^^^
if you don't want that element of risk.. stay out of the water.

kiterboy said..

Ctngoodvibes said...
Fark you speak some drivel JB....

You got that right.

He quotes figures with no understanding of where they came from, yet bags out and dismisses an honest and transparent attemp at a real estimation of numbers.

Makes you wonder what his motivation really is.
Jb seems to be trying to sell boats by gaining publicity through this forum, remember, any publicity is good publicity.
Or he's in favour of sharks as it keeps people out of the water, so the only way watet lovers will return to the water is in a boat...

kiterboy said..

Ctngoodvibes said...
Fark you speak some drivel JB....

You got that right.

He quotes figures with no understanding of where they came from, yet bags out and dismisses an honest and transparent attemp at a real estimation of numbers.

Makes you wonder what his motivation really is.
Jb seems to be trying to sell boats by gaining publicity through this forum, remember, any publicity is good publicity.
Or he's in favour of sharks as it keeps people out of the water, so the only way watet lovers will return to the water is in a boat...

Yeah right I'm really here to Sell boats dick he-d

I post all over. Check your post and you seem to mostly only post in Shark threads, so why are you here

ChiroTrev said..

Unfortunatley Southace, education and research doesn't save lives..... Reducing shark numbers and removing the rogue man eaters certainly will!!!

Not every shark is a man eater, just as every person not a murderer....but there are "bad ones" who have eaten people and will return each year until they are removed...

Now for education....what most "shark saving activists" don't realise is that in the stomach's of great whites you find dugongs, porpoises, sea turtles just to mention a few endangered species!!! So why protect one animal that kills so many more!!!----------------

Lets get our priorities right from a "conservationist" point of view:
1) people come first at all times
2) other, non threatening marine life comes second (and why netting is a bad option)
3) life threatening marine life come third

So lets "conserve" humans, endangered species, and thirdly sharks.

This ideal "everyone wins and everyone can live situation" is nonsense, and innocent people die while "idiots" get on their "high-horses" and assume that we can all live together in harmony. Porpoises, duguongs, seals and sea turtles need to be saved, not to mention the people who pay taxes to governments in the hope that it will protect them from such threats.

A petition is needed.... something has to be done and the longer it takes, the moe people who are sadly taken.

I think the point you've missed Trev is that we NEED the ocean to be healthy to enable Humans on this planet to survive. Thats why we shouldn't kill of Great Whites, unfortunately they are the top of the food chain and the imbalance could be catastrophic for us..Looking at the bigger picture.

I think for a few on here this is all a joke. But i take it seriously.

Killing of great white sharks will just shift the paradigm and next we will be huntings, Bull sharks, then tigers, then what? For anyone who says we don't want to kill them all, its the only chance you have, as if you kill 10 in the next month, more will swim in from others areas, because thats kinda what great whites do. So next year, (whale session) we will have 10 more on our beaches. Sadly its the nature of the beast

South Australian fisheries, through CSIRO and private operators have tagged around 138 great whites. Many of those have swam up and set of our receivers. SO you would need to at least cull that many, to make a difference in the short term. But then the chance is still there that they have missed many, and you could still be the unlucky sole.

For everyone who is Pro a cull, only one person has really come forward with a suggested number to cull Anyone else care to share how many should be Selectively Pruned

By placing set baits at specific locations these sharks could be selectively culled ie drum bait 3 miles off grace town,3 miles off Cottesloe, 3 miles off rottnest . If baited with whale a shark can smell 1 drop of blood from around half a mile, a piece of bait the size of approx 2 kg could be detected at around two miles away ( at least) this would eliminate sick sharks( as these are the ones most likely to be in this close for easy feeding) aggresive sharks. A number of around twenty great whites removed specifically ( and I say this as they are habitual feeders) from these areas would result in fewer chase ins and attacks. For every fatal attack there have been at least 5 or 6 close and over friendly encounters. In the case of the wedge shark this shark was seen for days and days leading up to the attack. In this case a set hook would be placed out off the break to
A lure the shark off the beach and out of the surf zone
B catch the menace shark.
These are very specific targeting methods and would only target one shark at a time in a specific spot.
On my return to australia I will happily start a formal petition to forward to state parliament. I for one have had enough. Jbshack on many forums here I agree with your perspective on things. I find it odd though that a man who sells boats to divers,fishermen( probably the majority) and surfers can take such a strong stance against selective culling. Every boat you sell would end up in the deaths of dhu fish,snapper,whiting,squid, sharks etc etc. please do not take this as an attack as it is more of an honest observation. I do not think there should be a slaughter, however the removal of twenty great white sharks would have minimal effect on the ecosystem. Imagine if every boat you sold did one drift for snapper at the same time through coburn sound after spawning season. I believe the weight of the fish caught would be of the same weight of 20 great whites approx 20 tonne. The removal of that much Demersel fish would have far more impact.
There are three charter boats in hillaries, all have twenty lines in the water all day each has two hooks they do ten drifts a day. If each person catches two fish a day that's 120 fish a day caught and killed taking rough conditions and days fish able into account at 200 days a year( again on the cautious side I know cause I've driven boats from hillaries ) that's 200 x 120 fish per year. Versus killing twenty sharks, now I'm pretty sure the removal of 24000 fish is a greater threat to the environment than 20 sharks a year. Furthermore 24000 fish is a lot of shark food. Once again these are conservative calculations, there's charter boats from freo too and jurien and bun bury exmouth etc etc. fisheries granted these licenses and they can do the same for a managed shark fishery.

