my mate that lives in dunsbough told me today he was diving for crays less than 100 meters earlier in the day from where that poor bugger that got taken , he is a very very experienced diver and now says he is not going to do any dives over 5 meters as diving in 20 m plus leaves you to exposed if you have to do a deco on the way back up, this is coming from a guy I have done hundreds of dives with up north with, he is 67 but looks 47 and still dives like a seal when he says he is nervous about getting in the water down south I start to feel nervous

The Jokers that think it should become some sort of trophy/pay per take kill should reign it back... Show some respect at this time...
I myself have now changed opinion and side on the cull option... I left SA 10 ish years ago, The very first night I spent in WA after moving was swagging it after a long wintery night driving the Nullabour only to wake up with news that the town I was moving to had been the scene of a fatality when Brad Smith was taken at Noisies... Kind of ironic I just left Penong and then walla GW attack... Since then too many!!! Wild rogue animals need keeping in check whether in the ocean or not... Oh also hands up who thinks cats should eat some lead... Now that could be a bounty basis thing... Sorry been said before here I know... Those that think these poor starving animals are struggling for a feed need to do some reseach on the amount of NZ fur seals along the Southern Ocean coast, More of em than on scaffold crews In the Pilbara!!!

 If you surf, you know, understand and accept the risk we take surfing wild spots (like black point).

If an individual doesn't accept those risks then they usually modify their behaviour (stays outta water, surfs less wild breaks or arms themselves with shark sheilds).

Same would apply for people who dive I'd guess.

People taking the risks need to make their minds up about how accepting they are of an encounter with a shark and take precautions they are happy with.

everybody else opinions are exactly that and worth fuck all.

if you hop in the water, you know the risks.

 emus and kangaroos and feral pigs ruin crops ,fences ect ,and yes they get shot,dogs jump fences and attack young fella in perth not so long ago.hello wacking fence throwing stuff at dog,dog got put down.lets use the car fatality rate (i dont think so) everyone needs a car to get to work, 90 % of people who say dont harm the sharks ,dont dive,swim,yak or sup.or surf,way more out there than some think .are they endangered i dont think so,is killing some the way to go?unsure,something needs to be done, 1 thing iam am sure of ..the lady on the news ,WHAT WILL IT TAKE ?A YOUNG CHILD TO GET TAKEN.? i bet a thousand bucks if a kid gets taken they would act straight away,(by the way i pray this never happens) ,who knows what to do ,do we not drive cars? do we not go in ocean? lets all stay at home (yuk) . there is a problem in water and does need some sort of solution .30 plus years they have been protected .5 to 6 pups every 2 years ???i think there may be a few around, i wish the whalers turned to reasearch on whites.we can all flog this topic to death , no one will ever win ,no one is right .no one is wrong...take the risk or dont..anyway thats my say.if it moves eat it,

I like the look of that live bait your holding there Johnny... Dion Gilmore would have had the all tackle record if he only changed his bait...

 agree with Johnny, 90% of the people now days who say "Dont kill the sharks" are ones who dont enter the water. It used to be the surfers, divers, fisherman who said dont kill them out of respect, but the recent number of deaths by an uncontrolled animal, the people who actually use the water are changing their minds.

I read up on the tagging program done by the state government on the GW's, biggest shark tagged is a 3.6m male... why is it a large number of the 'spotted sharks' are estimated at bigger, up to 5 metres?? Dont get me wrong people will always overstate how big a predetor is, but the Female whites get much bigger than the males yet no large females have been tagged.

Spoke with a pro cray fisherman down at Hamelin bay a couple of years ago when a 5m white was spotted in the bay, he said they were seeing great whiets daily following up the pots when they are pulled..

Was down at Hamelin a few years ago (When Marc tagged along) and a pod of pilot whales beached themselves, 100 in total and most died. There was a feeding frenzy of sharks on a dead carcus in the bay. According to the fisheries guys onsite, multiple whites were amongst the sharks...

Just going to throw this out there.

Could we have depleted the GW natural foods, to the point that their numbers are greater than there natural food supply, and they are now moving closer to the beaches?

Ether way, too many of them, CULL, CULL, CULL

You may actually argue that the reduction of whaling and salmon fishing has increased the food supply.

