Select to expand quotejbshack said..
Oh the news just said that 21 people drown yearly in WA..Should we make it compulsory to wear a life jacket in the ocean
If safety is what we are all about...
Did anyone care about the two spinal injures in the surf this week just gone. Perth Metro area that is Really are sharks the only issue.
Folks don't seem to worry about the stats from which they are exempt because their superior super-hero like skills.
They're too good in the water to drown or crack their bones in the surf.
Too good a driver to worry about motoring statistics.
If a Buffalo charges they are confident they can repeat the Crocodile Dundee manoeuvre.
Crocodiles? Steve Irwin has shown us how to wrestle them. How hard can it be?
Sharks are just a little too scary, no amount of skill is seen to be of use.
http://www.seashepherd.org/operation-requiem/why-we-need-sharks.html
Says it all really..
I am astonished at the level of Selfishness TBH It seems a few think their wants are more important than the Worlds NEEDS
Ever wondered what our World Champ thinks
twitter.com/kellyslater/status/232647254106832896
There have been 12 fatal shark attacks over the past 13 years in WA, eight of which were in the last five years. Here are the figures for the 50 years prior to that, for perspective:
* 1997 - Werner Schonhofer - Disappeared while windsurfing off Geraldton.
* 1995 - Dave Weir - Abalone diving near Hopetoun (ironically, the same day the process to conserve white pointers began)
* 1967 - Robert Bartle - Bitten in two off Jurien Bay.
* 1948 - Arthur Strahan - Disappeared while swimming at Lancelin
Chances of being eaten used to be pretty slim. But not lately, and if reading forums and other comments is anything to go by, popular opinion says that's because there are more people in the water now, and more seals, and more whales. Well yes, but there's something else too, there are more white pointers...and even that's not the real issue. The problem as I see it is that they're coming of age.
* After at least 150 years of indiscriminate killing by humans white pointers became a protected species about 17 years ago.
* They reach maturity around 15 years of age, when they are around 3 metres in size and it's thought that they live about 30 to 40 years.
* Their diet doesn't include marine mammals until they reach around 3 metres. This is because the lack of mineralisation in their jaw cartilage compromises strength - the jaws damage easily when too much pressure is applied on too firm a target, such as a seal. This, according to researchers, means it's unlikely that juveniles are responsible for attacks on people.
So here is my take on it. The first pups born since protection began would have reached maturity a couple of years ago. Others born sooner than that will have enjoyed their juvenile years in a safer environment than the one their parents survived and will have reached maturity several years ago. The parents will either be dead of old age or sickness or cannibalism by now, or they're still alive and simply getting older, and maybe bigger.
Anyway, these young adults will be testing out the new and exciting flavours of bigger prey than they are used to, because they can. Some might even be taste testing the buffet and spitting out what they don't like... And next year there will be more reaching maturity and doing the same thing, and the year after, and the year after and on it will go. And factor in that these now mature sharks will also be busy getting together and making baby sharks.
It's not hard to see what another 15 years will bring.
During the late 1800's and early 1900's not all that many people were swimming in the Indian Ocean off the lower half of WA. None were surfing or scuba diving. Those things didn't take off until around the mid 1900's, when white pointer numbers were already very low. For well over a hundred years a busy whaling industry had been destroying not only whales, but anything that dared compete for the valuable carcasses being towed to busy processing plants. And back then most people who were in the water were there because they'd fallen off a boat.
This recent trend is unique to anything we've ever seen before, and it will get exponentially worse. It's not a freak rush of isolated incidents that will settle back down into what was accepted as normal for so long. This is the start of the new normal if something isn't done.
I found the following comment in the discussion here: www.theinertia.com/surf/to-know-what-living-is-life-death-and-sharks-in-west-australia/
"Where do you draw the line on culling? I don't know but if we can successfully manage the fish stocks we eat surely we can mange the ones that eat
us."
How about a fresh dose of logic for all of the statistically impaired here?
www.seabreeze.com.au/forums/Kitesurfing/General/Should-Shark-Wetsuits-be-compulsory/?page=-2#lastpost
Select to expand quote<div class="fwn fcg">Bring Shark Men, Ocearch to Research Western Australia's Sharks
<div class="mbs _5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed">Hugh Edwards (WA Shark Expert) wants Ocearch to come to WA!!!
Catch-and-kill policy not the answer, says expert
Hugh Edwards says catching and killing sharks is not the answer.
"They aren't easy to catch," he said.
"It's my belief that fisheries here have anchors that are too big and hooks that are too small.
"But irrespective you'll never know whether the sharks you catch are the sharks that have been involved in the attacks."