Oh-Oh! Now we're going to have to kill all the grey nurse sharks as well.

pweedas said..

jbshack said..
I think the point you've missed Trev is that we NEED the ocean to be healthy to enable Humans on this planet to survive. Thats why we shouldn't kill of Great Whites, unfortunately they are the top of the food chain and the imbalance could be catastrophic for us..Looking at the bigger picture.

I think for a few on here this is all a joke. But i take it seriously.

You assume that the ocean would be unhealthy if there were no GW sharks, or less GW sharks.
Why do you think that? And don't just say it's because it's an apex predator.

Dinosaurs were apex predators and the world is in a much better place without them.
If they were still around, that's all there would be. A world full of apex predators.
When the number of GW's were lower some years back as claimed, did the oceans turn to mud? no.
Did the bull sharks breed up and infest the local waters ? No.
Was there any increase in the number of attacks from bull sharks during this period of less GW's ? No.

Now that the numbers of GW's are increasing, is there any evidence that the oceans are more healthy? NO.
Are attacks from bull sharks dropping off from previous levels? No.

The assumption that the arbitrary balance of the ecosystem is in the very best form it can be just because that's the way it was, is false.
There are numerous other balance points which can be just as good, if not better, and far less dangerous places to be.
You have not shown any correlation between a healthy ocean and large populations of GW sharks, and yet you constanly link the two as if it's an uncontested fact.

Pweeda i don't assume anything. Im simply stating what the worlds marine scientific community is saying

R.I.P young fella

ChiroTrev said..

"A petition is needed.... something has to be done and the longer it takes, the more people who are sadly taken."

The only fair petition would limit participation exclusively to the people who are likely to be eaten. That would cut a lot of time-wasting. It could start like this:

IMPORTANT - Do you use the ocean for work or recreation?

If you answered yes and your activity results in wetting your hair, please continue and sign the petition if you wish to.
If you are now follically challenged and still doing the activity that used to wet your hair when you had some, you may also continue.
If you answered no, what are you even doing with this in your possession? Thank you, you're done.

Sadly, political solutions encourage political correctness, and you don't have to look far to find a misplaced glut of that stuffing up what should be straightforward decision making. Even the thought of Fisheries having a hand in this makes me shudder. It's been my observation that their mission is actually to create jobs...for themselves. The cushier the better. Before you career junkies get too excited, set your sights on the Ministership only if you're comfortable sitting on your hands. Through at least two terms.

I'm raving, where was I...

jbshack said.. "I think the point you've missed Trev is that we NEED the ocean to be healthy to enable Humans on this planet to survive. Thats why we shouldn't kill of Great Whites, unfortunately they are the top of the food chain and the imbalance could be catastrophic for us..Looking at the bigger picture.

For everyone who is Pro a cull, only one person has really come forward with a suggested number to cull? Anyone else care to share how many should be Selectively Pruned?"
________________________

Speaking of points missed, there's a hole in that big picture you're viewing jbshack. Two actually.
1. We are at the top of the food chain. We are their only predator. Us first, them second.
2. Reducing great numbers of great whites has been happening since before your great great great granddaddy rowed a whale tender off Albany. Look around you, it didn't result in a catastrophic imbalance to human survival. Don't be fooled by the hype Chicken Little, the sky's not going anywhere.

To answer your question, I can't provide a figure but I can make a suggestion. How about starting with removing the 4 metre+ ones visiting cage diving tours and see how that pans out. Who knows, maybe the smaller ones will develop a preference for staying away from humans. That still allows some breeding to occur, but puts a bit of a handbrake on it, hopefully enough to tip the balance back to the more acceptable level we've enjoyed for so long.

jbshack said..

pweedas said..

jbshack said..

I think the point you've missed Trev is that we NEED the ocean to be healthy to enable Humans on this planet to survive. Thats why we shouldn't kill of Great Whites, unfortunately they are the top of the food chain and the imbalance could be catastrophic for us..Looking at the bigger picture.
I think for a few on here this is all a joke. But i take it seriously.

