species so that the ecosystem balance is maintain to a practicable level.
As for tagging and the warning system in remote locations, would it be feasible to have a warning siren and beacon activated when a tagged shark is within 1km from said location.
Reducing shark numbers does go hand in hand with reducing the risk but will never eliminate the risk altogether.
There's no silver bullet for solving this very public issue which has alot of miss conception and misleading information, a combination of tagging/tracking which will support research, a good warning system over a large length of coast line, removing a percentage of large sharks which keeps the public safer and helps research.
We all live with a large range of deadly risks each and every day we can only put so many controls inplace to protect ourselves whether it's for work or R&R. To bring up statistics for other deadly problems which are human orientated i.e. drink driving and heinous crimes is ridiculous. Human and nature interaction is what is the issue at hand.
Are there bigger problems that need to be sorted out? yes very possible but this is the one we are discussing at the moment so lets focus on the FACTs at hand, It does bring emotions up and this can blur judgements.
Anyway enjoy the water the best ya can this summer and if all else fails as petermac said smokie them out.
Tax payer funded cull, bloody stupid idea. Open GW's up to recreational fishing from selected charter vessels with each vessel having an allocated number of GW's it can take each year. I'm sure there's a crapload of people on here & all over the world that would be more than happy to part with a good portion of their hard earned for the privilege of catching one of these magnificent animals in this part of the world. Promote tourism, line a few pockets & thin out the shark numbers. WIN, WIN.
See your point City Flicker but also see a few problems with this -if I had a paying customer on my charter boat I'd want to make good with the promises - so what do I do - burley them to the boat. - obviously shouldn't do this close to a beach and if doing it off shore wouldn't necessarily be targeting the right shark/s.
Not sure if mentioned yet but what about the undersized sharks that will be caught? Under 3 metres are proposed to be released but IMO they'd be struggling if they were hooked for 24+ hours. Maybe just use fuggin big hooks!
Great debate fellas and glad its been kept civil in most cases, I have edited out those personal attacks as its not in the spirit of this discussion. I invite all those lurkers that want to have a say to put their opinion in, it is an important topic after all.
I agree with Dodgy's comment, will be interesting to see how it plays out. It may diminish the risk slightly due to less numbers, but I can't see the drumlines being effective as in my opinion there will still be shark attacks regardless of these measures. Sharks as the apex predator aren't really targetted these days in W.A, fishing almost anywhere in the north west is testament to that.
We have reduced fish numbers through rec and pro fishing, but its only really been the indo's who have been targeting sharks and thats a fair way from the local. Shark populations have been untouched for many years without threat from anyone, so if we are continually reducing the food source for them, guess its just second nature for them to find something else to eat. Where do we find the balance though of how many are too many and whats left out there?
On a personal note, I've never done a cage dive, but it is something that I will definitely do one day. I've had one encounter with a 15ft tiger while diving in neck deep water in Exxy and it was a 44 gallon drum wide, woke me up a little bit!! I'd love to see a white one day, but definitely from behind bars as I think it would be a pretty awesome thing to see, assuming nothing goes wrong!
if this goes pear shaped…which there is a serious risk it will, whats the next step?
as stated in previous posts, i am completely against a mass shark culling, but i am open to trying to reduce the attacks, and yes that possibly does involve culling small numbers of sharks.
but the way they are doing it…this way . You all just wait till there is another shark attack due to these baited lines and watch the government go running for cover. The risk is far too high.
Over on the east coast they've been killing GWS for over 30 years with shark nets and baited drum lines and have had considerable success in reducing numbers so it doesn't say much for the protective status of the Great White. It goes on to say that they only use small baits so as not to attract sharks into the area from other regions but concentrate on the sharks that swim 100 metres from the baits. There's been a whole heap of research done so the WA Govt. has a good model to rely on and get some good results hopefully. By-catch is a worry but it doesn't mention the difference between shark nets and baited drum lines other than to say there's less with the baits.
Yes for targetted removal. In a imperfect world this is a imperfect solution but after all it is a solution
Fantastic debate and obviously because of the imperfect nature it will be and is a heated topic.
I have always been off the opinion that it is just one or 2 GWs doing this. Creatures off habit and learned.
Would be very interesting now that a few (I hope only a few) are removed. A few wont threaten the species, but if and I say if I and other Rogue-theorist are correct then this would bring the numbers of attacks back to historical levels, and not the massive increase we have seen in the last 10odd years.
On average 5 fatal attacks WORLDWIDE a year, but in small remote WA at least 1 every year, and in one 4.
This is beyong statistical explanation. Something here has changed and it would be interesting to see the next few years.
I for one certainly arent hot under the collar eitherway. And more research would also help.
Thats fair enough, but you would think there would also be families of victims who want this to happen.
Over east they dont have as many fatal attacks by whites. On the tracking post earlier it had the sharks going all the way up mid north qld.
Not sure if drum lines are best but not totally against it. They should post results publicly.
Drum 35- White pointer Drum 36 Tiger updated each week with locastions and other info. We're paying for it.
I think aerial surveillance and see ya later alligator to the whites if spotted. If they can manage to tag em' they can manage to bag em'.
My daughter said the other day 'Kill the bee' I said 'Why?' She said 'it might sting me'. I said 'You cant kill it cause it might sting you' Then I thought of the whites and thought whats the difference.
I kill redbacks cause they might sting me but they arent a top ocean predator. Ive had a life long fascination with white pointers and im pretty sure I couldnt neck one but i'll sure keep his smaller cousins for the table.
"After all, whether you are for or against shark culling, most would agree that there is no point in spending millions on a program that kills sharks without stopping shark attacks"
in theory what he says in that quote is bang on the money......this isnt going to stop attacks.
Drumlines have been in use over east for the last 30yrs .. They are going to use them here for a few months and now every conservationist and his dog are all of a sudden coming out of the woodwork arking up because the world is going to cave in .. Is it because of the media attention here relating to the fatalities that protesters can take centre stage under the spotlight , yet over there the sharks don't appear to be as important . More research needed into the mindset of protesters because it seems bizarre to me that the focus is here yet not over there .
We had another attack by a GW shark at Bunkers Bay last week but because the surfer saw it coming and was able to fend it off with his surf board the incident didn't make the news and I reckon it's the same over East. Fewer deaths less media interest.
When you look at the shark "attack" file, it is not to do with deaths or even injury, but to do with an "attack" where a shark went for someone or a craft. So in this case that qualifies as a shark attack, but with no injuries.
Question then are the media just into blood and gore.
Inclusion in the SAFile:
Criteria for inclusion
A ‘unprovoked shark encounter' is defined in the ASAF as any human–shark interaction that meets the following criteria.
Any human/shark interaction where;
there is an unprovoked and determined attempt by a shark to bite a person;
injury inflicted by a shark during an attempt to bite a person;
imminent contact was averted by diversionary action by the victim or others (and no injury to the human occurs)
the person is alive and in the water at the time of the incident;
the equipment worn or held by the person is bitten or damaged by the shark during a determined attempt, and;
there is a determined attempt by the shark to bite a small water craft such as a kayak, surfboard or small dinghy.
I still have not seen anything come from the " anti drum line mob " that addresses the issue of shark attacks on our beaches.
All I have seen is " we need more reseach ".. then what? and while the reseach is going on, are we to do nothing and just watch more people die from shark attacks?
I agree that the shark drums may not be perfect but then what is? and more so, what do you think we can do to reduce the amount of attacks?