A cray fisherman I know mentioned recently that the number of whales getting caught in the cray ropes was getting rediculous. You only hear about a small number of them. He reckons that the number of whales they see on a daily basis is really encouraging for the population of whales. But you must beleive that this means the number of calves being bumped off by GW's and the number of dead whales must also be increasing.

So, when you add up all the extra food in the food chain:

Salmon - less commercial fishing

Snapper - less commercial fishing - metro at least

Whales - huge increase in numbers since whaling stopped

All of this must help add to the GW's population growth, not to mention that GW's are protected. Could it also be that the number of GW's is increasing at a greater rate than the their environment will allow. As such they are spending more time in the surf zones rather than out at sea? Are GW's territorial? This could mean that they need to spread out more.

This is a completely uneducated post but some of it must be a factor.

don't know the fish stocks have actually increased to be at levels they were previously say 40-50 years ago. I think the major changing factor would likely be the extra amount of persons spending time in the water nowadays if anything. Just a thought!

Bradz you make valid points & I`m also no shark expert but I can tell you there is a fuck load of NZ fur seals from Kangaroo Island West which I would have thought are "natural" food for the beasts...

Howard am I missing something.... Is there too many fish where you fish?

Great whites seem like creatures of habit, and years of swimming up the coast might have made them familar and curious with water users and may be testing out the new food source.

Also, if a GW is in the area with surfers alot of things may come into play,  a wave comes thru, The surfer turns and paddles quickly for the wave which could simulate fleeing prey triggering the shark to attack.  I just wonder about all the minor things like wetty colours, urine, dogs sleeping on wetties, environmental conditions, shark preferences between individual fish, eg they prefer seals and are more likely to attack a surfer looking like a seal. When is seal season? are the attacks coinciding when sharks are tuned in to eating seals? Does surfing on your own increase the risk of an attack? 

Turning into a rant but there has got to be a code to crack just like fishing.

 conclusion.heaps of pinks in close (sharks ,seals dolphins and even penguins,) chasing all the food in close, how many sharks did the fisheries tag last year around the d9,i think 6, i know off,how many this year???none of us can solve problem ,everyone has different thoughts .cant just kill them for no reason. (no iam not turning green) if they come close to beach where kids .and familys are ,they shiould be destroyed .us divers know the risks out in the open ocean,(we are fair game) chance we take..in close different story ..1 good thing the closure on pinks has done wonders .the population in sound at moment is massive ..credit where credit is due to fisheries,,bad side whites know the easy food is there

good read in the link below if your interested to know more about the local seal populations in the capes /west coast area

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/a73fb726-8572-4d64-9e33-1d320dd6109c/files/south-west-report-card-pinnipeds.pdf

what surprises me is how many people seem so unbelieving or dont wish to aknowledge GW might have changed behaviours towards humans as a food source and will hunt us,
we are after all mammals , with the number of humans in the ocean along the coast all year , why does it not seem feasible they have adapted to our easy availability as food for them ?
especially the bigger more nomadic ones

question still remains though why it has changed ''HERE'' , as population and water use has increased in all states, so what is happening in our local ocean thats different ?,

hezzy

 Just puttin up 100 :P

maybe start looking at the commonwealth licence trawlers that are from other countries that with their commonwealth licences can use them around the country. Trawlers that we dont see because they are out on the 110 line and too far out for anyone to notice. The natural food source fair enough is seals and baby whales but they also follow the migrating fish stocks that are out in the deeper water. When those stocks are thinned out or depleted these warriors of the ocean that have survived for millions of years are smart. They analyse and adapt to their environment. We are lucky up here as you rarely if ever see a GW in close but i can tell you if one does come in close and is a problem well its taken care of as has happened in the past. If you go 25 plus miles west of barri you will run into them and ive seen them in twos out at big bank just cruising following the sardine run which is in turn followed by the bonito and in turn the GW's. With the amount of money this peanut we have for a premier spends on getting his arse hairs waxed by the chinese youd think that he would spend more on tagging monitors that could be spread along the coast. A small amount of money outlayed that would definately give the researchers a clearer picture of the travel of the tagged sharks! but unfortunately Mr Barrnet is too busy spending money on his own agenda to worry about the real issues at hand. Just saying!

 While it's men being taken naught will happen.

Eat just one kid and fisheries will actually catch one very bit GW very quickly.

Adding Fuel to the fire!

