jbshack said..

www.watoday.com.au/opinion/ten-questions-to-answer-before-we-cull-sharks-20131126-2y82k.html

A good balanced article.

Good and balanced? Can't believe I'm about to do this...

1. How many sharks are out there anyway?

At the moment we don't know. The International Union for Conservation of Nature officially lists great whites as 'vulnerable'. There is no official population estimate of numbers, although some analyses suggest there are as few as 3000 worldwide.

And so the unanswerable question remains unanswered.


2. What is the population trend?"

Unknown," is the IUCN's one-word verdict on whether great whites are indeed swelling in number as a result of conservation measures. It's a similar story for the local population, for which data are equally scarce.

And what would common sense suggest, as a result of conservation measures? Two-word verdict - probably increasing.


3. Are fatal shark attacks really becoming more common?

It certainly seems so, on the face of it. Mr Boyd's death was the third deadly shark attack at Gracetown in the past decade. In 2011-12 there were five shark fatalities in just 10 months along the WA coast. But drawing conclusions from just a handful of statistically rare events is surprisingly difficult. How can we prove, for instance, that the spate of deaths is not due to increased human presence in the ocean? Or that it's not simply a tragic anomaly in the numbers?

The correct answer is yes. And I think he meant two handfuls, not one. Really, he should have stopped at "coast".


4. How widely do great white sharks range?

Another tricky question, although not as difficult as estimating the population. The Department of Fisheries has tagged some 140 great whites in a bid to track where they go – there is tentative evidence that the local WA population roams all the way from northern WA to the Bass Strait.Tony Cappelluti, of the department's Shark Response Unit, said that the shark that attacked Mr Boyd probably left the Gracetown area within a few hours. Culling a species that roams over such huge distances may well be pointless, given the likelihood that more sharks will arrive from elsewhere.

Tricky huh? They proved years ago that they range a long way. This guy is writing page filler for numpties.


5. Would removing sharks from a given area keep those areas shark-free?

Say the government decides to kill any large shark guilty of "lingering" (whatever that means) near Cottesloe Beach. Does that guarantee that Cottesloe Beach will have fewer shark visits in future? It seems unlikely, meaning that the current system of aerial patrols and evacuations will have to continue. In which case, why bother culling?

The correct answer is 'no', see number 4. The meaning of lingering is...oh get a dictionary!


6. Can sharks learn to avoid humans?

It has been claimed that sharks have become 'habituated' to humans because, since the advent of conservation measures, people have turned from hunter to hunted. Given the rarity of shark-human encounters, this seems unlikely. But in truth, this is yet another scientific question to which we don't know the answer.

...Right...yeah, I think I've made my point.

Psst, hey jbshack, did you hear the one about how they're trying to dumb down society?

Great info thinkaboutit, thanks,,,,,,only 3000 left, that is a very small number, if thats the number, then they deserve conservation, humans should apply their superior logic to reduce random contact, rather than wiping them out, i mean, surely peoples love of the ocean shouldn't out weigh a species right to exist

Milsy said..
Pweedas, sharks(GW) and cattle? do i have to point out, that one species eats grass, the other eats you, these species are driven by completely different fundamentals, the randomness of shark attacks suggests that there not territorial, as opposed to being chased out of the same paddock, or swooped as you walk past the same tree, im really sure sharks dont understand terms like Rogue, as if other sharks think timmy the shark is acting unshark like for eating humans, in my opinion, sharks and humans can't co-exist in small spaces, if a human and shark are thrown into a pool, the shark is gunna eat the human everytime, regardless of what riduclous relationship the human felt they had with the shark, but i dont think we should kill them, they are the rulers of the sea, the most ferocious species left on the planet, they out date our species, and are simply majestic. I think we should just accept that fair dinkum screening is the only true precaution, both species have no problems co-existing if not in direct contact, as for cronulla, yeah, build a big wall around that no success ever rugby league town

I referred to cattle and magpies because those are the few that I am able to remove without getting put in gaol.
There are numerous other examples where we seem to coexist for the most part with little problem, but every so often one of them gets a taste for people.
I could quote stories of lions, tigers, hippos, crocs, and all sorts of things but I have no personal experience with them.
To argue that sharks have no similarities in this characteristic is to argue that something which is common to every other species is not seen in sharks.
It would be almost impossible to prove that sharks do not have the same characteristic, but until such time that someone does, I would say the probability is that they do.
As for it being apples and oranges, even apples and oranges have similarites.

