Another fatal shark attack on a NSW boogie boarder today.

Ive tried to keep out of this one but really,20 -30yrs ago when i surfed and fished up and down the coast from Carnarvon to Albany we didnt even give GW'S a thought.Even when surfing Albany where most of them hung out. Now that everything is protected ie whales ,seals certain breeds of fish etc it seems only logical that there would be more of the GW and more spread out as they follow the whales up and down the coast.Back then there seemed to be more of everything except GW'S because they were fair game,point is i dont see how knockiing a few off mainly the big buggers over 3 mtrs will have that much difference to the way of things,only that i might start surfing and diving again.I cant work out why such a big deal is made of culling a few fish that are obviously not endangered ,it happens to other species all the time.One question i would like to know the answer to tho is how come most attacks in Australia seem to be on our S/West coast? Imagine how big a full grown GW is now after being protected for so long ie if it was 5mtrs when they were declared protected how big now? scary thought eh just thought i would put that one out there. Human life should always be of more importance than a fish,the threat of GW'S attacking has now affected the way most water sport loving West Aussies go about there favourite pastimes it is having an adverse effect on tourism and the domino effect runs to jobs ,buisness's etc.So to trot out this B.S about you know the risks when you enter the water is a crock,more so for us older crew who were diving surfing etc 20 yrs ago and the risk was, in my mind worth it for a few waves now days with so many of these GW'S about its like putting up a stop sign.Rant Over .

For Sale XL full steamer

Short John

Dive gear

2 x Surfboards

p.s Walfootrot

local fishermen in the know say they are out of control locally in the paper, 40 more sharks of all types following up the pots,scary

[willo.One question i would like to know the answer to tho is how come most attacks in Australia seem to be on our S/West coast? Imagine how big a full grown GW is now after being protected for so long ie if it was 5mtrs when they were declared protected how big now? scary thought eh ]

agree willo , it is what most people would like to know as well

ive been going to the capes coast since the mid 60s,fishing diving etc ,learnt to dive at robbies reef and killy , canal rocks etc as kids never got into surfing much ,thank F , and we never have had such a spate of incidents like we have in the last 5-10 years , until recent times it was pretty much unheard off

so what has changed since the 60s-70s, even the 80s, ??,
no one is totally against killing /culling the bigger GW models if/ when possible in swimming /surfing hot spots,

but sheer numbers may not be the real problem ,

but fact is fek all is known about them on this coast , their nomadic, , they eat seals, dead whales and whale calves if possible , but shite all else really

we need to know more about what is driving this change in their behaviour , is it a change at all ?

of course there are more people entering the water, but that is happening all over Australia , but the rapid increase in attacks locally in wa is through the roof ,, so question still remains why here ??

you wont get an answer to that unless science , tagging, tracking , study gets involved big time ,

lets be realistic , for the gov to just start killing GW it might make good political feel good pr , but it wont give us any real answers by itself

a management plan is needed ,that investigates & combines all elements to know and understand whats happening here in our backyard , then we might be able to slow or stop it
bloody helicopters is a waste of money down here imho

hezzy

 I do believe the numbers have rised, we must stop association humans and fish eg south australian shark dives,there is no need to use tuna bait i think they know your there by now by the sound of your engine, all animals are far from dumb, terns and pelicans, my wife and i have noticed how they watch the rod tip, know exactly when u have a fish . they know the bend of the rod and action, i suppose , well i know all creatures are wising up. dont bow down. we rule.

 my grandfather told me always respect the ocean for if your not watching thats when ill take u!

come on shark lovers lets go find a GW & give it a big kiss. it won't be hard, just paddle 20m from the shore and he'll be there waiting to kiss you back.

your all gooses...i have just found an article that will show you pro shark cullers your wrong!

http://theconversation.com/how-to-prevent-shark-attacks-20890

have a read…well well well….

it states what most of anti cull people are saying.

interesting about the shark cull off hawaii too that it had no affect on number of bites.