Buswell wants the GW's removed from the protected species list.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/20048646/get-sharks-off-protected-list-buswell/

it is the sheer uncontrollable nature of shark attacks that scares us humans way beyond many other things that can and do kill us ,

interesting read in the link below on surf rips etc &how many people it kills ,

to date we havent seen the media sensationalise this nearly so much

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/11/28/3900762.htm

Australian surf deadlier than bushfires, sharks
Thursday, 28 November 2013
AFP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An estimated 17,500 rip currents would be operating around the Australian coast at any given time (Flickr: Darren Osborne)
Related Stories
Swimmers 'may not understand' tsunami risk, Science Online, 04 Mar 2010
Rips: Australia's biggest ocean killer, ABC News Online, 24 Oct 2011
Rip Survivor, Catalyst, 5 Apr 2012
Hidden killer The Australian surf kills more people than bushfires, cyclones, floods and sharks combined, according to a study that found rip currents were far more likely to be deadly than other natural hazards.
Australia is known for its destructive summer wildfires, storms and dangerous predators such as sharks which are common in its waters, but researchers at the University of New South Wales say there was an unheralded killer in the sea.
"Rips account for greater overall loss of human life than other high profile natural hazards," says lead author of the study, coastal geomorphologist Rob Brander.
"Yet they do not get anywhere near as much attention and dedicated funding."
The study, published in the Europe-based journal Natural Hazards and Earth Science Systems, found that rip currents caused an average of 21 confirmed human fatalities per year in Australia.
This compared with 7.5 deaths for cyclones, 5.9 for bushfires, 4.3 for floods and one for sharks, producing a combined total of less than 19.
Rips are strong, narrow currents which pull swimmers away from the beach and can easily carry them well offshore, causing them to become panicked and exhausted - a state in which they can drown.
The study analysed data from Australia's National Coronial Information System and found there was an average 21 confirmed deaths involving rips per year for the period of 2004 to 2011.
"And this is likely to be an underestimate because there has to be a witness to an event who saw the person was caught in a rip, and then this information has to be included in the coronial report," says Brander.
Researchers then used information from the Australian Emergency Management Institute's National Disaster Database to identify the average number of deaths per year caused by tropical cyclones, bushfires and floods since the mid-to-late 1800s.
The Australian Shark Attack File administered by Taronga Zoo in Sydney shows there has been an average of one death a year since 1962.
More frequent single events
Brander says while the rip data was only available for a shorter time frame, he was confident it was still the biggest hazard because many deaths caused by the currents were not officially recorded as such.
"Other types of hazards, like bushfires, have the capacity to claim large numbers of lives in a single event," says Brander.
"On the other hand, rip currents are almost always present and rarely result in more than one death at a time. But in the end, more people die as a result of them."
Australia is famed for its 11,000 mainland beaches and an estimated 17,500 rip currents would be operating around the coast at any given time, the study says.
Because rips flow faster than most people can swim, those caught in them are advised to float and signal for help.

last sentence in this article is very significant id say , in regards to them fattening up there liver before a migration

White sharks fatten up for long migration
Wednesday, 17 July 2013 Anna Salleh
ABC

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is very little food available for the sharks out in the open ocean (Source: Randy Wilder/Monterey Bay Aquarium)
Fatty livers White sharks rely on fat stores in their livers to power their migration over thousands of kilometres across ocean basins, a new study has found.
PhD student Gen Del Raye, of the University of Hawaii, and colleagues, report their findings today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
It's been known for a long time that migratory birds and whales burn body fat to fuel their migration, but to date it has been unclear as to whether sharks and rays also do this.
"The difference between sharks and a lot of other animals is that instead of having lipids stored in the muscle underneath the skin, in sharks the main lipid store is actually in the liver," says Del Raye.
"Shark livers can be gigantic. About a third of the body weight of a white shark can be its liver."
To study whether sharks are using fat to fuel migration you need some way of monitoring changing fat stores over the vast distances they migrate.
Del Raye and colleagues studied the white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), which migrates from the Californian coast to the Hawaiian islands - a trip of around 2000 kilometres that takes a bit over a month.
The researchers used a method of measuring fat stores in sharks that takes advantage of the shark's swimming pattern.
Buoyancy
The sharks glide down through the water column and then swim back up to their original level before gliding back down.
"From the rate at which they are sinking you can estimate what the buoyancy of the body is," says Del Raye.
The researchers used electronic tags linked to satellites to measure the rate at which the sharks sank through the water during the gliding phase.
As the amount of oil in the liver decreased, so too did the animal's buoyancy and the faster it sank into the water.
"The buoyancy of the shark is directly correlated to how much oil is in its liver," says Del Raye.
The researchers report that data collected from nine sharks revealed the animals were indeed using their fat stores to fuel migration.
"We showed that they are depleting their body fat in order to fuel their migration," says Del Raye.
Conservation
Del Raye says the findings have implications for conservation of white sharks.
"White sharks are heavily protected but are also very threatened," he says.
Del Raye says there is relatively little food out in the open ocean for sharks so they need to build up their fat reserves before they set out.
"It's like if you are going on a road trip, you have to go to the gas station and fill up the car. The Californian coast line is where the shark has to be able to do that," he says.