In any case, as I have said many times, it's an easy matter to dispense with.
Take out a few sharks which are very close in time and area to the attacks and see if they stop after a few are removed.
If in five years time we have removed 20 sharks with no difference in the attack rate then I will concede that I was wrong.
It's the easy cheap option.
To spend another 10 million dollars on studies and research with no guarantee of any success, while people are being eaten is a silly option.

Razzonater said..

3000 is a gross understatement, I would easily put the number at ten times that in excess of 30000. There are at least 5000 humpback whales worldwide. Lets not be naive the ocean covers two thirds of the world. Of which at least half of that is habitable for great whites. Choppers have seen at least 4 or 5 great whites since the attack and that is over less than 100 kilometres of coast and in good visibility. Chopper pilots can only see sharks up to 4 or 5 metres deep. Now do an imaginary mass comparison say 100 km by 1 km x the distance of all land mass on earth put together.

Thats not true. The choppers have not seen 4 or 5 great whites since. Most of the great white reports have been not confirmed by fisheries.

30000 sharks? Why do you think you know more than the worlds Scientific community? Im just curious

Milsy said..

Great info thinkaboutit, thanks,,,,,,only 3000 left, that is a very small number, if thats the number, then they deserve conservation, humans should apply their superior logic to reduce random contact, rather than wiping them out, i mean, surely peoples love of the ocean shouldn't out weigh a species right to exist

Oh nah, Milsy, you missed something there in translation, I was saying it's rubbish info and taking the piss of the article. Article writer's questions in bold and his blah blah in italics - my comments in normal type. It was an article jbshack linked on the last page.

Jbshack, which world scientists have come up with the 3000 figure?

Milsy said..

thanks man, 3000 seems low but i have no idea how many Great Whites there are???

Search the net, best estimate is 10000 lowest is less than 3500.

So how many do we need to kill to make it safe
Or will be not make it any safer, but we can feel better for exacting revenge on a fish

jbshack said...

Milsy said..

thanks man, 3000 seems low but i have no idea how many Great Whites there are???

Search the net, best estimate is 10000 lowest is less than 3500.

So how many do we need to kill to make it safe
Or will be not make it any safer, but we can feel better for exacting revenge on a fish

With such a massive variation of guess between the 'experts', you've got the nerve to try and belittle people here for putting forward just as relevant guesses??


You need to get over yourself.

ThinkaBowtit said..

That's just it Milsy, no one does know, no one possibly could know. Pretty safe bet to say there's more than there was 17 years ago, and more on the way. And they're starting to kill people fairly regularly, so obviously it is too many.


The argument I keep seeing that a cull will upset the entire nature of the planet and stuff the food chain is laughable. It didn't last time their numbers were reduced - we're all still here and the food chain is ticking over nicely (excluding the Japan-Hawaii-US east coast stretch...)

But we are a lost cause as a species if we willingly become second best in the marine food chain. To think that that is acceptable is...I don't know, enviro-Zen extremism or something, and that's a cult needs to be stopped before it gets started.

73 millions sharks a year are killed for fin soup. Sharks are hunted especially great whites because a few nations believe sharks can't get cancer so they can help stop us getting cancer. So they are still getting knocked out at an alarming rate.

But does anyone Care to put a number on how many to cull to make us safe

jbshack said...

ThinkaBowtit said..

That's just it Milsy, no one does know, no one possibly could know. Pretty safe bet to say there's more than there was 17 years ago, and more on the way. And they're starting to kill people fairly regularly, so obviously it is too many.


The argument I keep seeing that a cull will upset the entire nature of the planet and stuff the food chain is laughable. It didn't last time their numbers were reduced - we're all still here and the food chain is ticking over nicely (excluding the Japan-Hawaii-US east coast stretch...)

But we are a lost cause as a species if we willingly become second best in the marine food chain. To think that that is acceptable is...I don't know, enviro-Zen extremism or something, and that's a cult needs to be stopped before it gets started.

73 millions sharks a year are killed for fin soup. Sharks are hunted especially great whites because a few nations believe sharks can't get cancer so they can help stop us getting cancer. So they are still getting knocked out at an alarming rate.

But does anyone Care to put a number on how many to cull to make us safe

Care to put a figure on how many GWs are being hunted each year?

jbshack said...