People bring up things like drunk drivers killing others, well we have RBT, police breath testing people etc, that addess this issue, I know its far from perfect as we still have people drunk driving, and people dieing on our roads. But if we did'nt have these laws I think we would be looking at a lot more deaths on our roads.
Everyone has a right to their point of view, and I do resect that.
We need to try the best we can to reduce the risk of someone else being taken by a shark.
The powers that be have gone for the option of drum lines, if you have a better idea that will reduce the risk to water users, then by all means put it up.
If you just want to stop the killing of sharks, that are within the protection zone then come out and say it, just say I put the life of a shark above the life of a human.
if you read the article they say the use of shark nets along beaches has prevented shark attacks in prone areas........................ as they have in south africa too, not hard to find that evidence on the internet.
as i have repeatedly said walfootrot i am not completely against a proven solution but this way isnt going to prevent shark attacks....it may bring some larger shark numbers down, but what happens if a white takes some one this summer? while we are drum lining? you answer me that , your yet to answer it i have repeatedly said this in numerious posts. what is the next step? time to wipe out the species? and start a massive ecosystem change? hey then in 50 years time you can tell your kids and grandsons that our ages F***** it all up.
Secondly, common sence needs to prevail with abelone divers, they must be FORCED to use there shark cages, even if it dramatically make there time under water slower. I work in the power generation industry and generally with anything from low voltage right up to 132KV under no means will i ever cut corners to make the job quicker..and thats what the abelone divers need to do. (this is an example) i find it kind of frustrating as well as very sad that people are willing to risk their lives by cutting corners in their trade or job.
In terms of surfing/diving, i dont know....i know there is some new wet suit comming out that is apparently in the process of being tested.
but hey i dive, i swim, i fish, i enjoy the odd skurf on a surfboard but i know the risks im taking. I just accept them.
I don't have a problem with them killing sharks if there is some scientific basis to it, or if it's proven the repercussions are minimal. There's been too many cases where people have gone in and altered the natural 'norm' and then realised they've made a mistake. I'm sure no one bar a tree hugging hippie would say a life of a shark is worth more than a human.
“ what is the next step? time to wipe out the species? and start a massive ecosystem change? hey then in 50 years time you can tell your kids and grandsons that our ages F***** it all up. “
“ There's been too many cases where people have gone in and altered the natural 'norm' and then realised they've made a mistake “
Hello , Hello they've been doing it over east for the last 30yrs .. No one is saying they're going to wipe them out just you guys and the propaganda administrators on those sites were no one is allowed to oppose or debate the issue .
what you just did is cut out part of the quetion to welfoot...... answer the question properly the question stated what happens when there is another shark attack then that quote....
so please next time dont paste and cut sections of questions.
banging my head against the wall right back at you.
"Hello , Hello they've been doing it over east for the last 30yrs .. No one is saying they're going to wipe them out just you guys and the propaganda administrators on those sites were no one is allowed to oppose or debate the issue ."
all me and who? when have i ever said I'm 100% against the sharks leave them all alone? never not once not in weeks.
you just insinuating and making assumptions my friend, maybe take a look back at my post, re read it and find the quote " I'm not against finding a reasonable solution" or along those lines…...
Chris, I never said they'd even go close to whiping them out, more so a thought about what effect it will have on the lower level predator species and the sharks prey. Again not saying it's going to be catastrophic, but it is vastly unknown.
Clearly we're not going to see eye to eye on this topic, which is fine, as there is no correct answer. As they say opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and occasionally they're full of shit.
Sorry for delay in response I was fixing the wall .. agree with your last paragraph but not only are they full of crap some stink as well . I'm certainly not gun ho on the drumlines but something needs to be done sooner rather than later . I hope someone will break the code as to how to appease everyone concerned .. I'm going to have lie down as I've got a headache
Agree Walfootrot, i suppose you could chuck the file of research at the shark and it might eat that and go away.Doesnt matter how much research you do if a big shark is hungry and around people its gunna have a go. Up until the last 10 yrs there werent half as many attacks ,research that.What i want is something done now ,not after we have spent millions,and not done anything for another 10 years by then you will be able to walk on their backs to rotto without getting your feet wet lol,then you can say to your kids ,no swimming surfing diving because all we did was research and our way of life is less important than an overgrown fish.
Shark nets? thats a lot of net, if you look at the area that is planned for the drum lines.. 1k off shore.
And what about the bycatch from the nets? or are you talking about just inshore beaches?
"i am not completely against a proven solution but this way isnt going to prevent shark attacks."
Agree, the only way to be 100% safe is not to enter the water. but by having the drum lines out working the 1k zone, removing sharks the risk is reduced, less sharks in the area = less risk. I know that there will always be a level of risk, and I do take that risk. but its come to the point were we are seeing to many sharks and attacks.
" but what happens if a white takes some one this summer? while we are drum lining? you answer me that , your yet to answer it i have repeatedly said this in numerious posts "
No one has ever said that the drums will prevent another shark attack, there will always be a risk, its about reducing the risk by removing the larger sharks from the zone. to remove the risk 100% you would need to remove all the sharks, or ban people entering the water..
inshore beachs dude there all through south africe and toursim areas of africa.... and yes just like every other way of eleimnating risks to us there is by catch......
i take on your points well mate and thanks for answering my questions we can agree to disagree bloke....
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to be worried about altering the balance of the oceans ecosystem when we spend most of our spare time selectively removing the largest good eating fish we can manage from the same ecosystem?
Yes and no. Top level predators have a far greater impact on ecosystems than middle rung species. Some sharks may even be keystone species under certain circumstances. But I can see your point.
That's not exactly true mate - while everything in the food chain is important I'd argue its the bottom of the chain food sources that really have a massive domino style effect. It's things like baitfish and plankton numbers dropping that cause a huge shift and flow on effect in the eco system moreso than apex predators like the GW - obviously reducing GWS numbers will have an effect, I just dont think that effect is as critical as people would like to believe (talking small cull here not complete iradication).
Nothing relies solely on Great Whites as a food source, along our coast they clean up dead whale carcasses and help keep seal colonies in check. Remove plankton or bait fish from the food chain and everything above collapses - yet almost none of the general public give a stuff how many baitfish get pulled out of the ocean, just make sure you dont harm that big majestic great white I like watching on the discovery channel so much!
For many many years it was free range on the great white, along with its food source of whales + seals. Whalers harpooned and stood around with guns blasting hundreds of great whites year round as they attempted to get a free feed from the whale carcasses they had spewing huge burley trails out as they dragged them back to the station. We slayed local whale numbers from some 18k down to an estimated 3k and hunted fur seals to near extinction while literally free range slaying as many whites as we could. It really was a dark age but even through all of that mindless killing, wiping out there numbers and doing our best to eliminate there food source we still didnt manage to wipe them out - we did get them right down to being considered vulnurable at risk of being endangered and if we continued without change it would have been disastrous!
So since then complete turnaround and full protection - meanwhile Whale and seal populations have absolutely exploded recovering back to higher populations than ever yet people want to claim there is no science supporting great white numbers having increased at the same time? Really, seriously??
Whats the end game here people - we all talk about 'balance' in the ocean yet it seems we are happy to continue fishing for everything from bait fish to marlin both recreationally and commercially all while completely protecting Great Whites and there major food sources? Where does the buck stop, how many great whites are "enough"? What will our ocean look like with another 15 years of protecting GWS, whales and seals while fishing for everything else? If you're going to attempt to control fish and bait populations, you have to look at controlling apex predator numbers also. You cant protect one and not the other, if you're going to meddle with the food chain like we already have it needs to be looked at complete from top to bottom!