Del Raye says the findings show it's important that coastal habitats supply animals not only with enough food to sustain them, but also enough to build up their fat reserves to see them through their migration.
It is not known why sharks migrate, but it could be for mating

more from science news,
might be long posts sorry , but interesting reading i hope

hezzy

Great whites hang out in 'shark cafe'
Thursday, 5 November 2009
AFP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It had long been assumed sharks randomly roam the high seas looking for food and mates (Source: Reuters)
The ocean's most feared predators hang out together at a deep sea watering hole between Mexico and Hawaii known as the 'White Shark Café', according to a new study.
No animals inspire more fascination and excitement than the great white shark, but scientists admit to knowing precious little about the endangered species.
Like other open water sharks prized for their meat, they are threatened with extinction.
The new study published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B identifies a distinct population and a major new genetic grouping of the great white in the eastern Pacific, only the third such "clade" ever found.
The other two concentrations of Carcharodon carcharias are off the coast of South Africa, and in the waters between Australia and New Zealand.
It had long been assumed shark species at the top of the ocean food chain that roam the high seas looking for food and mates did so almost randomly.
But using satellite tagging, acoustic monitoring of shark "hot spots" and genetic samples, a research team led by Professor Barbara Block of Stanford University found to their surprise that the eastern Pacific's great whites are real homebodies.
Over an eight year period, nearly 100 sharks were electronically tagged, and even more had tissue samples taken by scientists working from a ship.
Sticking to a schedule
They found that the sharks consistently migrate along the same paths and stick to a schedule.
Between August and December, the great whites, which can grow up to six metres and weigh three tonnes, stalk waters off the coast of central and northern California, feasting on seals and sea lions.
Their preferred hunting grounds in this area are known as the "red triangle", notes the study.
Starting in January, they head for Hawaii some 4000 kilometres to the west, where they are found in large numbers between April and July.
But some, especially males, loiter at a halfway point known as the "White Shark Cafe", with females coming and going for what scientists presume is a bit of shark intimacy.
The new findings will help conservation efforts, the study concludes: "The population's fidelity to predictable locations offer clear population assessment, monitoring and management options."
Under threat
A third of the world's open water sharks, including the great white and hammerhead, face extinction, according to the largest ever shark survey completed earlier this year by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
For decades, significant numbers of sharks including blue and mako have perished as "by-catch" in commercial tuna and swordfish operations.
More recently, the soaring value of shark meat has prompted some of these fisheries to target sharks as a lucrative sideline.
Around 100 million sharks are caught in commercial and sports fishing every year, and several species have declined by more than 80% in the past decade alone, according the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW).

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Great whites hunt like serial killers
Tuesday, 23 June 2009 Jennifer Viegas
Discovery News

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scientists determined that sharks position themselves about 100 metres from prey (Source: Natal Sharks Board/HO WB/Reuters)