Mr Edwards also says he is disappointed the State Government does not want to be involved in an international shark-tagging program.
The US-based organisation OCEARCH wants to tag and track great whites off the WA coast, as it has done in other parts of the world.
Mr Edwards says the Government should put more effort into research.
"We need to know a lot more scientifically about great white sharks," he said.
"I'm disappointed the offer of the American research team - their offer of coming here to help out - hasn't been accepted, because they do have the boat, they have the equipment and what they're doing makes sense."
Mr Buswell says he will take a closer look at the proposal by OCEARCH; however, it does not seem to be any more than what local researchers are already doing with a shark-tagging program.
He says a report based on sharks tagged in WA is due for release in January.
The WA Government is already spending more than $20 million over four years for mitigation strategies including helicopter patrols, shark tagging and tracking, and research projects.
<div class="_5pcp">Like · · Share · 8234 · 32 minutes ago ·
Don't you just hate it when So called Shark experts disagree with keyboard warriors..
$20 million of your hard earned money Kiteboy..You happy with the value your getting
Select to expand quoteDawn Patrol said..
There was a doco on tele (which means it must be right ) not long ago talking about 'Rogue Sharks', whatever a rough shark may be. It pretty much concluded that there is no such thing.
I dont think there is any evidence that it is the same shark, i dont think large GW counts. The attacks have been fairly spread out (aside from Gracetown) over the entire WA coast from Esperance up to Abrohlos Islands.
What evidence is there that it is the same shark?
I'm not saying it isn't (Idon't think it is), I'm just saying there is no evidence. There will also be no way to ever prove it.
This comes back to a comment I made earlier regarding what might be referred to a rogue bulls or rogue magpies, or anything else for that matter.
I suppose the same person who concluded there is no such thing as a rogue shark would claim there is no such thing as a rogue bull.
He would be wrong.
Any species can have a rogue element to it, even people.
This might be due to mental variation, physical defect, or something else, but I tend to think there is a strong genetic link because hyper bulls tend to have a greater tendency to throw a hyper calf.
The fact is, you see it every year in a normal cattle herd and every year in a few hundred head, you almost always get one or two animals which are a total terror, even with good genetics.
Also, just one hyper animal will hype up the animals around them so instead of just having one hypercow, you end up with a hyper group.
I don't know what the brains trusts would be studying to conclude sharks are any different.
I tend to think they are just people with some silly unproven proposition which everyone falls into line behind because they have some letter after their name.
Letters after your name is not necessarily an indication of common sense.
It is an indication that they are good a reading books.
Select to expand quotejbshack said..
Nice first post..I see you have a computer and i guess Surfboard. Welcome aboard
I look forward to your other Conspiracy theories ..
Thanks..Yes, obviously and No, guess again. Really?
Did I say something in particular, or are you naturally paranoid?..
Select to expand quotejbshack said..Woodo said..
Bit rich JB baggin KOTP stats when you've gone from one post saying there's 5000 left to 4 posts later saying there's 3500 and then going there's under 10,000. That's a bloody huge variance. I know your only quoting what these so called 'experts' think but so is he.
Bit rich? Not really. I was asked to provide some proof, or evidence to support my argument when i challenged the home made graph, that said there may be over 160 000 sharks world wide. SO i did that and to try and add some balance mate i quoted the highest and lowest figures i could find. My original number of 5000 seems to have been smack in the middle of the two but sorry mate if my QUOTE was not quite accurate enough for you
KOTP is obviously very concerned. SO why would he not want to do something to help himself? Why should it be up to the government to do it for you
There are options for Surfers other than trying to force your opinions of a cull on to the rest of the world. SO take the initiative and HELP YOURSELF first. Thats my point
The question was asked a few pages ago by someone else, how many of the anti brigade have bought a Shark Shield?
One person pipped up saying it didn't work for the abb diver (sorry his name I'm not sure) but if you read the coroners report you will see that he had it attached to his air hose and it was on the surface, so rendered useless due to miss use. So that excuse doesn't float, to say it doesn't work. Or is it actually that the threat of shark attack is real, but it is very slim and not worth the $300 investment
It really is common sense.
I posted with the intention to Highlight, that for every attack there is a real person with a name and friends family and love ones ,and also to highlight there are pleanty of people other than surfers using the ocean whom have experienced attacks as you would well know thats not all of them .............. Concerned well i dont want to be attacked if there is a way i could be warned .......I have put forward a point of view to save the great whites with better tracking .............as for looking after myself,,,, a big bastard hasnt got me yet ,just hope the percentages arnt tipping da sharks way as it seem to be the case and if they are, ......... well sorry they need to be thinned out,
To night on the TV barnett.........discussing if the fisheries were the experts Hahaha
Is there also a long term economic angle for tourism if this continues ???????? He might be thinking so ??????