Slightly thinning the local population of some of the bigger models who are seen to hang in close regularly will not cause a complete extinction or massive effect on the food chain and absolutely reduces the risk of running into one while swimming, surfing, diving etc! You'll never remove the risk entirely, people will always be eaten by sharks its the risk you take getting in the water and most people are fine with that - so long as we arent doing our best to make that risk as high as we possibly can like right now!!
I don't think anyone is talking about altering the balance of the marine eco-system by removing a few sharks kmo but more on reducing the risk of being attacked by a shark. There's always going to be a risk like any other activity you participate in but just get it down to an acceptable level whatever that might be. You must also realise the southwest zone is in a designated marine park that they intend killing the sharks in and if that's not a contradiction in terms of what the principles that underpin the reasons for having MPAs just shows how little the govt. respects the marine environment.
" just shows how little the govt. respects the marine environment. " Yer, they put bans in place to piss us off, then quotas on the pro's, bag limits to restrict how much we can take...
But take some sharks out of an MPA to protect human life... looks like another one that values a shark more than a man.
Mate, some times thing need to be done to protect human life.
To state that the Govt has little respect for the marine enviroment is a crock of crap.
I see it this way Wal,The Govt. put in the MPAs to protect the marine environment from us, the people who fish and then their scientists start telling them that you can expect an increase in shark numbers and shark attacks as a result so their thinking now is no problem we'll start killing the sharks to protect the people who use the ocean. So now they start paying the Commercial guys to bait hooks and kill the sharks and in my mind the question is, wouldn't it be more cost effective to get rid of the MPAs and reduce the risk simply by getting things back to how they were a few years ago and let the pro's control the situation with their nets at no cost. The whole marine park thing was merely to appease the greenies with regards James Price Point approval. There's a lot of dedicated fishermen out there who are bitterly opposed to the shark kill because they care about the marine environment but I have doubts the Govt. does and in saying that I'm separating the Fisheries Department that determines our restrictions to the political agenda's the Govt. might have. Do you think for a second that if there had not be a death at Gracetown and all the public outcry about the government doing nothing we'd even be heading down this path at present.
'' There's a lot of dedicated fishermen out there who are bitterly opposed to the shark kill because they care about the marine environment "
I know these a lot of fishermen, divers, swimmers and surfers that want something done about the GW sharks.
" Do you think for a second that if there had not be a death at Gracetown and all the public outcry about the government doing nothing we'd even be heading down this path at present. "
There have been calls for action for the last 5 years, and the fact is there was a shark fatality down Gracetown, and there was out cry for something to be done, hell if there were no deaths from sharks we would not be talking about it now..... but the truth is it is happening and we need to do something about it.
Of course people want something done now but interesting comment from the Mayor of Bunbury the other day who was thankful no baited hooks were being used in front of Bunbury beaches. Didn't like the idea at all and I think the majority of people would support his views.
If you make the choice to go in the water then there is a chance(how big or small is irrelevant) that you could get attacked by a shark or other deadly marine animal. This should be respected for what it is. It is your choice to go in the water. They were protected for a reason. Mainly low numbers, less in some areas than other endangered species.(fact). Why not study them, find out peak times for areas, learn what they are, make the public aware and if you are still worried, stay out of the f@#ken water.
But as per usual, it is 'shoot first, ask questions second' from dumb idiots with the power to change what happens that dictate the scene..
Mate, you are more than welcome to join me over the weekend to the FFB, where a nice 4m GW has been hanging around for the past 4 week.
I will even let you swim with her! give her a pat! hell you can even kiss her.
Dont know your age, but I have seen the change over the past 10 years, not just in attacks, dive shops closing, people just not going to the beaches any more. the attacks have changed our way of life and affected $ coming into Australia, I for 1 want the Australian way of life back
have been reduced by a whopping 70 percent a commercial rep stated on ABC radio the other morning.
One must ask why has the effort been reduced. the simple answer is the f'''''g things are too efficient on the take on small to medium sharks along with a considerable No of scale fish and lets not forget the bi-catch that gets thrown over the side.
I do not believe it to be rocket science that the G.W's food source is being interfered with causing them to venture in the quest for some tucker.
Nature shows are a classic example of this when they show migratory patterns of various animals moving across continents on their journeys looking for food.
Recent media release from fisheries telling us that demersal's are making a comeback but the GWS's are still coming in close to feed. Your argument's a bit thin on logic. I'm no fan of gill netting but at least there wasn't a shark problem when they were operating.
you see these gill netters used to spend most of their time netting the metro area and Geographe Bay but as of the last 10 yrs or so the DGN have spent most of their time netting the hell out of the Sthn ocean east of Augusta. To add salt to the fish stock equation the two DGN's in question have purchased licences so they (DGN) can continue netting the area east of Chatham Island all the way to SA border.
Would this not be the main haunt of the Great White??
All I'm saying is, maybe, just maybe the food supply of the G.W. is being depleted.
Meteorite
Posts: 69
Date Joined: 30/12/10
Research
The research can continue while the white population recovers from a cull - everybody wins !
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
The Funny side to all this.
We as rec-fishers are only allowed keep the smaller sharks that measure 700 mm between fins and then the Government announces their intention to remove the larger sharks that come to close to shore by the commercial guys so where does the science stand in all of this. My opinion. The inmates have taken over the asylum for the mentally ill and it's important for us the people who still have a functioning brain to treat it as a giant leg pull or as Buswell might do , dry humping someone else's leg.
timboon
Posts: 2961
Date Joined: 14/11/10
In reference to "local
In reference to "local whites" I bet the operators at Seal Island Sth Africa & the Neptunes in South Oz would have names for their pets...
Sure they are migratory when natures doing its thing but we change nature and these beasts are becoming far to prolific along our coasts unfortunately for them.
hezzy
Posts: 1521
Date Joined: 27/11/09
thing is , reading his
thing is , reading his statement below , i cant see how legaly he is going to be able to kill large GW ,
he talks about sharks in a general sense , thus it fits in wth federal policy and it seeems like there doing something , however as most fatal attacks here are blamed on GW ,im not sure this will help alot ,
you know, everyone should be free to voice there concerns one way or another ,
it really is irrelavant if you use the water or not , if your living near one of these surf breaks etc, or you know a person who has been a fatality etc etc
might sound harsh ,but no one is a ''special'' case
iv never lived in margs , grew up in busso, however we spent so much time on that coast as kids in the 60s, 70 s almost everyweekend , still do often enough ,
having fished, swam , dived, snorkelled all along there it really irks me when the new locals who now live there start up with points about their spots , and how it is especially affecting them as surfies , divers or whatever ,
its all our coast, no one has any special rights to it imho , live there or not
im going down on friday to put some pots in , and get wet for some abalone , it is a risk , now greater than ever before to enter the water near cape mentelle to injidup ,
id advise people to sit down with their familys and have a discusion about how they feel if their loved one is regularly entering the water, , suss out how they feel , and think about that , accept the risk and the impacts it will have for you and the ones you love and love you , then make the choice , go or dont
this latest gov release, wont really have abig impact imho ,
they havent been able to catch one GW shark yet ,they have not even worked out any details on how there going to do it or who will do it ,
dunno if id want to be entering too far out along there knowing all the baits are set 24/7 attracting and catching sharks , too many unanswered questions and possibilitys yet to go high fiving
goes without saying it would be much better if they banned cage diving as well in all states too
reeks of a public feel good /appeasment strategy for mine
hezzy
New measures to combat WA shark risks
Tuesday, 10 December 2013
•Government announces baiting and catching initiative for heavily used beaches
•Faster, more aggressive response after attacks with more vessels
•Long-term coastal zones established with protection measures determined by local communities
Premier Colin Barnett and Fisheries Minister Troy Buswell today announced new measures to address public safety and help mitigate the risk sharks pose to water users.
