Well as usual a topic full of emotion has become a sh!t slinging match with people playing the man and not the ball.

Harden up is not a valid argument it is simply a weak as pizz online way of trying to say "I'm the tuff kid in this internerd forum".

For my 2c:

IF they can 100% prove the identity of the shark involved in a fatal attack (as they had 11 yrs ago when trailing the actual animal involved in that fatality) then plug it in the head or kill it as humanely possible.

IF they cannot prove which of 200 sharks is repsonible then it lives to see another day.. another human snak perhaps.

Virtually no-one argues against putting down other animals such as dogs involved in attacking humans and I fail to see the diff here.. Rail on about territory if you like but we inhabit the ocean and crowded metro beaches should be made relatively safe where possible.

I also fail to see how some folks can go fishing, spear fishing, crayfishing etc and yet get so emotional about sharks. Smacks of hypocrasy to me.

Yes, numbers are importsant and that is why I am NOT advocating lifting general protections against important species such as sharks.

I understand that they are awesome creatures but there is a lot of 'mystique' around them but let's not get too romantic about plentful GWs cruising our shores with the need to occasionally take a man-eater out of the equation.

NOW before someone with an oposing agument starts rabbling on and pontificating..

I want to make it clear I AM AGAINST WHOLESALE KILLING OF GWs AND RANDOM MULTIPLE KILLINGS - ONLY A SHARK INVOLVED IN AN ATTACK NEEDS TO BE TAKEN OUT.

getfunky said...

Well as usual a topic full of emotion has become a sh!t slinging match with people playing the man and not the ball.

Harden up is not a valid argument it is simply a weak as pizz online way of trying to say "I'm the tuff kid in this internerd forum".

While I am no doubt the tough kid, it is a valid argument, I don't see how I am capable of enjoying the Oceans with the inherent risks involved while others apparently cannot?/..

Virtually no-one argues against putting down other animals such as dogs involved in attacking humans and I fail to see the diff here.. Rail on about territory if you like but we inhabit the ocean and crowded metro beaches should be made relatively safe where possible.

C'mon get real.. Dogs involved in attacks have been bred to attack.. We breed bloodhounds that smell, greyhounds that run, and Labs that are loyal.. We can breed dogs to do and act in any way we like..

And some people like to bred dogs that bite... These dogs know exactly what they are doing and are dangerous animals..

If you want to make Metro beaches relatively safe then do something about the drownings, there are 100 each year..

BTW, how many people do we know that won't swim in the oceans because of sharks?? ****loads!! Drownings would go up if we made Metro beaches 'safe'

3 friggen pages and still going. So they must have caught the shark or given up by now and yet the topic still runs.
Not that anybody needs to hear my view but here it is:
A gw loses energy digesting humans so if they have a brain once they have tried a human they will probably give up on us as a food source.
They also say sharks will self regulate their numbers depending on the amount of food but around here they are growing in numbers in common fishing areas due to everyone using light tackle but scientists insist this is not the case.
Maybe we are changing the balance without knowing it. The best thing we can do is learn more about the whole ecosystem by tracking these apex preditors. Like someone said the tourism industry could help pay for it too. Cage diving tourism in south Aust would be a good place to start putting radio beacons on them or something.
What are they going to learn by just killing it Track it and they may just learn something.

Maybe control the population of the largest GW. This could allow people to have a chance of surviving a taste test from smaller ones; due to co-increasing population interaction.
Just a thought given protection has helped to bring GW numbers back, and perths sudden increase in humans.

Tagging and monitoring would be ideal except for $

Woodo said...

jbshack said...
[
Great white's and Hammer heads are already at 75% wiped out. That's 3 in every 4 gone..

How did you reach this figure and do you have any sort of evidence to back it up?

http://www.academic.marist.edu/mwwatch/spring03/articles/Science/science1.html

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0116_030116_sharks.html
Theres two for ya

lotofwind said...

How do they know which shark to kill???????????

If this problem were approached with a bit of forethought it would be easy. Grab a handful of boat people and use them as bait

Are our local fish stocks not monitored and managed?
Have we not protected and enforced fishing waters?
Do these statistics relate to our local coastal range of sharks or do they point to a different problem not related to large sharks eating people in the south west of WA?

Well done WA for the preventative measures you have taken to ensure the survival of the great whites, now let's manage their habitation in this corner of the Indian ocean and set an example for the world again!!!

I think the tag and watch idea is the best... Which mining company would like to volunteer the funds?

I also wonder if the sensationalized close beach, hunt and kill tactic would have applied if it was not an American tourist who got attacked? (rip)

The big ones are the ones that worry me....

jbshack said...

boofy said...

Woodo said...

jbshack said...
[
Great white's and Hammer heads are already at 75% wiped out. That's 3 in every 4 gone..

How did you reach this figure and do you have any sort of evidence to back it up?

http://www.academic.marist.edu/mwwatch/spring03/articles/Science/science1.html

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0116_030116_sharks.html
Theres two for ya

Thanks you beat me to it.

Sorry for another post but a further example of just how stupid man can be.

Did anyone else see 60 minutes last night were they are trying to cloan and bring back to life a Woolly Mammoth? Real cleaver as another scientist said wouldn't we be better spending our time and effort trying to save what life we have left as a priority

Even if humans are bad tucker an encouter between someone swimming in the ocean and great white could end up badly for the human.

Reducing the possibility for encounters would be the go. Aerial patrols spotting sharks near popular beaches plus possibly tagging and tracking the most dangerous sharks could be a solution if the voting public and scientific community believe sharks need to be protected.

I don't know if reviving this thread is such a great idea but anyway, here we go....

An article today from someone who has studied what responses work and don't work. He claims killing sharks doesn't work, educating humans does.

www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/shark-hunts-a-hollywood-response-to-real-horror-20111024-1mgb3.html

Didn't know WA had organised a shark hunt following recent attacks.

sorry to advertise in the furum but I am selling the amazing new "instant revenge wetsuit "
Laden with powerfull shark killing poisons, you get eaten and that bad old shark gets dead"
sent your money to www.i'mavindictivemofo.com.au

hey maybe if we GPS tag all new watersports participants we will be sure of finding the "bad" shark and should freak out enough people to reduce crowds too