Select to expand quotewave knave said..kiterboy said..
Stop making sense, jb prefers emotionally charged arguements, not logic and analysis.
irony
Haha, I was waiting for that.
Guilty as charged.
What I really meant to say was that he prefers baseless numbers, not logically derived numbers.
Select to expand quoteRazzonater said..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.
I understand you have a lot of practical experience and I respect that. But, and its a big BUT, there is a scientific method that is applied to any research, be it marine science or sub-sea engineering. Do your numbers take into account shark mortality rates, migration and movement of sharks, environmental effects such as el nino or other events that may alter water temperature etc. Some guy in a white coat might devote all of his professional career studying sharks. This would probably entail a lot of fieldwork combined with analysis of the data compiled in the 'Lab'.
^^^ I wouldn't take the numbers sighted around coastlines and then extrapolate that across the entire ocean. Large swathes of the ocean are a desert.
It's like saying we counted n people along the Australian coastline, so if we multiply that by the size of the continent...
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..
^^^ I wouldn't take the numbers sighted around coastlines and then extrapolate that across the entire ocean. Large swathes of the ocean are a desert.
It's like saying we counted n people along the Australian coastline, so if we multiply that by the size of the continent...
Exactly.
There are a few reasons that sharks are more prevalent around WA these days and a lack of food isn't one of them. I think the first thing to look at is whales and their migration past Perth from the north west to the south west. Back in the day when we used to hunt whales, the whales would stay miles off the coast to try and get past the whalers with out getting hunted. As of 1978 we stopped hunting whales and their numbers grew and they started to get closer and closer to the coast. To the point that I have seen them 100m off shore last year, something that I have never seen before at local beaches (Perth). The second thing is that we haven't hunted Great White Sharks for the last ten years adding to their numbers by more than we know. With more whales means more sharks as the sharks hang with whale pods for an easy feed, so with whales coming closer so are the sharks. I may be wrong but this winter has been the coldest as far as water temp in a while and we all know that GWS like colder water, and yes they are found in warmer waters but they prefer colder water. Also seal populations have gotten larger so food for the GWS isn't a problem, and over fishing imo isn't the problem at all. The rogue shark theory is not really an option as the sheer number of sharks spotted tells us this cant be fact. If you don't hunt them they will come and in numbers. The tagged sharks prove this beyond all doubt so this theory can be put to bed. The answer? Well tbh there isn't one that we can throw out there and fix the problem tomorrow, and I don't think that there will be one in the near future that is sustainable. Part of the solution is to try and stop it before it happens and more tech thrown at shark shield type devices the better and these are not a solution but a piece of mind but they will have to work much better than they do now. As far as culling them goes killing ten even twenty of them might help for a while but for how long? A month, maybe two? Some of these sharks come from as far away as South Africa so culling unless you were to kill twenty a month isn't going to work and is not sustainable.
Anecdotal evidence from some fisherman can't give a reliable estimate on shark population. Who's to say they aren't seeing the same dozen sharks all the time? Or their fishing grounds are in a shark hot spot? Etc etc
To be honest i don't think the science guys really know either. Research needs to be based on the anecdotal accounts from fisherman/surfers/people that see sharks, to determine if their thoughts are in fact correct.
That is why I think a proper study needs to be undertaken to get a decent estimate on the population. Problem is estimating fish populations is a difficult task to do. Especially on a species like the GW which has a large range and are widely spread out.
Someone recently said shark are 'mature' in 3-4 years. That isn't correct. Estimate is approx 10 for males and approx 15 for females.
Nobody knows how many offspring they pump out, but it is thought to be between 2-10 (maybe high maybe lower, not an average of 10). They cant give birth every year as their gestation period is thought to be around 12-18 months. Most estimates say every other year.
As per a recent post of mine asking how many people use shark shields, I'm gonna start saving for one of Katanas flash units and take matters into my own hands.
This thread is a good indication of how things will turn out in actually achieving something useful in fixing the problem.
Lots of discussion, a few ideas, all of them blocked by disagreement from others, and in the end when everyone is tired of talking about it, the matter will be dropped,... until the next attack is spread all over the news with the usual shock and horror and condolences.
One fact can't be argued with, and that is, if we keep doing what we have previously done, people will keep getting eaten.