These include:
•Setting baited drum lines to catch large sharks one kilometre from shore, with vessels monitoring the drum lines. These drum lines will be set along heavily used beaches in the metropolitan area and the South-West, and will be deployed 24 hours a day initially from January 2014 through until April 2014.
•Boosting the response to shark attack by immediately setting drum lines, leaving them in place for longer and setting them in a wider area. More vessels will be available for faster response to an attack.
•The long term establishment of specific Coastal Shark Management Zones along the coast, to be determined by geographical and environmental features and water use profiles (for example, swimming, surfing, diving).
•Developing a ‘Tool Kit’ for communities in each zone in partnership with the State Government to mitigate the risks of a shark attack at local beaches. Measures could include education pamphlets, aerial and beach patrols, signage, providing beachside trauma packs and the deployment of drum lines. Each plan will be reviewed annually.
•A community recovery policy to ensure support for communities affected by a shark attack.
Mr Barnett said the new measures would improve public safety and build on the State Government’s strong approach to shark hazard management.
“These new initiatives come on top of a raft of measures the State Government already has in place to protect beachgoers, like increased aerial surveillance, beach patrols, shark tagging and a trial of a shark enclosure in the South-West,” the Premier said.
“We are aware of the risks sharks pose to our beach users and the Western Australian way of life and we are implementing strategies to reduce these risks.
“But whatever the State Government does to try to minimise the risk there are still no guarantees, it is very important for Western Australian ocean users to always be aware of the risks of entering the water and to take responsibility for themselves.”
Mr Buswell said the new strategy was a result of extensive consultation with stakeholders and should help Western Australian beachgoers make responsible decisions when using the water.
“Through our new response plan the State Government will become faster and more proactive in catching and removing sharks after an attack. Beachgoers should have more security when using the water,” he said.
“These measures are just another step in the State Government’s long term shark strategy which will include the establishment of Coastal Shark Management Zones.”
The State Government has consulted with the Federal Government about these measures.
“The preservation of human life is our number one priority and these measures are designed to do that, with minimum impact to the surrounding environment,” Mr Buswell said.
The Minister said the strategy would enable Western Australians to make responsible decisions about their water-use.
Fact File
•Includes reduced response times to a fatal shark attack and monitored zones
•WA waters will be divided into Coastal Management Zones and specific shark mitigation plan or ‘tool kits’ will be developed according to needs
•The South-West and metropolitan regions will be priority regions for the initial risk assessment
•The WA Government has allocated more than $20million over four years to 2015-16 for shark hazard mitigation strategies
•Any shark sightings should be reported to Water Police on 9442 8600
•Anyone wanting to receive alerts about shark sightings or detections can follow @SLSWA on Twitter or refer to the Surf Life Saving WA Facebook page
•General information on sharks is also available online via the Department of Fisheries’ shark information pages at the easy to remember web address of http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/shark
Premier’s office - 6552 5000
Fisheries Minister’s office - 6552 6400
OFW 11
evil flourishes when good men do nothing
squidder
Posts: 457
Date Joined: 03/09/10
The fact is......
these Big fellas in question are top of the food chain predators and setting drum lines for large sharks is another way of DEPLETING their food source, is it not ??.
If the big fellas in the area of these drum lines, I'm sure any large sharks caught will be an easy meal.
The ocean is a wilderness, take your risk, Above or Below.
axey45
Posts: 1758
Date Joined: 26/11/13
cull em to many, fark em
cull em to many, fark em
Walfootrot
Posts: 1385
Date Joined: 23/07/12
So we will have drum set
So we will have drum set about 1k off shore to remove sharks greater than 3 m. I think it is a move in the right direction.
1, It will reduce the amount of sharks within the local area.
2, It will aid in the tagging of sharks under 3m. ( wont do much for the bigger models )
3, It will give "real" data for reseach into sharks and their movements, numbers etc.
Will it reduce the risk of a shark attack to 0%? no, as long as there are sharks in the ocean there is a risk.
But it will reduce the risk back to what I believe to be an aceptable risk.
Over time, we may find why we have had a spike in shark attacks, if and when that happens, and another way is found to reduce the risk to water users without the removal of sharks greater than 3m, then I would support that.
IMO this is a win for reseach and a win for water users.
Some sharks will be killed ( greater than 3m ), yes, but these are the ones that are the greatest risk to humans using the water at these localities.
I dont understand how some people can say that removing all 3m+ sharks in these locations will not reduce the risk to water users.
More drum lines, kill the bloody sharks!
surfhead
Posts: 109
Date Joined: 25/06/13
I heard
I heard that their fins make a tasty soup...
carnarvonite
Posts: 8673
Date Joined: 24/07/07
Soup??
Tried it many times and rate chicken noodle soup with out noodles or taste 100% better.
surfhead
Posts: 109
Date Joined: 25/06/13
Having said that
Having said that I would rather they cull drunk drivers and repeat offenders, and those repsonsible for heineous crimes
dodgy
Posts: 4586
Date Joined: 01/02/10
These are the options.The
These are the options.
The cull starts and nobody else dies this summer. Cull is deemed a success.
The cull starts and someone gets attacked. Cull steps up a gear.
Public outcry and cull is called off. Someone attacked and cull is started.
Public outcry and cull is called off and nobody else dies. Maybe sharks are smarter than we think.
Bring back the shark long liners.
Does anyone know where the love of god goes, when the waves turn the minutes to hours?
Todger
Posts: 4
Date Joined: 03/12/13
Anyone who spends time in or
Anyone who spends time in or near the water knows there has been an explosion in shark numbers, and the social and economic consequence in people/shark interactions need to be addressed. I'm a life-long surfer/diver even I've started wavering whether the risk is worth it - so I wonder how many others have stopped these healthy pursuits and how many potential tourists has stayed away from our state? And I strongly dispute these nonsense arguments that you are more likely to die on the roads. If you took a line through how many hours per head of population were spent on the road (huge) vs how many hours were spent per head of population were spent in the water (relatively small) - I'm sure you would get a wholey different stat.
taylormullenax
Posts: 34
Date Joined: 13/11/12
great thread... i just dont
great thread... i just dont understand why no one really talks about the millions of dollars put in place to prevent all the other"things" that kill people more than sharks..
Drunk drivers ... do they do random breath testing which would cost alot of money for supplies and enforcement/ more police stricter policies come into play....IMO its at least a step in A direction to try to put some money towards fixing a problem right or wrong they are starting to do something like they did with all the other new law and crimes that come up when a bad situation occurs they change policy.. Think alot of the people throw out alot of facts but overlook all the things that have already been done to counteract or fix those actions to lower the statistics.
surfhead
Posts: 109
Date Joined: 25/06/13
If they are so worried
If the surfies and divers are so worried why do they still insist on dressing up as seals instead of looking for alternatives to the black wet suits ?
Ninety Mile
Posts: 193
Date Joined: 17/01/12
The media can be blamed for
The media can be blamed for this, watch them flip the story over when they start killing the sharks. They dont care which way it goes, just want the audience!