Terboz i read the article and its the same old propaganda the do gooders trot out time after time.Helicopter research,i wouldnt even rate it (how far or deep can you see into the ocean if its glary or a bit choppy?) Population in WA ,well there are more people over East with not nearly as many attacks,as for the shark cull in Hawieii they dont even say what kind of sharks they culled,we are talking about OS size GW'S.I am all for research but in the meantime the govt has to do something bar sitting on its hands.You are a young fella and when you are young you have all the time in the world .I arent and would love to get back into the water for a surf.20 -30 yrs ago the whalers in Albany were blowing them away in there thousands and there wasnt a drama with the ecosystem,plenty of fish around etc.I say cull the big buggers that are anywhere near shore and leave the rest alone.As for geese,i think they are protected as well,also lemmings that follow and believe everything they read or see on telly,which are you mate LOL.

Thats true terboz we are all entitled to our opinion,i can also use the same argument re surfers -divers that agree with the culling.Its an emotional subject and a hard decision to make cull or not. i reckon a cull would be ok ,i surf not as much as i used to although i have sold all my dive gear about 7 yrs ago because of the GW.I think it also comes down to where you live ,surf and dive.My 72 yr old dad has given up his twice weekly swim in the ocean  for the above reasons, for older crew i am 47 who grew up surfing and diving before this spike in attacks its an easier decision cause we have expierinced both the before (the spike in attacks) and after.Also living on the south coast with the ever present threat makes it easier as well. I suppose all we can do is sit and wait watch the clock and hope for a good outcome. WA Wait Awhile eh

 i dive, but get a sore neck from looking over my shoulder, i will see the one that gets me.

When we read this you get a feel for the opinions of others on this matter.

As a scientist looking at historical figures from the coast there is no doubt something HAS changed. I dont believe the idea that more people in the water = more attacks. Other than the boggie border the other day all fatal attacks in the last few years was in WA. Have we as Sandgroper entered the water more than the Eastern states? I dont think that equates.

Has seals and whale numbers increased. Historically yes when you look at scientific figure. Hence more food for sharks up and down the coast. Why then do they need to attack a human. Numbers of GW dont equate to that either and due to more food and protection it is certain but not proven that their numbers have increased.

I agree dont stuff with food chains, its just to complex but something has to be done. More research yes but then who funds this? Would water users be happy with a levy or tax to fund this. I would doubt that, but research cost $$$ and there is a very tight financial situation in WA currently. We all want research into this and that including Marine Parks and the need to protect fish stocks etc etc. That list of desirable research is endless.

Agrred with mentions above about the past. Not once did I enter the waters diving, swimming and windsurfing worrying about a shark. That did change with my GW encounter and since I had young children with commitments I chose not to take that risk. I dont think that anyone nowadays enter the water not at least thinking about this fact, and if it was me it would deter from the pleasure of the activity to the point off not making it enjoyable.

So randomly culling IMO is wrong, both sociably and scientifically. Targetted elimination when a shark enters an area close to recreational users -- ??. The sharks dont know this fact and you could inadvertantly kill sharks that had no iintention of mischief. Hunting a shark is retrospective but I do believe that at least this is targeted, and possibly as I believe would then be able to see what this shark had dined on. Inorganic material dont pass out of a shark and it would be possible to see if this one shark could be the rogue. The areas attacked in the last few years are repetitive - Gracetown and Cott revisited.

As you can see to many questions.

I am certainly against a cull (unless science backs it), not happy with a kill in areas, and all for eliminating a shark that has attacked, however hard that might be.

Things that kill more people than sharks...

http://themetapicture.com/things-that-kill-more-people-than-sharks/

Some good comments above,

As stated further back Kudos to Wallfootrot for putting it out there, don't think he has become too personal and has had some good points. but Wallfootrot: "no know ill effects from the GW being close to endangered" (Paraphrase) would like to know where this data is taken from ? are you saying the worlds scientific community has not noted any ill effects or just "you" while fishing havn't noted any ill effects?

In this discussion some have called anti culling people "tree huggers" blah blah blah....I think the (probably drunken) comments about "shark lovers" and "kissing a GW" lol while had comic appeal certainly don't do the Cull side of the debate any justice.

Some here still think that some of us believe that A sharks life is worth more than a humans life. Not a single comment in this whole debate that says that. from what I have read no one has a problem with killing an individual GW. it's a species and the potential effects it can have on the marine environment that concerns us.....