Didnt here much about the Margaret Wine and food festival with the worlds top chiefs / Just shark attack news????
any way hope the oceans creatures are good to yous
Mr JBShack has the right idea.
He has naively questioned state parliment when no others on this forum have.
To Mr Shack: The time has come to enlist some Hollywood! You need to get James Cameron onboard but also Steve Speilberg not only to denounce th idea of rogue sharks but to publicise that his first major film was about rogue truck drivers nailing far in excess of the annual human/shark toll.
The statistcs will back up your argument.
Perhaps Colin should meet them both at the airport.
Some facts about western Australia's fisheries
For many years there was shark fishing boats even during the protected time aka last twenty years. As they were net boats any great whites caught would be doa( dead on arrival) fishermen would have to ( supposed to) report these captures to fisheries.
The last 5 to 8 years shark fishing has become economically unviable in Western Australia due to fisheries restrictions.
Cray fishermen were also allowed to set shark hooks on their floats, this would be done on a regular basis and with each boat if which prior to fisheries allowing the huge licenses we see nowadays the average boat would have approx 100 pots of which 2 to 4 daily would be set with shark hooks. At the time a cray licence was a west coast fishing licence with craypots endorsement. As fishermen kept very limited catch records of Demersel and shark catches fisheries took the licences back therefore stopping a lot of wet lining and setting of shark hooks on floats. At the time there were 300 cray boats fishing 100 pots each which may give an indication of the amount of sharks caught. There was also about 8 shark fishermen ( net) which would catch around 1 to 2 tonnes of shark per week.
Now there is one or two shark fishermen and no hooks on craypots floats.
Sharks take 15 to 20 years before they mature enough for the jaw strength to attack mammals... Seals, people, this also coincides with the amount of time they have been protected and alone as a fact raises serious alarm bells about the current state of fisheries ( management)
I believe in a managed shark fishing industry and this is something that we always had up until 5 years ago when it became economically unviable.
I think if you eat fish and chips, prawns and scallops and don't agree with a managed shark fishery than perhaps it could be fair to say that it could be seen as a little hypocritical to say we shouldn't manage the great white shark population particularly when in previous years it was managed and effectively. At the time there was very little noise as any great white sharks killed were not publicised and without the media frenzy that there is nowadays. The current state in Western Australia is akin to the movie jaws and if you state I'm exaggerating the last few years has seen a larger number of deaths than in the movie.
It is a known fact that great whites are habitual feeders returning year after year to feed in the same place, they are not silly and a lot of the guys from boats can testify to seeing the same shark in the same place at the same time of year. When staying that these are accidental attacks or mistaken identity it must be said clearly that in the last few attacks the victim was eaten. Consuming a person is not a case of mistaken identity. With reference to the attacks and " missing swimmers" at Cottesloe and mullaloo I have no doubt that it was the same shark that committed repeated attacks at the same location. If there is a rock with seals on and the shark has fed there before there may not be an attack until the shark frequents that area again but when it does it goes there through memory and habit.
We all drive cars and most of us eat fish and chips, there's a high chance the glass bottle of beer you drink daily was made from sand from coastal dunes. I do not condone some sort of witch hunt or slaughter, however the implementation of a managed fishery would decrease the likelihood of further attacks, the evidence of this is from the managed fisheries established prior to their banning and the increase in attacks since. No one not even fisheries can tell you how long a great white lives for. However there is strong anecdotal evidence that it is most definatly at least the life span of that of a human, it can be said that in the collective consciousness of great whites there is very little fear of humans and in fact the opposite.nowadays they are familiarised with divers in cages, boat motors and chummed up to be taunted. Imagine if the dog that you would run the stick up and down the fence to taunt it with when you were a kid finally got out of the yard..... Now envision if you will that you are a shark there is bait in the water and someone in a cage,I can assure you the sound of a boat motor and the reward of tuna for biting the cage that contains a human will not produce a result the shark does not remember. In parenting its called " positive parenting" that is to reward for correct behaviour. Whilst you may say I am not qualified to talk on these matters or disagree with my theories. It is fair to say I am not university educated nor do I hold a degree. I have however been an aniline diver and cray fisherman and hold a master 5. I have driven cray boats and being a craypots retrieval diver. There are many things taught from the older fishermen to the young guys that have been lost. A lot if guys who are spear fishermen will recount graphic tales of being stalked in and buying there way to shore by intermittent feeding of fish to the predator chasing them. Great white sharks in my view are highly intelligent and until people begin seeing them as such and stop changing sharks behavioural patterns from what they are naturally the attacks will continue and they will get worse and more regular.