Sharks and human serial killers can both be tracked using geographic profiling, according to a new study that applies investigative techniques to the hunting patterns of great white sharks.
The study, published in the latest Journal of Zoology, marks the first time geographic profiling has ever been used on a marine species.
"As predators, they must get close enough to check out prey and figure out their movements, but they also must be far enough way so that they themselves won't be easily tracked," says co-author Neil Hammerschlag of the University of Miami.
"They must use known traveling routes," he says. "For human killers, these would be things like subways, buses and freeways. For great whites, these would include channels, reef edges and other topographical features."
For the study, Hammerschlag worked with shark expert Dr Aidan Martin and former Canadian policeman Dr Kim Rossmo, who developed the geographic profiling technique and is now at Texas State University.
The researchers observed and recorded 340 great white shark attacks on Cape fur seals in the waters off of Seal Island in South Africa's False Bay.
They plotted these attack sites, using a radar chart to examine the distribution of the encounters and noting where the sharks began and ended their attacks.
Lurking
All else being equal, attack frequency should be directly related to prey density, with sharks lurking where the most seals gather. Surprisingly, that wasn't the case.
The scientists determined sharks instead positioned themselves about 100 metres from the island at a water depth of around 25 metres.
Hammerschlag thinks this might provide the optimal balance of being close enough for attack, yet not close enough for detection. A deep water starting point permits momentum, "allowing the shark to build up enough speed to initiate the attack."
The researchers also found that big adult sharks had very focused anchor points from which they repeatedly launched their offensives. Smaller, younger sharks were less focused.
"This could be because sharks learn to refine their hunting skills over time and know the best spots, or they could dominate smaller sharks and exclude them from the best areas," says Hammerschlag.
He adds that cleverness at all attack stages is critical, since seals can do serious damage to sharks.
"A seal can rip a shark's eyes out and they have a lot of bacteria in their mouths that can cause infections when they bite," he says. "Many sharks have face gashes caused by seals."
Nevertheless, it's a shark-eat-seal world, and top predators like sharks play an important role in structuring communities and maintaining ecosystem health.
Human safety
The new findings help to solve mysteries about great white hunting behaviour and can help to identify areas for protection - of both humans and sharks.
"I wouldn't recommend holding a swim meet in known shark attack areas," says Hammerschlag, adding that boating, oil drilling and other human marine activities should be moved away from the regions for the sake of human and shark safety.
Dr Steven Le Comber, an expert on geographic profiling at the School of Biological and Chemical Sciences at Queen Mary, University of London, believes the investigative technique "is an interesting way to study patterns of animal foraging, and especially predation."
He says, "Shark hunting patterns are extremely difficult to study and the work here will have important implications for our understanding of the ways in which predators hunt their prey."

 Im going to disagree with you on this one.

Firstly, Kangaroos and Emus are overpopulated due to a better access to food and water. This is a result of the introduction of agriculture(farming), damns are builts, crops are grown etc.

However great whites on the other hand are solitary predators and take years to mature therefore are more vulnerable to becoming endangered. You take risks in every day life, society needs to mitigate the risk responsibly and culling sharks is not dealing with the situation responsibly. Dont swim near seal colonies, dive on overcast days or swim near cray pots and fishermen etc.

I do not see the depletion of food source a reason behind the increase in GWs,I base this on the following facts : Rottnest West end Large number of fur seals,Dyre Island South east corner of Rotto colony of fur seals.These were not there 10/15 years ago & moved down as the colony at the West end became to large and the dominating males kicked the young males out,Burns Rock,there has always been about 5/6 seals there,Sandy Island hillarys,samee again 5/6 plus,The wewstone Rock out from Fremantle another large seal population,Bunker Bay ,Cape Natrilise,a colony now live there  but prior to the mid 1990s were none.Plus the added,the amount of migrating whales.I would have to think there is plenty of natural food out there for them.The ones that have been said to have attacked these people were big,4 plus meters I do not know how quick they grow or how old they are but I know I am certainly no where near as quick or agile as I was when I was 20/45 years old.Could it be that with theprotection these have had the older ones have grown old & slower no longer able to hunt the normal food. I dive and have for a great many years and I have never before heard of this number of big GWs being seen in close to the coast.I for one say Take out the big ones,those over 3 plus meters that are approaching the coast.I agree that many of the comments that say :we enter thier enviroment and should be alert to the risks ,yes you have a point but how many people are bitten and badly injured by dogs,or other dogs by dogs and the reaction is to put the dog down,The State govermet is banning PitBulls & American Pit dogs,and other supposidly dangerous breeds ,But I think it is the owners fault not always the dogs,

The GW is the only animal we don't fucking cull that kills us... Crocs are tracked and shot regularly, Pit Bull terriors when they kill a kid, snakes when seen unfortunately for them are killed without attacking...