FWIW most most of us "treehuggers" don't necessarily oppose a cull we just want some scientific research into the numbers...and potential effects to support that mistakes are not made....just no kneejerk reactions

Is two lives a year worth the effects .....I don't know ! No if that is the only problem involoved. ...BUT IT IS NOT the only thing to think about..... we mess with the environment by killing to eat ...hard to be anti that ! but messing with the environment to save two lives a year (or ten for that matter) when the alternative MAY have adverse effects long term .....and starve a million.

Do we want to bet....with the limited info we have here that we are not going to cause a breakdown in the marine environment cos we culled a little too many GW's therefore we caused a million people to starve to death. (an exaggerated example ....maybe?) my point is we have made this mistake MANY times before. History has shown many times over that making emotional/political decisions about the environment when science is absolutely critical ....will have unforseen results ....sometimes catastrophic for ecosystems and we need to change attitudes if we are going to survive long term.

Make no mistake....we are all trying to save lives and protect a way of life. Of course this is incredibly hard to do when someone close is lost but we need to look long term.
A game of chess is not won by looking one step ahead !

(and before anyone gets started ....its a metaphor peoples lives are not a game your family now or your grandkids!)

With the comments for the shark cull saying kill the big sharks the kill the rouge sharks there is to many this is something to think about, If 5 GW sharks were killed lets say from cape leewin to two rocks would you feel safer going in the water to dive,swim or surf. If you feel safer then your mind is playing games with you because in REALITY you are not safer, there will always be sharks in the ocean, I regulary fish for sharks out from eaglebay, cape nat and have not seen a GW only makos, bronzies and hammerheads if there is more GW around they are hard to find in a boat.

20 years ago the spotter plane that was calling in the scools of salmon to the pros always said if the surfers knew how many sharks were swimming around them they would not go in the water.

The GW shark does not only travel from South oz to west oz they travel from south africa to west oz

I do go in the water and will Always be worried of sharks

I am all for research and tagging  not culling even if they lifted the ban on fishing for GW and I caught 1 I would still release it and not kill it

My opinion

Taking a Step Back....

Reference Material: http://www.hsi.org.au/?catID=114

OK, I will look at it from the other side.

We tag GW sharks, Why?

1, To find out where they go. ( reseach shows they go anywhere they like,)

2, To see how many there are. ( really, bit of a guess I would say )

3, To allert people when a GW shark is in an area. ( This one got me stumped, by the time the message got out it may be to late, but still good to try ).

4, Er,um anyone like to add something?

So stating that we need more reseach is not enough, please explain how reseach will stop people being taking by these wonderfull creatures.

Back to the dark side.....

Wal can you explain how culling sharks they see will stop people being eaten by the sharks they dont see

this is a good discusion , all involved should take a bow ,over 220 posts and mostly positive comments

see to my mind the question of why attacks have increased more here in the west coast of wa is a smattering of several issues that combine to increase attacks here

''HERE ' west coast between esperance and the abrolhos

my theory is this ,

the GW numbers have steadily increased over the last 30 years, even before they where protected , real numbers where not actually known , so theve increased , possibly more than thr researchers estimate at present , not only that , but we have some big mothers among them , the cohort between 3-5 metres is reasonably large in numbers ,these are the ones that eat larger mammals as their main source of food , & may be responsible for most if not all attacks here

so , then you if you go back to the pre 80s, when whalers killed whales legally out of albany , , so the whale numbers where low along our coast, seals where few and far between back then as well ,none living on the capes for extended periods of time , only as a layover stops on their journey north or south from carnac , etc

we had people entering the ocean , but not so many as now in the new millenium , diving , surfing, all water sports have really taken off in the last decade or so , add in the commercial use of shark nett back in the 70s,80s,90s, in greater capacity than we have now , the commercial shark guys netted and killed a few each of the big mutha GW every year, this kept them in check a little as well

with all of the above, the big 3-5 mtre GW still did nomadically swim along our coast, but the large mammal food they like and need was less back then , so they tended to stay on our coast for less time than they do now , they just travelled through, kept on moving nomadically until they found a plentiful reliable sourcce of food and hung out there for a while [think neptune islands etc ]

however , now with the build up of whales migrating , south and north along our coast, seal numbers more steady and reliable etc, more ''other mammals humans '' in the water on our coast, combined all the above with the rise in numbers of big 3-5 metre GW nomadically travelling aong our coast , the big GW have learned food is here for them in abundance over longer periods of time , hence they are now staying here for longer,sort of settign up camp here for possibly months at atime if not all year round , and they do seem to have established certain places as attack zones along our coast, using deep water drop offs from 10-20 metrs depth as launching spots to patrol from as they move from one food area to another in their travels

