shark attack at umbies cont

Next time they fly over wave your hands at them see if you can get there attention.. Get them back and then give em the thumbs up!

Select to expand quote

PRAWNDOG said..
what I was suggesting was a pro-active approach prevention is a solution. You also commented saying that when a shark attacks a person we should kill the shark as a solution to the problem, now I'm not saying this is entirely wrong, but lets break down what your saying here; lets do nothing just wait till the next person gets attacked so we can kill the shark that attacked or killed someone, this will fix the shark problem...... So what if the next victim was one of your family members, what do you say to the family, send them a card thanking them for their sacrifice, tell them there child, father or mother was collateral damage and its all for the greater good, all we have to do know is wait for the next attack so we can kill that shark to make the ocean even safer this sounds so much more logical, than a device people can buy to attach to themselves.

I have no problem with people taking all the actions they want to prevent them becoming fish food.
But,.. the reality is, many, if not most will do nothing more than they do now, which is either not go out at all, or go out less, or go out and take the risk, which sounded like your preferred option.
Less people in the water will not result in less attacks, unless the "less" means almost none at all.
The shark will simply swim 50 metres down the beach and eat the next closest person.
It's not as if they can't make the distance.
So, as far as relying on people to look after themselves, it's not going to make much difference to the attack rate.

Next, if we rely on the government stepping in and removing the "protected species" classification on GW's to allow an all out cull, it's very unlikely to happen.
They will talk about it and make noises like they might to do it, but in the end I think it's all just talk to make us feel better because a solution is on the way. Once the racket dies down a bit and it moves off the front page, it will all be forgotten much as it did last year, and the year before that.
So, as far as relying on the government to look after the people, it's not going to make much difference to the attack rate.

Therefore, given that the most probable course will be a continuation of the present attacks, at least let's put forward a plan which has some chance of being accepted, and which will garantee for as many attacks as possible, the offending shark will be removed.
Since I don't believe there are very many sharks involved, then we should see a marked reduction in attacks very quickly.
I think we have seen a reduction already, compared to the previous years count. Maybe coincidence, maybe not.

If the next victim was one of my family or friends, I would be be far happier to know that at at least something was being done about it rather than the nothing which we have done over the last ten years.
So far, for all the recent deaths, it still appears nothing official has been done, and still nothing definitely planned, except a whole lot of talk and requests for study programs to research the problem.
Study programs and research while people are being eaten alive ?
When did life become so cheap?

Select to expand quote

pweedas said..

southace said..
5) Tag and use listening stations coneccted with ww2 bom sirens on the shore line(my plan)

Your plan would certainly make a difference at metro beaches and any beach which is populated enough to set up a detector and siren system.
But a lot of places that people go to regularly would not be protected.
Many of the recent attacks would still have happened. Probably more than half.
Also, it would rely on the shark swimming close enough to the detector so as to set it off, and more importantly, be on the surface at that time.

The other problem is, it would cost millions and take years to set up and get working effectively.
I keep in mind that for all the expense spent on helicopter patrols and the supposed notification network, on most of last years local sightings, the first I knew about it was when the helicopter turned up and started hovering over the suspect area.
Even then I still heard no official notification. I had to walk up the beach and ask someone.

Everything required to take out a few offending sharks is already out there with willing participants who would like to give it a go.
It could be arranged as soon as tomorrow.
All it needs is an approval.

I have to correct you on a few things here.

1) The tagged shark and listening station works at any depth the shark does not need to come to the surface.

2) The tagged shark needs to be 1 km to the listening station and by installing 2 or 3 simultaneously would cover more area.

3) Cost would be way cheaper than any technology used currently.

4) Taking out a few offending sharks is not going to solve the problem.

Well it seems we will just have to wait for the go ahead to cull these random rogue sharks.

www.surfinglife.com.au/2013/11/28/10645/tragedy-in-the-west/

This whole 'over fishing' argument...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the bigger sharks that have been behind the spate of attacks, right?

As the GWs grow in size they move on from eating fish to eating mammals, seals, whales etc, right?

Just about everyone agrees that there is an abundance of whales around these days.

There is also a proven surplus of seals around.


All indications are that there is plenty of food around for the big sharks.


It just seems fishy to me, this over fishing argument, as it's the smaller sharks which rely on fish stocks for food, so if there is an over fishing problem, it's the smaller sharks that would suffer, not the big ones.

I think both sides of this argument have agreed that the numbers of GWs have increased over time, even if some say they are still low, there are more than there has been around for a while.

SO, if overfishing was responsible for sharks going hungry, surely we should be seeing LESS big GWs, cause there wouldn't be the food to sustain the numbers of small GWs and let them grow into big GWs.


Am I missing something?

Small GWs eat fish and grow up to be big GWs who eat mammals.