Given the opposition to the culling, the government would want to factor in additional resources to guard those drums!
hezzy
Posts: 1521
Date Joined: 27/11/09
thing is what will the mood
thing is
what will the mood be when the gov strategy is in place AND another shark fatality still occurs ?? cause id say the odds are fairly reasonable that is what will occur ,
then what ?
cause i still didnt read where he stated they will kill one GW , let alone a heap of them ?
just a general reference to sharks , so i dont think this will be the cure that lots of peeps hope it will be
hezzy
OFW 11
evil flourishes when good men do nothing
flexn
Posts: 232
Date Joined: 19/03/12
@ hezzy, "they havent been
@ hezzy, "they havent been able to catch one GW shark yet ,they have not even worked out any details on how there going to do it or who will do it".
Fisheries have already caught and tagged great whites in the cockburn sound, using the method described....
@catch.fish completely agree, and with regards to resident GW, I have been told by fisheries that there can be resident GW's. There is supposably one that tracks daily around carnac island to the D9, and the cockburn sound all year round. How true that is I don't know.
The problem is all these misconceptions, he said she said statistics, theories, myths, patterns etc.
At the end of the day human life will always be valued greater than a sharks. Yes research is needed, how much? who knows? How long will it take for a breakthrough system that can be implemented to save lives? Probably too long. In the mean time, thinning out a few sharks is not going to be the worst thing. And how can all of these self proclaimed ecologists/biologists know that killing the larger sharks won't help the situation? Even if it has the potential to save one life isn't it worth it? The problem is some people are becoming reactant, they often try to fix a problem rather then preventing it. It seems a lot of people that are against getting rid of a few of the bigger sharks, don't have any better idea to back themselves up with.
Okay so tagging sharks, so a beacon has gone off alerting 'someone' a 5 metre GW is lurking around a particular beach in the early hours of the morning. How is that going to help the person that's in the water swimming and oblivous to the situation.
I think getting rid of some of the sharks will obviousy never stop attacks, but know one can disagree that it won't help reduce the chance of them, no matter how effective it may be. At this point and time I think the right move is to thin out the bigger sharks, it will reduce a bit of the risk, help repair tourism/media reports, and give people a sense that something is being done. Meanwhile, continue to research and look for a better alternative.
axey45
Posts: 1758
Date Joined: 26/11/13
Nah, but i wouldnt mine a
Nah, but i wouldnt mine a big set of white jaws.
Pitty
Posts: 161
Date Joined: 08/12/12
Bright side, drum lines
Bright side, drum lines might make a good fad
UBIQUE
chris raff
Posts: 3257
Date Joined: 09/02/10
Drumlines are cheating ..
Drumlines are cheating .. this bloke bagged out ole school style .. 1st I've seen the pic possibly off Ceduna caught by a Alf Dean
“Intelligence is like a four-wheel drive. It only allows you to get stuck in more remote places.”
Wes F
Posts: 1067
Date Joined: 07/01/12
Looking after your catch?
Doesn't look like these were bled and put in a ice slurry I'm disgusted.
I find it interesting that the Non cullers keep preaching research research and more research, can one of you research preachers please explain how this will reduce attacks. I agree the fact that we need to know more about the life cycle and movements of any shark species so that the ecosystem balance is maintain to a practicable level.
As for tagging and the warning system in remote locations, would it be feasible to have a warning siren and beacon activated when a tagged shark is within 1km from said location.
Reducing shark numbers does go hand in hand with reducing the risk but will never eliminate the risk altogether.
There's no silver bullet for solving this very public issue which has alot of miss conception and misleading information, a combination of tagging/tracking which will support research, a good warning system over a large length of coast line, removing a percentage of large sharks which keeps the public safer and helps research.
We all live with a large range of deadly risks each and every day we can only put so many controls inplace to protect ourselves whether it's for work or R&R. To bring up statistics for other deadly problems which are human orientated i.e. drink driving and heinous crimes is ridiculous. Human and nature interaction is what is the issue at hand.
Are there bigger problems that need to be sorted out? yes very possible but this is the one we are discussing at the moment so lets focus on the FACTs at hand, It does bring emotions up and this can blur judgements.
Anyway enjoy the water the best ya can this summer and if all else fails as petermac said smokie them out.
Old fishermen never die they just smell that way.
Paul H
Posts: 2104
Date Joined: 18/01/07
Correct - Alf Dean is in the
Correct - Alf Dean is in the centre of the pic. It was actually taken off Streaky Bay (little south of Ceduna)..
Alf Dean and anyone fishing for GW in that era will tell you the myth of there being more sharks now than there was then is that - a myth.
Youtube Channel - FishOnLine Productions
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbUVNa-ViyGm_FTDSv4Nqzg/videos
CityFlicker
Posts: 524
Date Joined: 31/01/13
Tax payer funded cull, bloody
Tax payer funded cull, bloody stupid idea. Open GW's up to recreational fishing from selected charter vessels with each vessel having an allocated number of GW's it can take each year. I'm sure there's a crapload of people on here & all over the world that would be more than happy to part with a good portion of their hard earned for the privilege of catching one of these magnificent animals in this part of the world. Promote tourism, line a few pockets & thin out the shark numbers. WIN, WIN.
Just because I smile & nod does not mean I believe the crap coming out of your mouth.
All people have the right to stupidity but some abuse the privilege.
Paul H
Posts: 2104
Date Joined: 18/01/07
See your point City Flicker
See your point City Flicker but also see a few problems with this -if I had a paying customer on my charter boat I'd want to make good with the promises - so what do I do - burley them to the boat. - obviously shouldn't do this close to a beach and if doing it off shore wouldn't necessarily be targeting the right shark/s.
Youtube Channel - FishOnLine Productions
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbUVNa-ViyGm_FTDSv4Nqzg/videos
Bruce
Posts: 527
Date Joined: 11/04/12
Not sure if mentioned yet
Not sure if mentioned yet but what about the undersized sharks that will be caught? Under 3 metres are proposed to be released but IMO they'd be struggling if they were hooked for 24+ hours. Maybe just use fuggin big hooks!
Syked
Posts: 37
Date Joined: 04/12/12
Maybe Bruce, larger hooks
Maybe Bruce, larger hooks help eliminate smaller bicatch when fishing for demersals?
Adam Gallash
Posts: 15655
Date Joined: 29/11/05
great debate
Great debate fellas and glad its been kept civil in most cases, I have edited out those personal attacks as its not in the spirit of this discussion. I invite all those lurkers that want to have a say to put their opinion in, it is an important topic after all.
I agree with Dodgy's comment, will be interesting to see how it plays out. It may diminish the risk slightly due to less numbers, but I can't see the drumlines being effective as in my opinion there will still be shark attacks regardless of these measures. Sharks as the apex predator aren't really targetted these days in W.A, fishing almost anywhere in the north west is testament to that.
We have reduced fish numbers through rec and pro fishing, but its only really been the indo's who have been targeting sharks and thats a fair way from the local. Shark populations have been untouched for many years without threat from anyone, so if we are continually reducing the food source for them, guess its just second nature for them to find something else to eat. Where do we find the balance though of how many are too many and whats left out there?