think , south point to lancelin , wedge and out to rotto etc as atravel circuit for them possibly

then just as an extra add in the confirmed belief that they can learn from the cage diving interactions/experience in the east , that boats,anchor chains rattling , dive tanks banging , burly, etc, means a possible feed for them , imo we have groomed them to seek us out

just my theory , but it makes pretty good sense to me
not sure the gov or fisheries experts would want that sort of idea/scenario going public though , not good for business id guess
jmo

hezzy

Ideally the tags ( frequencies ) would be unique to individual sharks which would make assessments easier . So far as I know this is not the case and when a receiver goes off a few times , we don't know whether it's 2 or more sharks or one that's swimming back and forth . I'm not aware if that tech is easily attainable but it would advantageous .

Another 4.5m GW buzzing a boat as they tryed to pull their pots out coventries today...... nice.

 hezzy has it, totally agree. spot on.

 to go .sharjk problem will be gone ...yes dhue time

Bindi Irwin LOL,You have it just about right Hezzy.Watched a show on Foxtel re a beach in california yesterday where they get an attack or some kind of interaction with a large GW every 2 years since 2008,they used some of your logic.Also agree with Walfootrot less big sharks around is betta jmo.

Great opportunity here for a charter company and the State Govt to sell 'trophy rights' for X amount of Great Whites to be caught and killed each year. A percentage of the money could then be ploughed back into the Fisheries Department to expand the acoustic tagging/electronic buoys program.

What would a great white be worth as a trophy? Obviously you would want to be able to keep the jaws if you paid for the trophy.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/how-great-whites-trawl-our-coastlines-for-7000km/story-fnhocxo3-1226772406903

 Whilst all this researching is happening.. (Which may take decades and a lot of funds)

why is the government not taking any practical steps to protecting the public, even if it be temporary barriers specially in hotspots? I'm sure if there was a possibility of a barrier that would actually work, it would save lives in these locations.

At this stage the normal reply to a shark attack is to search for it, which is very unlikely and infact zero sharks have been killed after attacks so far and it looks like the government want to be seen as if they are doing something, until the situation settles abit and the head lines dissapear.

Pretty much this is what happens every time there's news of a shark attack.

and who knows if these sharks aren't returning and or attacking surfers/swimmers else where on their route.

lastly,

balance is the key I believe to a safer future for humans and the sharks/fish in the ocean, if we protect most species in the ocean and list them as endangered whilst it not been the case, it would surely have negative impacts to humans and also to other species in the ocean and if we were to go all out and cull, I believe that too would negatively impact the humans and the marine life.

So I say why don't these politicians get up and take some steps until all this so called "more research" is done?

 I think they are being knocked off here and there, i wouldnt mind a nice trophy set of jaws.

Walfootrot - I feel you are missing the point without adequet research, how do we know what the population was 20years ago? how do we know what the population is now to reduce it back to what it was 20years ago? It is all well and good stating that we should reduce the shark population back to what it was 20years ago, but how do we go about doing that without having rock hard evidence first?

Populations and ecosystem dynamics are constantly changing. The seal population has increased in our waters in recent times. How do we know that if we reduce shark numbers to what they were 20 years ago that the already inflated seal population will not go out on control and reduce fish stocks? These are just scenarios, and not what I think might or will happen.

I dive, I snorkel, I swim at the beach and I fish. I'm not one of 'these pople' that don't use the ocean and want to protect the sharks, I'm in the water on weekly basis, often more.

What is the number of GWS that you would like to see culled to make you feel safe in and around the water again? You can't just say to what the numbers were 20years ago, who knows what that number was? It's all research brother.

Shark nets are a dodgey one. They kill bulk sealife, seals, whales, stingrays etc, they do not descriminate and most (if not all) do not extend all the way to the sea floor.

 Been watching shark week shows and loving it! An observation I've made is all the researchers trying to attract sharks to their boats! Starting to wonder is this activity training the sharks to attack my boat while I'm out fishing ? 

http://themetapicture.com/things-that-kill-more-people-than-sharks/

have a read……..