You assume that the ocean would be unhealthy if there were no GW sharks, or less GW sharks.

Why do you think that? And don't just say it's because it's an apex predator.
Dinosaurs were apex predators and the world is in a much better place without them.
If they were still around, that's all there would be. A world full of apex predators.
When the number of GW's were lower some years back as claimed, did the oceans turn to mud? no.
Did the bull sharks breed up and infest the local waters ? No.
Was there any increase in the number of attacks from bull sharks during this period of less GW's ? No.

Now that the numbers of GW's are increasing, is there any evidence that the oceans are more healthy? NO.
Are attacks from bull sharks dropping off from previous levels? No.

The assumption that the arbitrary balance of the ecosystem is in the very best form it can be just because that's the way it was, is false.
There are numerous other balance points which can be just as good, if not better, and far less dangerous places to be.

You have not shown any correlation between a healthy ocean and large populations of GW sharks, and yet you constanly link the two as if it's an uncontested fact.

Pweeda i don't assume anything. Im simply stating what the worlds marine scientific community is saying

In that case you are still making an assumption, and that is, they are correct.
Common sense in regards to this particular matter would indicate they are not, for the reasons I stated above.

But of course, they don't use common sense.
They use statistical "evidence" which is gathered from small areas which may support their view and then extrapolate it to include everywhere else which does not.

We

WA71 said..

Personally I think people will take things into their own hands and its already happened from what I've been told.

Will culling twenty stop the attacks?

Well that's smart! fisheries will spend all there resources trying to stop that happening rather than focus on the current events!
I do also believe there is a Hefty jail sentence for such a crime.

southace said..
We

WA71 said..
Personally I think people will take things into their own hands and its already happened from what I've been told.

Will culling twenty stop the attacks?

Well that's smart! fisheries will spend all there resources trying to stop that happening rather than focus on the current events!

I do also believe there is a Hefty jail sentence for such a crime.

That's why a large proportion of the population think fisheries are a waste of money and resources.
If they did the job properly themselves then we wouldn't be in this situation.

As you said above, 7 days to try and tag one shark? Did you even succeed in that? Or was it all just "try".
Geeez.. Wars have been started and finished in less time than that.

At that rate, how many years will it take before a sufficient number are tagged to make even the slightest bit of difference to the situation?
And at that rate, how can anyone believe that all this is doing nothing more than providing a good time for the boys? At huge expense.

Do or do not. There is no "try". (Yoda)

pweedas said..

The assumption that the arbitrary balance of the ecosystem is in the very best form it can be just because that's the way it was, is false.
There are numerous other balance points which can be just as good, if not better, and far less dangerous places to be.
You have not shown any correlation between a healthy ocean and large populations of GW sharks, and yet you constanly link the two as if it's an uncontested fact.

Any reference to"balance of the ecosystem" always amuses me, how many thousands, tens of thousands of tons of fish and other sea creatures gets pulled out of the ocean every day? Surely any balance that there may have been has long since gone, if all the GW sharks would we even notice?

These attacks are sad , but I cant believe all the rednecks calling for shark culling'sAround 1,500 people die on our roads each year , its around 40,000 in the States. Facts are their are a Billion ways to die and dying from a shark attack is low on the list of possibilities even if you spend a lot of time in the ocean.

teatrea said..

all the rednecks

My point proven entirely.

pweedas said..

WA71 said..
Personally I think people will take things into their own hands and its already happened from what I've been told.

Will culling twenty stop the attacks?

I thnk it will.
An indication of this is that you said someone in an area north of perth might have removed an offending shark, or two maybe?
jbhack was quite upset about it.
Maybe one or two others have done likewise.

I don't think they cleared the ocean of sharks but whatever has happened, if anything at all, the fact is that in the previous year we had about six attacks.
So far this year, xmas to xmas, we have had just one.

Now if you believe that someone has removed just a few sharks, and you said you did, then that is a very good indication that removing just a few will very much reduce the problem.
And yet a few days ago you said that it would make no difference. ???

Of course it will never totally fix the problem, because if there are sharks in the water, eventually someone will get bitten, even if by a reefy or wobbygong.
But it will definitely remove any problem caused by a shark or sharks which don't mind snacking on the occasional swimmer as a matter of course.
Ther remaining risk we have lived with always and is taken as acceptable.

I think if you killed 20 great whites of our WA coast line then you would see a big difference in Great White sittings, for a few years at least. If what Pweeda is hinting at if at best 4 have been killed already (back door style) and there is a difference in this years attacks because of that, than I think by killing 20 will make a big difference.

It will also put us as a nation on the same list as the rest of worlds poorest or most arrogant nations who thumb our noses at the rest of the world.