On a personal note, I've never done a cage dive, but it is something that I will definitely do one day. I've had one encounter with a 15ft tiger while diving in neck deep water in Exxy and it was a 44 gallon drum wide, woke me up a little bit!! I'd love to see a white one day, but definitely from behind bars as I think it would be a pretty awesome thing to see, assuming nothing goes wrong!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JISd9DF5SEw
Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance
terboz123
Posts: 1358
Date Joined: 13/04/11
and this is why i think im
and this is why i think im leaning to being against this way of trying to cull the " large" sharks…
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/baited-drum-lines-to-catch-sharks-create-more-dangerous-situation-says-phd-student/story-fnhocxo3-1226780883945
if this goes pear shaped…which there is a serious risk it will, whats the next step?
as stated in previous posts, i am completely against a mass shark culling, but i am open to trying to reduce the attacks, and yes that possibly does involve culling small numbers of sharks.
but the way they are doing it…this way . You all just wait till there is another shark attack due to these baited lines and watch the government go running for cover. The risk is far too high.
a hard days fishing still beats work
PGFC member
GCGFC memberHoward George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
I checked the NSW baited drums results
Over on the east coast they've been killing GWS for over 30 years with shark nets and baited drum lines and have had considerable success in reducing numbers so it doesn't say much for the protective status of the Great White. It goes on to say that they only use small baits so as not to attract sharks into the area from other regions but concentrate on the sharks that swim 100 metres from the baits. There's been a whole heap of research done so the WA Govt. has a good model to rely on and get some good results hopefully. By-catch is a worry but it doesn't mention the difference between shark nets and baited drum lines other than to say there's less with the baits.
crasny1
Posts: 7006
Date Joined: 16/10/08
Always been No for culling
Yes for targetted removal. In a imperfect world this is a imperfect solution but after all it is a solution
Fantastic debate and obviously because of the imperfect nature it will be and is a heated topic.
I have always been off the opinion that it is just one or 2 GWs doing this. Creatures off habit and learned.
Would be very interesting now that a few (I hope only a few) are removed. A few wont threaten the species, but if and I say if I and other Rogue-theorist are correct then this would bring the numbers of attacks back to historical levels, and not the massive increase we have seen in the last 10odd years.
On average 5 fatal attacks WORLDWIDE a year, but in small remote WA at least 1 every year, and in one 4.
This is beyong statistical explanation. Something here has changed and it would be interesting to see the next few years.
I for one certainly arent hot under the collar eitherway. And more research would also help.
"I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact!!" _ Elon Musk
terboz123
Posts: 1358
Date Joined: 13/04/11
For all you quoting we should
For all you quoting we should talk to the shark victims families....
http://m.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/shark-victims-mum-sharon-burden-opposed-to-baittokill-policy/story-fnhocxo3-1226781596050
Enough said.
a hard days fishing still beats work
PGFC member
GCGFC memberJim
Posts: 1342
Date Joined: 05/05/06
Thats fair enough, but you
Thats fair enough, but you would think there would also be families of victims who want this to happen.
Over east they dont have as many fatal attacks by whites. On the tracking post earlier it had the sharks going all the way up mid north qld.
Not sure if drum lines are best but not totally against it. They should post results publicly.
Drum 35- White pointer Drum 36 Tiger updated each week with locastions and other info. We're paying for it.
I think aerial surveillance and see ya later alligator to the whites if spotted. If they can manage to tag em' they can manage to bag em'.
My daughter said the other day 'Kill the bee' I said 'Why?' She said 'it might sting me'. I said 'You cant kill it cause it might sting you' Then I thought of the whites and thought whats the difference.
I kill redbacks cause they might sting me but they arent a top ocean predator. Ive had a life long fascination with white pointers and im pretty sure I couldnt neck one but i'll sure keep his smaller cousins for the table.
Bend over
TorquenFish
Posts: 321
Date Joined: 30/12/12
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/ar
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/12/12/western-australias-shark-culls-lack-bite-and-science
terboz123
Posts: 1358
Date Joined: 13/04/11
"After all, whether you are
"After all, whether you are for or against shark culling, most would agree that there is no point in spending millions on a program that kills sharks without stopping shark attacks"
in theory what he says in that quote is bang on the money......this isnt going to stop attacks.
a hard days fishing still beats work
PGFC member
GCGFC membersquidder
Posts: 457
Date Joined: 03/09/10
Lots of great reads
BUT what happens when, some or a lot of sharks are taken on these drum lines, there are more people taken.
What happens next..................
terboz123
Posts: 1358
Date Joined: 13/04/11
thats what im leaning to
thats what im leaning to squidder....
a hard days fishing still beats work
PGFC member
GCGFC memberchris raff
Posts: 3257
Date Joined: 09/02/10
Drumlines have been in use
Drumlines have been in use over east for the last 30yrs .. They are going to use them here for a few months and now every conservationist and his dog are all of a sudden coming out of the woodwork arking up because the world is going to cave in .. Is it because of the media attention here relating to the fatalities that protesters can take centre stage under the spotlight , yet over there the sharks don't appear to be as important . More research needed into the mindset of protesters because it seems bizarre to me that the focus is here yet not over there .
“Intelligence is like a four-wheel drive. It only allows you to get stuck in more remote places.”
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
Media Attention On Deaths Chris
We had another attack by a GW shark at Bunkers Bay last week but because the surfer saw it coming and was able to fend it off with his surf board the incident didn't make the news and I reckon it's the same over East. Fewer deaths less media interest.
crasny1
Posts: 7006
Date Joined: 16/10/08
Thats interesting
When you look at the shark "attack" file, it is not to do with deaths or even injury, but to do with an "attack" where a shark went for someone or a craft. So in this case that qualifies as a shark attack, but with no injuries.
Question then are the media just into blood and gore.
Inclusion in the SAFile:
Criteria for inclusionA ‘unprovoked shark encounter' is defined in the ASAF as any human–shark interaction that meets the following criteria.
Any human/shark interaction where;
"I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact!!" _ Elon Musk
Walfootrot
Posts: 1385
Date Joined: 23/07/12
I still have not seen
I still have not seen anything come from the " anti drum line mob " that addresses the issue of shark attacks on our beaches.
All I have seen is " we need more reseach ".. then what? and while the reseach is going on, are we to do nothing and just watch more people die from shark attacks?
I agree that the shark drums may not be perfect but then what is? and more so, what do you think we can do to reduce the amount of attacks?
People bring up things like drunk drivers killing others, well we have RBT, police breath testing people etc, that addess this issue, I know its far from perfect as we still have people drunk driving, and people dieing on our roads. But if we did'nt have these laws I think we would be looking at a lot more deaths on our roads.
Everyone has a right to their point of view, and I do resect that.
We need to try the best we can to reduce the risk of someone else being taken by a shark.
The powers that be have gone for the option of drum lines, if you have a better idea that will reduce the risk to water users, then by all means put it up.
If you just want to stop the killing of sharks, that are within the protection zone then come out and say it, just say I put the life of a shark above the life of a human.
More drum lines, kill the bloody sharks!
terboz123
Posts: 1358
Date Joined: 13/04/11
walfootrot:if you read the
walfootrot:
if you read the article they say the use of shark nets along beaches has prevented shark attacks in prone areas........................ as they have in south africa too, not hard to find that evidence on the internet.
as i have repeatedly said walfootrot i am not completely against a proven solution but this way isnt going to prevent shark attacks....it may bring some larger shark numbers down, but what happens if a white takes some one this summer? while we are drum lining? you answer me that , your yet to answer it i have repeatedly said this in numerious posts. what is the next step? time to wipe out the species? and start a massive ecosystem change? hey then in 50 years time you can tell your kids and grandsons that our ages F***** it all up.
Secondly, common sence needs to prevail with abelone divers, they must be FORCED to use there shark cages, even if it dramatically make there time under water slower. I work in the power generation industry and generally with anything from low voltage right up to 132KV under no means will i ever cut corners to make the job quicker..and thats what the abelone divers need to do. (this is an example) i find it kind of frustrating as well as very sad that people are willing to risk their lives by cutting corners in their trade or job.
