Been talked of alot, although today i have read reports that the govy has decided to catch and kill sharks that come too close to shore.
IF that is correct, what does everyone think about it? I think its a little over the top personally. Rogue sharks that are repeat offenders i can understand. Killing an animal because it swims where we dont want it to, doesnt seem right to me.
At the same time, i think the catch rate will be minimal. Too many beaches, not enough manpower to really make a dent.

Yeah this should work. We don't want them in close proximity to swimmers etc so we set lines with baits to attract them to those areas.?????????

FlySurfer said...

The problem is we have too many people.
Every human has a devastating effect on the planet.

<snipo>

If you value biodiversity, cull anyone who is thinking of culling another species. If anybody event thinks of culling an endangered living Earth treasure... snuff out the every trace of that idea.

<snip>

Why can't we feed humans to apex predators? Apex predators have already been decimated, and their prey is almost extinct.

What about the other apex predators that became extinct well before humans came on the scene? Why is now so special?


..and, by saying:

"If you value biodiversity, cull anyone who is thinking of culling another species. If anybody event thinks of culling an endangered living Earth treasure... snuff out the every trace of that idea. "

You are saying that you should kill yourself? That sounds a bit extreme to me!

Would culling sharks that are seen close to busy (ie Metropolitan) beaches have prevented even 1 of the 5 deaths last year? I think not.

It's a reaction simply to be seen to be doing something and won't do anything to increase the safety of the typical shark attack victim who is not, and never has been a kiddy swimming close to shore.
It will, however, make 'beachgoers' feel a bit safer and will hopefully help our tourism industry.
And it is better than a mass culling.

Still it's a shame that hundreds of people in Australia die of drowning every year (including some swept off rocks or other fishing incidents) and there's not $7 million spent preventing this. Cause it doesn't make headlines.

Cull by profesional fishermen/women Protected species, what a joke
For all those bleading heart mob, take a wonder down to the local business that are impacted by shark attacks. Dive shops, and the like, tourism has taken a masive smash in this area.

tmurray said...

Would culling sharks that are seen close to busy (ie Metropolitan) beaches have prevented even 1 of the 5 deaths last year? I think not.

It's a reaction simply to be seen to be doing something and won't do anything to increase the safety of the typical shark attack victim who is not, and never has been a kiddy swimming close to shore.
It will, however, make 'beachgoers' feel a bit safer and will hopefully help our tourism industry.
And it is better than a mass culling.

Still it's a shame that hundreds of people in Australia die of drowning every year (including some swept off rocks or other fishing incidents) and there's not $7 million spent preventing this. Cause it doesn't make headlines.

It's not only going to be metro. They are also going to target sharks that are hanging around a close to shore at populated areas be it surf breaks or whatever.

There was a known white hanging around wedge leading up to the recent attack.
Had they caught that shark would that attack still have occured?
Maybe but you would have to think the possibilities would have decreased massively.

They are spending $500,000 on jetski's for clubbies. Surely that's going to help with rescues etc. Better than them getting nothing...

jbshack said...

Get it write;

I don't think they will catch any, or very very few.

By the time the shark is spotted and fisheries is notified, chances are it'll be long gone by the time fisheries get there with the gear to catch it.

Glad they have also pumped another 2million or so into tagging them.

It's funny, the news.com.au poll has a 79% vote for they shouldn't be killed.

A scary looking man just walked past my house, maybe he should be put in jail for murder. Just incase...

Dawn Patrol said...

Glad they have also pumped another 2million or so into tagging them.

The funny part is all the money they have already spent on tagging and monitoring systems you'd be interested to know just how many have actually been tagged by our state government

We currently have 20 plus acoustic devices in Perth Metro waters alone. I finally spoke to a lady from fisheries today who said she will try and find out. Guesses from other people of interest have all said around 100. But i say it believe from my contacts in fisheries it will be less than 20

Bloody expensive tags

So all this money is just getting pissed up against the wall really

easy fix . use all the pedo's rapists and murderers in jail and put em on longlines off the coast . Freeing up money and resources in our justice system and dealing with people who don't deserve to live .

geez surprise , another shark thread

Woodo said...

tmurray said...

Woodo said...

tmurray said...

Would culling sharks that are seen close to busy (ie Metropolitan) beaches have prevented even 1 of the 5 deaths last year? I think not.

It's a reaction simply to be seen to be doing something and won't do anything to increase the safety of the typical shark attack victim who is not, and never has been a kiddy swimming close to shore.
It will, however, make 'beachgoers' feel a bit safer and will hopefully help our tourism industry.
And it is better than a mass culling.

Still it's a shame that hundreds of people in Australia die of drowning every year (including some swept off rocks or other fishing incidents) and there's not $7 million spent preventing this. Cause it doesn't make headlines.