Until such a time they come up with a way to deter them from busy areas of the coast that we SHARE with other animals start getting rid of them... Creatures of habit I`m not sure but I have no doubt that our interaction with these animals IE shark cage diving creates a more inquisitive creature and unfortunately for it, it investigates with his teeth...

Br3nno this was a clear sunny day, mid morning less than 100 metres from the coast on a shallow reef/sand bed...

Not on dusk, , no fisherman, no craypots, No seal colony not overcast, not alone, not deep rippy murky water...

This is not asking for trouble!!

Fuck it, those of us down there that it affects most want something done...

If I had a bigger boat I would take it upon myself to set some hooks...

When the 19 yr Old Jevan Wright was taken at Blacks at Ellistion the shark was caught by locals within days, parts of a wetsuit in its gutz... I hope some people act and don't wait for the media/government and do gooders to tell us whats right or wrong...

[Not on dusk, , no fisherman, no craypots, No seal colony not overcast, not alone, not deep rippy murky water...]

tim , which one are you refering too , the latest at umbies?

the water out the front along there drops away reasonably fast for our coast ,
whats happened to the seals at south point ? has been a colony there for a while now since the 80s on & off
id say south point & k or so either side fits the description above on shark attacks serial killers in science news

Yeah the latest one,

The one before that at wedge same conditions, clear as a bell, shallow water... The two boys there were hunted by it, it came in underneath went out came in hard turned at last minute and spared the first lad then went out wide again and hit the second fella....

South Point one of the sharkiest mate, I am spooked there but not Umbies...

Umbies is not deep out the back doesn't really drop off along there...

I dont usually comment on the culling debate due to the reason someone will agree and someone wont.

I have talked about this with a lot of people and I have always came up with saying this.

On land Humans are the top of the food chain. In the water we are just another fish.

The way I see it at present the Fisheries Dept. hunt the shark that has killed just like crocs. and dogs etc. but with no success and hasn't stopped other deaths and that's being re-active and the minister says he want's to be pro-active which I assume means taking the shark out before it kills if it comes in close and poses a threat to beach users. My interpretation of a cull is to kill GWS anywhere in the ocean whether out in deep water or in shallow purely to reduce numbers and I can't ever see that being approved by either State or Federal Governments.

 Hi guys,

i have to chine in.

the GW that took Ben from Wedge, I know Ryan (the guy that was surfing with him) well and my brother shares a house with him. He doesn't talk about it often if not at all but what little he has said is messed up. The shark circled and they didn't even get a chance to say boo. The shark knew what food type they were and as a result came back and finished it... That's it nothing left. There is a lot more to the story but its not right to talk about it.

I feel that the public need to be educated more about what actually is the truth about these attacks. I feel that GW have (some not all) changed there natural feeding behaviour to now include humans. We used to be spun a load of rubbish that sharks don't like the taste of us yet in quite a few of the more recent attacks the whole human body is taken.... It's not rocket science guys, if there is an easy feed out there being opportunistic feeders what are they going to do?

i think the major threat sharks, sharks that continually hit the same beachs and spots should be disposed off. No question, if there has been on going sightings, sharks that have been tagged and set of alarms over and over again- kill them.

example if you travel the Africa to a game park to see elephants etc in there natural environment and one of these elephants gores a human to death do you know what they do? Destroy the elephant, why? Because it has changed it's natural fear of man and as a result knows that it can do it again.

it is really upsetting to think that some out there would put there family, friends or even work colleges ahead of an animal that has no regret or emotion in regards to it actions. I wounded if this would change at the sight of the daughter, lower body is getting torn off in the jaws of a GW.

syked

 Thanks for mate, can't see the edit tab thou.......

i dont see too may up in arms defending sharks exactly ,

i think most like me would support a cull /kill of certain targetted sharks if they can be identified , and we had some better science of what has changed on the coast , and why it has triggered the rise in fatalitys like it has in the last 5 years,

anyones life is equally as important to the people they love and are loved by ,
so all the guilt trip stuff about kids and women doesnt stack up imo

anyone who enters the water knows the risk is there , and should be thinking what if ?
thing is until very recently the risk was low , so it was easier to say

now unfortunalty these fatalitys are much more frequent and the reality ''it might happen ''is very real anytime we enter the water
its been brought very close to home all too often ,

question is if a legal cull was granted now , today ,
how would they go about identifying the best sharks to remove ?
how would they catch them ?
large diameter shark mesh set along the coast ?
large baited set lines with multiple hooks ?
employ pro guys to catch them ?

even if you removed 100 in one year along the wa coast
how would you know it was enough ?
how would you know the next nomadic GW wouldnt just swim along in and continue ?

there needs to be some sort of collated scientific understanding of whats going on , to complement & manage a reduction in numbers if that where to happen

otherwise you will achieve very little long term , but a sense of false comfort in that something was done now

hezzy

www.youtube.com/watch

You really have to feel for the people who are on the scene and the trauma they go thru.   