Couldn't agree more about how the cage diving must be altering their perception of humans Razzonator. Invite them in, tease the crap out of them, repeat with next day's thrill seeking punters. Any genetically acquired fear of humans they might have had is surely being lost and replaced with something a lot less flattering to our species...
Select to expand quotejbshack said..
<div class="fwn fcg">Bring Shark Men, Ocearch to Research Western Australia's Sharks
Would you mind reposting so we can understand what you are saying?
I am still surprised that although GWS are protected that tour boats are still allowed to feed them daily large amounts of food.
Select to expand quoteWA71 said..pweedas said..kiterboy said..WA71 said..What are you basing your opinion on?
^ Imo its not the same shark..
Dogs have a nose for that sort of thing.
(In this case though I think he is wrong. )
That its a big fricken ocean with lots of GWS between Wedge and Gracetown, and I bet there its lots between 3m - 5.5m
That's like saying it's a big paddock with lots of bulls in it so why should it be the same one that always chases you out.
Fact it, it IS always the same one which chases you out and it will do so until you get rid of it.
or
It's a big sky, why should it be the same maggie that always attacks you.
It always is and sometimes others join in.
When you get rid of the main offender they all stop.
These are easy examples that are easy to see and prove.
Why would sharks be any different?
Select to expand quotepweedas said..That's like saying it's a big paddock with lots of bulls in it so why should it be the same one that always chases you out.
Fact it, it IS always the same one which chases you out and it will do so until you get rid of it.
orIt's a big sky, why should it be the same maggie that always attacks you.
It always is and sometimes others join in.
When you get rid of the main offender they all stop.
These are easy examples that are easy to see and prove.
Why would sharks be any different?
Does your theory extend to removing this magpie?
Select to expand quotelongwinded said..
Pweeds, you ok on top of the fence. Can we get you a drink?
Yes please.
And did you have any specific problem with the points that I mentioned or were you just concerned with my hydration levels?
www.watoday.com.au/opinion/ten-questions-to-answer-before-we-cull-sharks-20131126-2y82k.html
A good balanced article.
On a light hearted note it seems in FNQ they have different approach to keeping the sharks happy
Select to expand quotepweedas said...WA71 said..pweedas said..kiterboy said..WA71 said..What are you basing your opinion on?
^ Imo its not the same shark..
Dogs have a nose for that sort of thing.
(In this case though I think he is wrong. )
That its a big fricken ocean with lots of GWS between Wedge and Gracetown, and I bet there its lots between 3m - 5.5m
That's like saying it's a big paddock with lots of bulls in it so why should it be the same one that always chases you out.
Fact it, it IS always the same one which chases you out and it will do so until you get rid of it.
or
It's a big sky, why should it be the same maggie that always attacks you.
It always is and sometimes others join in.
When you get rid of the main offender they all stop.
These are easy examples that are easy to see and prove.
Why would sharks be any different?
Um, no. Sorry that's wrong. You can not compare a bull to a shark.
Apples oranges.
Select to expand quoteWA71 said..
pweedas said...
WA71 said..
pweedas said..
kiterboy said..
WA71 said..
^ Imo its not the same shark..
What are you basing your opinion on?
Dogs have a nose for that sort of thing.
(In this case though I think he is wrong. )
That its a big fricken ocean with lots of GWS between Wedge and Gracetown, and I bet there its lots between 3m - 5.5m
That's like saying it's a big paddock with lots of bulls in it so why should it be the same one that always chases you out.
Fact it, it IS always the same one which chases you out and it will do so until you get rid of it.
or
It's a big sky, why should it be the same maggie that always attacks you.
It always is and sometimes others join in.
When you get rid of the main offender they all stop.
These are easy examples that are easy to see and prove.
Why would sharks be any different?
Um, no. Sorry that's wrong. You can not compare a bull to a shark.
Apples oranges.
I guess some suggestions to help this argument either way would be to look at Ocearch's website and see a few of the tracked Great Whites. They do boggy up and down and all around. For a shark to be in Wedge one day and Lefties a day or two later is not that out of the question. But the argument tot one rouge shark can't really fit unless its a shape shifter. Reports have them as different sizes for many of the attacks.
I don't think its one shark. I think there is more sharks in our waters then ever before, but that doesn't mean there is more sharks in total through out the Oceans.. JMO
On a side not i like how (I'm arguing another site as well) this person says they can't use a shark repellant as there is no guarantee, but they think killing a few will give them that guarantee..