It's not only going to be metro. They are also going to target sharks that are hanging around a close to shore at populated areas be it surf breaks or whatever.

There was a known white hanging around wedge leading up to the recent attack.
Had they caught that shark would that attack still have occured?
Maybe but you would have to think the possibilities would have decreased massively.

They are spending $500,000 on jetski's for clubbies. Surely that's going to help with rescues etc. Better than them getting nothing...

'
So it MAY have prevented 1 death. But not the other 4. My point exactly.

1 prevented death is a win in my books.
You'd rather have a shark in the ocean than a loved one or mate not in your life anymore?

I think it would have prevented all or most of the attacks.
The sharks that come close to metro beaches and swimmers & surfers will be the same sharks that come in close to country beaches. They are just as happy to eat someone off Lancelin as they are to eat someone off Cottesloe. And all the attacks have been well within the roaming range of even just one GW shark., although I think there are now probably two.

The proposed change will take out of the system the sharks which have a liking for eating people and are not afraid to come close into shore and get them.
In that respect it might even save the divers who get eaten miles out to sea off Rottenest.
If you can believe what the "experts" tell us and accept that sharks don't like eating people then the removal of very few sharks will fix the problem.
The alternative is that now lots of sharks like eating people, in which case that is an even more compelling reason to cull lots of them.

Provided this policy is actually implemented, in two years time you will be able to prove me wrong or right. Provided of course, they actually manage to catch some.

My money is on "right". (or is that "write" )

So I say,.. "Good on ya Col ! Just make sure it happens."

Rupert said...

I am not in favour of culling sharks from our coastline!
.....
Blah blah and more blah....

I have had the child of a close personal aquaintance severely mauled by a 'pig dog' that was being kept in suburbia, do we destroy ALL pig dogs that get too close to people?

No. And noone is asking that ALL sharks be destroyed.

Hopefully you would support destroying any pig dog which was found to be attacking or acting in a menacing way towards children.

Hopefully you would support not allowing pig dogs to roam free in childrens playgrounds, even if it meant destroying those that habitually do.

It's exactly the same concept.

Well some people on here have suggested that ALL white pointers are culled...

But, Great Whites do come in close to shore. If all the sharks that came within x km of the shore are killed, there would be very few left. They are sighted all over the world near the shore. I don't think any sharks 'fear' the shore.

To be honest, killing one near the shore might make it safer for the next 10 minutes. But I think in the long run it would provide as much use as killing one a thousand kays out to sea.

There is no evidence what so ever that the same shark has done these last attacks. It is a possibility and if it is the case, they should get rid of it. It can't be proven at the moment though. And if it is true, well of course it will stop the attacks. But willy nilly killing any big great white that comes close to shore will probably do bugger all.

Ah well, I will rest well knowing that the chances of them actually catching/killing one are small.

And at least they are still chasing seals, as per the seal that was lunched of cott/leighton this morning

And great, more clubbies on jet skis (which is probably not a bad thing, they are a very good tool for rescuing people, I just have a dislike to jet skis)

The original post said

catch and kill sharks that come too close to shore

Woodo said

going to target sharks that are hanging around a close to shore at populated areas

I said

do we destroy ALL pig dogs that get too close to people

pweedass said

No. And noone is asking that ALL sharks be destroyed.

Pweed read the post my question was "do we destroy all pig dogs that get too close to people", sorry the analogy was lost on you.

What I was saying was 'Pig dogs' are dangerous creatures and are a potential threat to public safety. Yes/No?
now comes the hard part.....
'Great White Sharks' are dangerous creatures and are a potential threat to public safety. Yes/No?
A GWS that is swimming in the vicinity of human beings is liable to be destroyed. Yes/No?
A 'Pig dog' that is walking in the vicinity of human beings is liable to be destroyed. Yes/No?

Nowhere was I saying ALL sharks or ALL pig dogs should be destroyed......and I dont recall writing

.....
Blah blah and more blah....

Have a Bex and a good lie down you've got blahitis.

doggie said...

They should do something too attract the sharks futher offshore, someone in the kite forum mentioned burleying/chumming to banned with in ten kays of the coast line. Also any dead whales too be towed out past Rotto so they can feen on them while tagging them at the same time, I think that idea was from KOTP.

Ive never been a fan of culling but ones that stray in a bit close if they are seen should be at least marked by a chopper etc with a flair or similar.

I reckon doggie is onto something.... They want food so feed them..... but far offshore and regularly .....don't bait, don't kill just simply lure them away.... Pic a spot with a bit of reef or island far offshore and regularly chum it up big time,... the sharks will naturally be drawn to this spot and probably always head there for a feed.. If they do venture off they will di so with full bellies. Tourism will benefit on the beaches an out at the shark hive.. Winners all round