And so far, officially it looks like we are going to keep doing what we have always done. Nothing.
Bon appetit Sid. 
Select to expand quotepweedas said..
This thread is a good indication of how things will turn out in actually achieving something usefull in fixing the problem.
Lots of discussion, a few ideas, all of them blocked by disagreement from others, and in the end when everyone is tired of talking about it, the matter will be dropped,... until the next attack is spread all over the news with the usual shock and horror and condolances.
One fact can't be argued with, and that is, if we keep doing what we have previously done, people will keep getting eaten.
And so far, officially it looks like we are going to keep doing what we have always done. Nothing.
Bon appetit Sid.
Correct, must be nice to be right just once 
I've actually have a bit of a theory in my mind for quite some time now, but have avoided putting it out there cause of the last time I got laughed at for suggesting we try and identify sharks from photos.
But anyway, in the interest of thought provoking discussion, here goes...
A while ago we (the fam and I) were in Shark Bay on holiday, while there we went to the Ocean Park Aquarium in Denham.
The OP Aquarium has a big open aquarium in which they keep a heap of sharks, which they feed for the amusement and education of visitors.
In this aquarium they have, if I remember, 13 or so sharks of various types, but in the same tank they also have a heap of fish living with the sharks.
We questioned the people how the fish can live with the sharks and how many get eaten.
They told us that cause the sharks get fed regularly and they don't actually need to eat that much, they don't eat the fish, they leave them alone.
In fact they told us that they are often disappointed when they dive in the aquarium to clean cause the sharks keep right out of their way.
BUT!
They told us that if a fish gets sick the sharks can detect it, they will then be right onto it and will get eaten straight away.
We were told that sharks act as a kind of sick fish disposal/clean up system, in the wild as well as in the aquarium.
I didn't get a chance to ask, cause the thought occurred to me after we left, but what if the same applies to people?
You've all heard of the situation where a shark has attacked someone in a bunch of surfers, they've targeted an individual and has gone past several other people to get them.
My question is;
What if in these cases, the person has had some sort of underlying illness, whether they know about it or not?
What if, the shark, acting in it's ocean clean up role, can detect that something is not right with the individual and picked them specifically.
Bear with me, there is a lot about sharks' senses that we don't know about, I'm not trying to say all attacks can be attributed to this, but maybe this could be a possibility for at least some attacks.
Anyway, it's just a thought I've had for sometime and thought I'd put it out there for thoughts, and obviously the mandatory SB ridicule. (go for it cauncy).
The only other thing I can think of for an individual being targeted in group situations, is maybe the person who p!ssed in their wetsuit last has the strongest berley trail 
Select to expand quoteoceanfire said..
What if in these cases, the person has had some sort of underlying illness, whether they know about it or not?
What if, the shark, acting in it's ocean clean up role, can detect that something is not right with the individual and picked them specifically.
fine theory.. but it isn't just kiters getting attacked.
Select to expand quotewave knave said..oceanfire said..
What if in these cases, the person has had some sort of underlying illness, whether they know about it or not?
What if, the shark, acting in it's ocean clean up role, can detect that something is not right with the individual and picked them specifically.
fine theory.. but it isn't just kiters getting attacked.
I wasn't being specific about any type of water user, just using the group surfer situation as an example.
I don't think any kiters have been chomped by GWs.
That's interesting.
Specially seeing as how they sometimes investigate one person and then go and attack someone else.
They say dogs can detect when someone is sick.
There have ben cases in old folks homes when the resident dog has gone and sat with the next person to die.
Hmmm,. more work needs to be done to test it.
Any volunteers?
Now if we were in a communist country, or maybe one of those middle eastern countries which are less than democratic, we could hop over to the local prison and get half a dozen 'volunteers', one of whom is sick, drop them all in the water in a known GW hot spot, and see who lasts the day.
Select to expand quoteoceanfire said..wave knave said..oceanfire said..
What if in these cases, the person has had some sort of underlying illness, whether they know about it or not?
What if, the shark, acting in it's ocean clean up role, can detect that something is not right with the individual and picked them specifically.
fine theory.. but it isn't just kiters getting attacked.
I wasn't being specific about any type of water user, just using the group surfer situation as an example.
I don't think any kiters have been chomped by GWs.
oops. i forgot the..