In terms of surfing/diving, i dont know....i know there is some new wet suit comming out that is apparently in the process of being tested.
but hey i dive, i swim, i fish, i enjoy the odd skurf on a surfboard but i know the risks im taking. I just accept them.
a hard days fishing still beats work
PGFC member
GCGFC memberTorquenFish
Posts: 321
Date Joined: 30/12/12
I don't have a problem with
I don't have a problem with them killing sharks if there is some scientific basis to it, or if it's proven the repercussions are minimal. There's been too many cases where people have gone in and altered the natural 'norm' and then realised they've made a mistake. I'm sure no one bar a tree hugging hippie would say a life of a shark is worth more than a human.
chris raff
Posts: 3257
Date Joined: 09/02/10
“ what is the next step?
Hello , Hello they've been doing it over east for the last 30yrs .. No one is saying they're going to wipe them out just you guys and the propaganda administrators on those sites were no one is allowed to oppose or debate the issue .
“Intelligence is like a four-wheel drive. It only allows you to get stuck in more remote places.”
terboz123
Posts: 1358
Date Joined: 13/04/11
hey chris.... what you just
hey chris....
what you just did is cut out part of the quetion to welfoot...... answer the question properly the question stated what happens when there is another shark attack then that quote....
so please next time dont paste and cut sections of questions.
banging my head against the wall right back at you.
a hard days fishing still beats work
PGFC member
GCGFC memberterboz123
Posts: 1358
Date Joined: 13/04/11
"Hello , Hello they've been
"Hello , Hello they've been doing it over east for the last 30yrs .. No one is saying they're going to wipe them out just you guys and the propaganda administrators on those sites were no one is allowed to oppose or debate the issue ."
all me and who? when have i ever said I'm 100% against the sharks leave them all alone? never not once not in weeks.
you just insinuating and making assumptions my friend, maybe take a look back at my post, re read it and find the quote " I'm not against finding a reasonable solution" or along those lines…...
a hard days fishing still beats work
PGFC member
GCGFC memberTorquenFish
Posts: 321
Date Joined: 30/12/12
Chris, I never said they'd
Chris, I never said they'd even go close to whiping them out, more so a thought about what effect it will have on the lower level predator species and the sharks prey. Again not saying it's going to be catastrophic, but it is vastly unknown.
Clearly we're not going to see eye to eye on this topic, which is fine, as there is no correct answer. As they say opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and occasionally they're full of shit.
chris raff
Posts: 3257
Date Joined: 09/02/10
Sorry for delay in response I
Sorry for delay in response I was fixing the wall .. agree with your last paragraph but not only are they full of crap some stink as well . I'm certainly not gun ho on the drumlines but something needs to be done sooner rather than later . I hope someone will break the code as to how to appease everyone concerned .. I'm going to have lie down as I've got a headache
“Intelligence is like a four-wheel drive. It only allows you to get stuck in more remote places.”
Willlo
Posts: 1490
Date Joined: 07/10/11
Agree Walfootrot, i suppose
Agree Walfootrot, i suppose you could chuck the file of research at the shark and it might eat that and go away.Doesnt matter how much research you do if a big shark is hungry and around people its gunna have a go. Up until the last 10 yrs there werent half as many attacks ,research that.What i want is something done now ,not after we have spent millions,and not done anything for another 10 years by then you will be able to walk on their backs to rotto without getting your feet wet lol,then you can say to your kids ,no swimming surfing diving because all we did was research and our way of life is less important than an overgrown fish.
Call Sign - BZ785
Haynes Hunter Prowler CC
Walfootrot
Posts: 1385
Date Joined: 23/07/12
terboz,Shark nets? thats a
terboz,
Shark nets? thats a lot of net, if you look at the area that is planned for the drum lines.. 1k off shore.
And what about the bycatch from the nets? or are you talking about just inshore beaches?
"i am not completely against a proven solution but this way isnt going to prevent shark attacks."
Agree, the only way to be 100% safe is not to enter the water. but by having the drum lines out working the 1k zone, removing sharks the risk is reduced, less sharks in the area = less risk. I know that there will always be a level of risk, and I do take that risk. but its come to the point were we are seeing to many sharks and attacks.
" but what happens if a white takes some one this summer? while we are drum lining? you answer me that , your yet to answer it i have repeatedly said this in numerious posts "
No one has ever said that the drums will prevent another shark attack, there will always be a risk, its about reducing the risk by removing the larger sharks from the zone. to remove the risk 100% you would need to remove all the sharks, or ban people entering the water..
More drum lines, kill the bloody sharks!
terboz123
Posts: 1358
Date Joined: 13/04/11
inshore beachs dude there all
inshore beachs dude there all through south africe and toursim areas of africa.... and yes just like every other way of eleimnating risks to us there is by catch......
i take on your points well mate and thanks for answering my questions we can agree to disagree bloke....
a hard days fishing still beats work
PGFC member
GCGFC memberkmo
Posts: 127
Date Joined: 17/01/12
Altering the balance
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to be worried about altering the balance of the oceans ecosystem when we spend most of our spare time selectively removing the largest good eating fish we can manage from the same ecosystem?
TorquenFish
Posts: 321
Date Joined: 30/12/12
Yes and no. Top level
Yes and no. Top level predators have a far greater impact on ecosystems than middle rung species. Some sharks may even be keystone species under certain circumstances. But I can see your point.
catch.fish
Posts: 150
Date Joined: 12/10/11
Not exactly
That's not exactly true mate - while everything in the food chain is important I'd argue its the bottom of the chain food sources that really have a massive domino style effect. It's things like baitfish and plankton numbers dropping that cause a huge shift and flow on effect in the eco system moreso than apex predators like the GW - obviously reducing GWS numbers will have an effect, I just dont think that effect is as critical as people would like to believe (talking small cull here not complete iradication).
Nothing relies solely on Great Whites as a food source, along our coast they clean up dead whale carcasses and help keep seal colonies in check. Remove plankton or bait fish from the food chain and everything above collapses - yet almost none of the general public give a stuff how many baitfish get pulled out of the ocean, just make sure you dont harm that big majestic great white I like watching on the discovery channel so much!
For many many years it was free range on the great white, along with its food source of whales + seals. Whalers harpooned and stood around with guns blasting hundreds of great whites year round as they attempted to get a free feed from the whale carcasses they had spewing huge burley trails out as they dragged them back to the station. We slayed local whale numbers from some 18k down to an estimated 3k and hunted fur seals to near extinction while literally free range slaying as many whites as we could. It really was a dark age but even through all of that mindless killing, wiping out there numbers and doing our best to eliminate there food source we still didnt manage to wipe them out - we did get them right down to being considered vulnurable at risk of being endangered and if we continued without change it would have been disastrous!
So since then complete turnaround and full protection - meanwhile Whale and seal populations have absolutely exploded recovering back to higher populations than ever yet people want to claim there is no science supporting great white numbers having increased at the same time? Really, seriously??
Whats the end game here people - we all talk about 'balance' in the ocean yet it seems we are happy to continue fishing for everything from bait fish to marlin both recreationally and commercially all while completely protecting Great Whites and there major food sources? Where does the buck stop, how many great whites are "enough"? What will our ocean look like with another 15 years of protecting GWS, whales and seals while fishing for everything else? If you're going to attempt to control fish and bait populations, you have to look at controlling apex predator numbers also. You cant protect one and not the other, if you're going to meddle with the food chain like we already have it needs to be looked at complete from top to bottom!