""evil flourishes when good men do nothing""

wal , Yep]
---------------
wal ,dont be misled , read my posts ,

im not advocating doing nothing ,

it is a wise man who uses reasoned logical action to resolve an issue , rather than just react to your inner fear or anger

so what would you put in place if it was legal to cull them today wal ?? give us your plan ?

hezzy

 Hezzy,

no guilt trip intended, just the bitter truth that is at that point when any shark activist is in the jaws of one of these sharks yelling "it's ok, it's ok I'm in there domain" and puts there own mortality second behine the sharks.... i call BS, pretty sure he would call pretty urgently for assistance... hell maybe even to kill the shark.The point was trying to make is this, it becomes a lot more personal when this happens to someone you know. Chris from gracetown actually stay with me for over 4 weeks some time ago ...

im not for killing them all, just the animals that have changed there predatory behaviour to frequent populated beachs...

syked

"It is a wise man who uses reasoned logical action to resolve an issue , rather than just react to your inner fear or anger"

 Quote of the day.

Thanks for the info Hezzy

syked ..The point was trying to make is this, it becomes a lot more personal when this happens to someone you know. Chris from gracetown actually stay with me for over 4 weeks some time ago ...]

syked, i do understand mate , lost a good friend in 2008 same way

hezzy

one less GW....one less to eat me!

 Shark attacks, yeah they suck but using an old cliche, you take that risk. I'm an avid surfer, fisherman and free diver and don't get me wrong I'd hate to be taken by a shark but fck me we are not the ultimate predator. These things have been around since day dot, nothing's changed they hunt, they kill, they survive. Is there really more sharks or just more people using the water?? More baits in the water luring these predators in? The amount of cray pots year after year constantly increases, either in the line up or just out the back, this is a constant burley, drawing sharks into the zone us humans use for recreation. We are our own worse enemy in this regard, how many attacks down the coast are either in salmon season or cray season??

i'm not pro cull or anti cull, I say if a white comes within 200m of the coast it's fair game and needs to be destroyed. There's ample food at greater depths, protect the majority who use this zone, it's inevitable that the oceans ultimate predator will attack a flailing slow human in shallow water, it's a natural instinct, they hunt to survive.

Walfootrot your understanding of basic biology is non existant. I am an environmental officer 'by trade' and studied biological science at university. By no means does this make me the be all end all, but I have a better understanding of how ecosystems work than the average Joe.

You are assuming that, by removing sharks, a fish that eats pink snapper, then pink snapper numbers will increase! Food webs are so much more complex than that. How do you know that GWS are not also eating other species that are competing for food with pink snapper? No sharks = more competition for food = less pink snapper. That is just one hypothetical situation mate.

It seems like you just can't wait to get out and get yourself a set of GWS jaws to hang on your wall, and any excuse will do!

http://www.livescience.com/39609-sea-otter-populations-grow.html

This is one of the most simple examples of how the natural world is intrisically linked at different levels, and something I was taught way back in highschool. The sea otter population falls, which means there are more sea urchins, which means that the kelp beds are getting grazed much harder, less kelp beds = less habitat for other marine species. These coastal kelp beds could be used as nurseries for juvenile fish species, reduced nursery habitats = less fish on the end of your line!

Which is similar to what could potentially happen by removing other high order carnivores like GWS.

Your mind set of less sharks = more fish boggles my mind.

The flow on effects of removing apex predators will be seen far down the food chain.

Kudos to you Pete ( Walfootrot ) for having a go  .. unfortunately your just banging your head against a brickwall . Opposition to thinning them out will forever pick holes in everything you say no matter what . Thank Phark , there's no T Rexs still running around otherwise chewed up punters would get the blame for leaving their caves  , while we research the devastating effect it would have on the environment .