Select to expand quotepweedas said..
That's interesting.
Specially seeing as how they sometimes investigate one person and then go and attack someone else.
They say dogs can detect when someone is sick.
There have ben cases in old folks homes when the resident dog has gone and sat with the next person to die.
Hmmm,. more work needs to be done to test it.
Any volunteers?
Now if we were in a communist country, or maybe one of those middle eastern countries which are less than democratic, we could hop over to the local prison and get half a dozen 'volunteers', one of whom is sick, drop them all in the water in a known GW hot spot, and see who lasts the day.
You really feel the need to twist everything into some sort comedic crap dont you, its a good point but you rubbish it. Why??
Someone needs to take a chill pill^^^^^^. I think Pweedas was agreeing with Oceanfire
Select to expand quoteoz surf said..
Someone needs to take a chill pill^^^^^^. I think Pweedas was agreeing with Oceanfire
If it was the only thread he did it in I wouldnt even written that. Have you anything constructive to say on the matter or are you just trolling?
Select to expand quoteWA71 said..oz surf said..
Someone needs to take a chill pill^^^^^^. I think Pweedas was agreeing with Oceanfire
If it was the only thread he did it in I wouldnt even written that. Have you anything constructive to say on the matter or are you just trolling?
I have no scientific facts or evidence but i believe culling them would be the best option for all water users. To me a persons life is more important
than a shark.
Select to expand quotepweedas said...
This thread is a good indication of how things will turn out in actually achieving something useful in fixing the problem.
Lots of discussion, a few ideas, all of them blocked by disagreement from others, and in the end when everyone is tired of talking about it, the matter will be dropped,... until the next attack is spread all over the news with the usual shock and horror and condolences.
One fact can't be argued with, and that is, if we keep doing what we have previously done, people will keep getting eaten.
And so far, officially it looks like we are going to keep doing what we have always done. Nothing.
Bon appetit Sid.
Something will be done about it mate whether the government and fisheries are involved or not.
There's ALOT of people out there who are willing and capable to take actions into their own hands.
I'm not saying I agree with it and I would not partake in it but that's the truth.
Select to expand quoteSirJman said...
*Hillbilly music continues to play*
What's the old saying??? Truth hurts???
Select to expand quoteoz surf said..WA71 said..oz surf said..
Someone needs to take a chill pill^^^^^^. I think Pweedas was agreeing with Oceanfire
If it was the only thread he did it in I wouldnt even written that. Have you anything constructive to say on the matter or are you just trolling?
I have no scientific facts or evidence but i believe culling them would be the best option for all water users. To me a persons life is more important
than a shark.
Knee jerk reaction imo.
Select to expand quoteWoodo said..SirJman said...What's the old saying??? Truth hurts???
*Hillbilly music continues to play*
Not at all. If certain people like you're suggesting are willing to risk thousands of dollars and potentially jail time to kill a protected animal then they are as stupid as your culling arguments are.
Select to expand quoteSirJman said..Woodo said..SirJman said...What's the old saying??? Truth hurts???
*Hillbilly music continues to play*
Not at all. If certain people like you're suggesting are willing to risk thousands of dollars and potentially jail time to kill a protected animal then they are as stupid as your culling arguments are.
From what Ive been told its happened already
Why can't certain people understand the fact that we live our lives with an element of risk. I would rather die doing something I loved than by a painful battle with cancer or killed by a driver who was too busy texting to see the red light.
This article is good for a read...
www.sbs.com.au/news/comment-how-to-prevent-shark-attacks
Select to expand quotepweedas said..
That's interesting.
Specially seeing as how they sometimes investigate one person and then go and attack someone else.
They say dogs can detect when someone is sick.
There have ben cases in old folks homes when the resident dog has gone and sat with the next person to die.
Hmmm,. more work needs to be done to test it.
Any volunteers?
Now if we were in a communist country, or maybe one of those middle eastern countries which are less than democratic, we could hop over to the local prison and get half a dozen 'volunteers', one of whom is sick, drop them all in the water in a known GW hot spot, and see who lasts the day.
Good points, I forgot about the dogs and cats that do that.
LOL, have to say I wondered how it could be verified and I did think about the chucking in some sick and healthy people test, but thought better of posting it