No fish = less small GWs surviving to grow into mummy and daddy GWs.

Yet we're seeing lots more big GWs, and there is plenty of food around for them.

So why are they going for people?

Select to expand quote

Sailhack said..

^^^ one word - 'familiarisation'.

Pretty much what I think.

Can be the only answer really, there's plenty of traditional food around for them but sharks are opportunists, they'll take an easy meal over a harder to get one.

So once this behaviour is ingrained, and we're actively being hunted every time we go in the water, what then?

Can someone refresh me on how many GWS attacts have been recorded in WA this year?

Select to expand quote

southace said..

Can someone refresh me on how many GWS attacts have been recorded in WA this year?

Two in WA one fatality.

Two fatalitys last year.

Select to expand quote

pweedas said..

southace said..

I have to correct you on a few things here.

1) The tagged shark and listening station works at any depth the shark does not need to come to the surface.

2) The tagged shark needs to be 1 km to the listening station and by installing 2 or 3 simultaneously would cover more area.

3) Cost would be way cheaper than any technology used currently.

4) Taking out a few offending sharks is not going to solve the problem.

Well it seems we will just have to wait for the go ahead to cull these random rogue sharks.

Re point "4) Taking out a few offending sharks is not going to solve the problem."

Is there any proof of that or is it just an opinion.?
If it's just an opinion, my opinion is different and I think provided the sharks removed are the ones which made the attack, it will make a BIG difference.
If they are just random sharks, then you would be right. It would make no difference.

Re point " 1) The tagged shark and listening station works at any depth the shark does not need to come to the surface."
That's interesting. How do they do that since radio waves, VHF, UHF etc don't travel through water.?
I know VLF waves do but that technology requires huge antenna of the type in Exmouth.
I don't think you could fit anything like that in a shark tag. They are so small it would have to be UHF.
More information please.?

Can you say without proof that it will make the big difference that you think it will?

Select to expand quote

WA71 said..
Can you say without proof that it will make the big difference that you think it will?

How does anyone expect an undeniable proof for any of this?
Do any of the propositions put forwards by anyone come with proof? No.

This continual demand for proof is what's preventing anything being done.
I don't have any proof that it will fix the problem.
Nobody has any proof that it will not.
On that basis, all anybody can do is try ideas.
That's all I'm asking.
And since so far, nobody is doing anything, then lets try something different, and do SOMETHING. Anything.
And start with the cheapest and esiest ideas first.

13 PAGES! Sheesh.
It's easy to see why nothing is being done.

Everything is being said.
Nothing is being done.
Typical of everything these days.
So much talk,.. so little action.

Select to expand quote

WA71 said..
So lets just kill them all just in case it works

Why would you want to do that?
No-one is seriously proposing that so I'm not sure why you would suggest it.
I don't think you will get very far with that proposal.

The never ending argument!!!!
I propose action

first step: ban shark cage diving around the world, surely an apex predator would learn from his experience and the association of human beings with easy food is not a great idea.

Since they travel the oceans, the sharks fed in cages in NZ or South Africa are being trained to take us out in WA.

Probably not going to have a great immediate impact but seems like the sensible thing to do first and foremost.

Just to clear (for my point of view) i don't believe there are more great whites than before. I do believe we are seeing more than before but the two are different. I think they are simply hanging around this area more than before. Before anyone says thats the same, its not..

I just got some details back regarding Parliament. It turns out the question was presented and asked into handsard on Thursday. The Minister For fisheries (Buzwell) was unable to be in parliament that day and answer that and 5 other questions he was presented with. He also was not available Tuesday or wed and a complaint was registered to that matter. Its going up again tomorrow..

A semi professional fishing mate of mine just returned from Exmouth. He talked about a massive decline in bait fish in the area and the extremely aggressive nature of all sharks. Tigers, Reefies, Black tips. He was mostly complaining at the loss of over $350 worth of lures to be fair..

I think i was told 6 Marlin tagged of our metro coast this week. Our state waters are definitely changing before us..

And obviously with Sharks not for the better

Select to expand quote

kiterboy said..

jbshack said..

Just to clear (for my point of view) i don't believe there are more great whites than before. I do believe we are seeing more than before but the two are different. I think they are simply hanging around this area more than before. Before anyone says thats the same, its not..

So you don't think that there are any more GWs around now that they've been a protected species for how long now?

And please explain how is it not the same?

He's saying that perhaps years ago the GW's hung out in the entire ocean. Now, the same number are hanging out in a smaller space (our coastline), which gives them impression that there are more.

If we're seeing more cause there are more hanging around, then for all intents and purposes, there are more.
It is the same thing.

And yes, I agree with WA71, protected species = numbers increasing.
That's the whole purpose for protecting a species.