If you search the net there are pages posted everywhere, by these so called people who study sharks. They think they have all the answers just because they went to UNI and have all these fangled type of degrees and sh-t. They can be a bit annoying and lets face it, just because they spend the entire lives studying something really doesn't mean they now more than say you or me. Hell i have a computer, i have a surf board as well, in fact i have a few, does that make me even smarter

Sorry JB but this still makes me lol and I have to ask.

Are you getting all your stats and info off all these so called people who study sharks and think they have all the answers just because they went to uni and have all these fandangled types of degrees and s#it?

If so I seriously am questioning anything you claim to be factual or even remotely factual in this whole discussion.

I mean let's face it. In YOUR words
"Just because they spend their ENTIRE lives studying something really doesn't mean they know more than you or me"

I never have and never will claim to be an expert or produce stats which I'm not sure are correct. I'm pretty sure that your no expert either but is this where your getting a large percentage of your info from? The so called experts that you just dismissed as not knowing anymore than you or me???

jbshack said..

Milsy said..



thanks man, 3000 seems low but i have no idea how many Great Whites there are???

Search the net, best estimate is 10000 lowest is less than 3500.

So how many do we need to kill to make it safe

Or will be not make it any safer, but we can feel better for exacting revenge on a fish

Even if we take your lowest estimate of3500, you can see that 10 or 20 less will make absolutely no difference.
Why are you so much against the easy and cheap option when it will have zero effect on the survival of the species, and might in fact help save it.?
If it stops the problem, it will stop the calls for an all out indiscriminate cull.

Are you so sure of your viewpoint that you are happy to risk a whole lot more peoples lives rather than try something immediate?

jbshack said..
But does anyone Care to put a number on how many to cull to make us safe

jbhack, you're not listenning. ( or is that.. reading? )
I put the number at 10 to 20 maximum so long as it's done very selectively.
That is, kill any large shark which is in the area of an attack within hours of the attack.

pweedas said..

jbshack said..
But does anyone Care to put a number on how many to cull to make us safe

jbhack, you're not listenning. ( or is that.. reading? )
I put the number at 10 to 20 maximum so long as it's done very selectively.
That is, kill any large shark which is in the area of an attack within hours of the attack.

I read it after, sorry slow typing. But thanks for putting up a number I appreciate a argument that is backed and thanks for that. I still disagree but thats okay..Each to their own..

jbshack said...

Razzonater said..

3000 is a gross understatement, I would easily put the number at ten times that in excess of 30000. There are at least 5000 humpback whales worldwide. Lets not be naive the ocean covers two thirds of the world. Of which at least half of that is habitable for great whites. Choppers have seen at least 4 or 5 great whites since the attack and that is over less than 100 kilometres of coast and in good visibility. Chopper pilots can only see sharks up to 4 or 5 metres deep. Now do an imaginary mass comparison say 100 km by 1 km x the distance of all land mass on earth put together.

Thats not true. The choppers have not seen 4 or 5 great whites since. Most of the great white reports have been not confirmed by fisheries.

30000 sharks? Why do you think you know more than the worlds Scientific community? Im just curious

It is not in fisheries best interests to confirm the four or five sightings since. , particularly when theres a food/ festival on down there at the monent however a quick google search will confirm.
My results are based on 12 years commercial fishing and diving and not in a lab coat, however if someone can provide real evidence that there is only three thousand I will happily say I am incorrect.
A great white female has ten ( average ) offspring per season , these take around four or five years to mature to breeding age. Lets say in 1993 there were ten great whites in wa of breeding age ( twenty in total including males) and half reached breeding age...that is a lot of shark ie 10 x5 Equals 50 breeding females in five years, in ten years that 250 in 15 years that 125and in 20 years that's 625 breeding females. Wa alone so you can only imagine with no natural predators and no human effect on breeding cycle how quickly that number grows......... At 25 years and 6/5 times 5 we end up with in excess of 3000 in wa alone. This is taken as a mortality rate of juveniles being 50 percent and favouring cautious numbering and not the other end of scale. People may find it hard to read as its not what they want too. I don't claim to know more than scientists in general however in regards to shark numbers and a working life of fishing and seeing these creatures regularly I think my estimates are a lot closer than some guy spending most of his time in a office with a lab coat on counting plankton under a microscope.

kiterboy said..

Stop making sense, jb prefers emotionally charged arguements, not logic and analysis.

irony