Slightly thinning the local population of some of the bigger models who are seen to hang in close regularly will not cause a complete extinction or massive effect on the food chain and absolutely reduces the risk of running into one while swimming, surfing, diving etc! You'll never remove the risk entirely, people will always be eaten by sharks its the risk you take getting in the water and most people are fine with that - so long as we arent doing our best to make that risk as high as we possibly can like right now!!
Walfootrot
Posts: 1385
Date Joined: 23/07/12
Well said, very well said
Well said, very well said catch.fish
More drum lines, kill the bloody sharks!
tot
Posts: 1162
Date Joined: 31/01/10
the most accurate post on this topic yet
IMO
Reverse cycle a/c supply and install - Ducted and wall splits
chris raff
Posts: 3257
Date Joined: 09/02/10
+ 1 .. lets hope commonsense
+ 1 .. lets hope commonsense prevails .. don't suppose your a marine biologist by chance ?
“Intelligence is like a four-wheel drive. It only allows you to get stuck in more remote places.”
TorquenFish
Posts: 321
Date Joined: 30/12/12
+2 well thought out
+2 well thought out argument. Food for thought.
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
I Don't Think kmo.
I don't think anyone is talking about altering the balance of the marine eco-system by removing a few sharks kmo but more on reducing the risk of being attacked by a shark. There's always going to be a risk like any other activity you participate in but just get it down to an acceptable level whatever that might be. You must also realise the southwest zone is in a designated marine park that they intend killing the sharks in and if that's not a contradiction in terms of what the principles that underpin the reasons for having MPAs just shows how little the govt. respects the marine environment.
Walfootrot
Posts: 1385
Date Joined: 23/07/12
" just shows how little the
" just shows how little the govt. respects the marine environment. " Yer, they put bans in place to piss us off, then quotas on the pro's, bag limits to restrict how much we can take...
But take some sharks out of an MPA to protect human life... looks like another one that values a shark more than a man.
Mate, some times thing need to be done to protect human life.
To state that the Govt has little respect for the marine enviroment is a crock of crap.
More drum lines, kill the bloody sharks!
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
I Don't Agree With You Walfootrot
I see it this way Wal,The Govt. put in the MPAs to protect the marine environment from us, the people who fish and then their scientists start telling them that you can expect an increase in shark numbers and shark attacks as a result so their thinking now is no problem we'll start killing the sharks to protect the people who use the ocean. So now they start paying the Commercial guys to bait hooks and kill the sharks and in my mind the question is, wouldn't it be more cost effective to get rid of the MPAs and reduce the risk simply by getting things back to how they were a few years ago and let the pro's control the situation with their nets at no cost. The whole marine park thing was merely to appease the greenies with regards James Price Point approval. There's a lot of dedicated fishermen out there who are bitterly opposed to the shark kill because they care about the marine environment but I have doubts the Govt. does and in saying that I'm separating the Fisheries Department that determines our restrictions to the political agenda's the Govt. might have. Do you think for a second that if there had not be a death at Gracetown and all the public outcry about the government doing nothing we'd even be heading down this path at present.
Walfootrot
Posts: 1385
Date Joined: 23/07/12
'' There's a lot of dedicated
'' There's a lot of dedicated fishermen out there who are bitterly opposed to the shark kill because they care about the marine environment "
I know these a lot of fishermen, divers, swimmers and surfers that want something done about the GW sharks.
" Do you think for a second that if there had not be a death at Gracetown and all the public outcry about the government doing nothing we'd even be heading down this path at present. "
There have been calls for action for the last 5 years, and the fact is there was a shark fatality down Gracetown, and there was out cry for something to be done, hell if there were no deaths from sharks we would not be talking about it now..... but the truth is it is happening and we need to do something about it.
More drum lines, kill the bloody sharks!
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
Of Course Walfootrot
Of course people want something done now but interesting comment from the Mayor of Bunbury the other day who was thankful no baited hooks were being used in front of Bunbury beaches. Didn't like the idea at all and I think the majority of people would support his views.
dumper
Posts: 1027
Date Joined: 03/04/08
So it's wrong to have a
So it's wrong to have a baited hook 1km off the coast, but its ok to have 200 Cray pots just off the beach?
MattMiller
Posts: 4171
Date Joined: 15/06/09
Something
no one has been able to answer me is what should the GW's population be and how many there actually are?
What is their 'normal' worlwide population?
Are the current numbers far above or below what should be considered 'normal'?
Sure we could go and do a heap of 'research' but how bloody long will that take??
I have a feeling that if these drum lines catch a high number of whites (say 2+ per week) there will be more questions than answers.
Not that Joe Public will get the true numbers
barneyboy
Posts: 1392
Date Joined: 08/01/09
Well its plain and simple folks
If you make the choice to go in the water then there is a chance(how big or small is irrelevant) that you could get attacked by a shark or other deadly marine animal. This should be respected for what it is. It is your choice to go in the water. They were protected for a reason. Mainly low numbers, less in some areas than other endangered species.(fact). Why not study them, find out peak times for areas, learn what they are, make the public aware and if you are still worried, stay out of the f@#ken water.
But as per usual, it is 'shoot first, ask questions second' from dumb idiots with the power to change what happens that dictate the scene..
F@#k em....
FEEEISH ONNN!!!
Walfootrot
Posts: 1385
Date Joined: 23/07/12
Mate, you are more than
Mate, you are more than welcome to join me over the weekend to the FFB, where a nice 4m GW has been hanging around for the past 4 week.
I will even let you swim with her! give her a pat! hell you can even kiss her.
Dont know your age, but I have seen the change over the past 10 years, not just in attacks, dive shops closing, people just not going to the beaches any more. the attacks have changed our way of life and affected $ coming into Australia, I for 1 want the Australian way of life back
More drum lines, kill the bloody sharks!
catch.fish
Posts: 150
Date Joined: 12/10/11
sharks
An interesting read from a guy who has spent his entire life diving the west coast!
au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/news/a/14253158/fatal-shifts-in-shark-activity/
crasny1
Posts: 7006
Date Joined: 16/10/08
This is an interesting read to
About shark nets, drum lines, spotters and shields in South Africa.
Comes to the conclusion that drums are better for the environment than nets with much less bycatch.
http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/undergrad-honors/volume-5/kearney_allison.pdf
"I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact!!" _ Elon Musk
squidder
Posts: 457
Date Joined: 03/09/10
Demmersal gill netters
have been reduced by a whopping 70 percent a commercial rep stated on ABC radio the other morning.
One must ask why has the effort been reduced. the simple answer is the f'''''g things are too efficient on the take on small to medium sharks along with a considerable No of scale fish and lets not forget the bi-catch that gets thrown over the side.
I do not believe it to be rocket science that the G.W's food source is being interfered with causing them to venture in the quest for some tucker.
Nature shows are a classic example of this when they show migratory patterns of various animals moving across continents on their journeys looking for food.
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
Ah Squidder Consistant as Always
Recent media release from fisheries telling us that demersal's are making a comeback but the GWS's are still coming in close to feed. Your argument's a bit thin on logic. I'm no fan of gill netting but at least there wasn't a shark problem when they were operating.
squidder
Posts: 457
Date Joined: 03/09/10
Sorry Howard,
but I beg to differ.
you see these gill netters used to spend most of their time netting the metro area and Geographe Bay but as of the last 10 yrs or so the DGN have spent most of their time netting the hell out of the Sthn ocean east of Augusta. To add salt to the fish stock equation the two DGN's in question have purchased licences so they (DGN) can continue netting the area east of Chatham Island all the way to SA border.
Would this not be the main haunt of the Great White??
All I'm saying is, maybe, just maybe the food supply of the G.W. is being depleted.