Beelzebub said...

Saffer said...

I think its a sad day for humanity when we asking for culling of animals when we're going into their natural habitat, looking like their natural food and then blaming it on the animals when we get eaten. We're talking 5 deaths a year if its a bad year, humanity is not on the brink of extinction. Try looking at the obesity if you want to attack something that will make a difference.

How could culling a small number of dangerous and destructive carnivores be a sad day for humanity when millions of animals (domesticated and wild) are slaughtered each day for human consumption?
How do surf skis, outboard engines or someone on a jet-ski look like natural shark food? Why does humanity have to be on the brink of extinction before protective measures are implemented? Obesity -as in "thick in the head"- can, however be a real problem for some.

Destructive how? Dangerous yes, but destructive no. Very few animals are destructive.

The way I see it, this is all about fear. People are scared to go out there in the water so if you kill a couple of sharks people feel better about themselves because they think the water is safer. If you've ever dived with sharks you'll find out they are relatively harmless and don't actually see human's as prey. They see seals as prey which is why the vast majority that bite human's actually end up spitting them out because most of their attacks on human's are actually mistaking them for Seals. That said they will sometimes attack other things but most of it is curiosity.

blueprint said...

^ agreed that was the intent, the intent was also to point out that the 180 number is not the number for comparison, the actual number for comparison WILL be much smaller and likely very similar to the recent 5 number. That being said in the cases where the injured victim is a bystander or innocent then discipline is applied to the guilty. Just think the comparison to road accidents is a s..t one.

My real (personal) concern is the acceleration of the rate of attack, I think that is something we should all be concerned about (where does this end up without change? will it continue to grow at the current rate? etc.) and be asking why and in the mean time ask ourselves whether that acceleration is acceptable and what interim measures need consideration.

2c I'm sure there is more at play I guess the realisation for me is that I wasn't considering these types of actions but am finding myself asking the question more so I wonder how many more "moderate" thinkers are starting to do the same.

The acceleration isn't actually an issue unless you track a long term increase in attacks. Shark attacks go through highs and lows. There are a number of shark attack problem areas in the world. If you check into the attacks, you'll notice they go up and down. One year its 5, and then suddenly you don't get a shark attack for 5 years. Western Australia as an example has had 59 attacks between 1700-2011 of which only 13 have been fatal. (www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/shark-attacks/maps/australia/) Natal as an example has had 90 (27 fatal) and they also had 5 attacks in one year. They subsequently haven't had a fatal attack since 1999 so if we construed the 5 attacks in one year as an increase in attacks, well, you get the picture. Wasn't it exactly the same assumption about the water shortages that resulted in building of desalination plants that have yet to be used? Or the filling of a Queensland dam that subsequently resulted in flooding?

Im sure IF they had the ability to walk on land with a rifle they would kill all of us too!
BUT they dont! So lets take the shark by the balls and Eat em with our fried Chips and dimsims!

Zed said...

I think its a sad day for humanity when we asking for culling of animals when we're going into their natural habitat, looking like their natural food and then blaming it on the animals when we get eaten. We're talking 5 deaths a year if its a bad year, humanity is not on the brink of extinction. Try looking at the obesity if you want to attack something that will make a difference.

So if the number of deaths increased to say one a month would you consider culling? Or one a week? At what point would you say, ok this is enough. Or wouldn't you? Is it their domain and if we enter it and die then cest la vie? Because that doesn't really make much sense. We are essentially giving up a way of life to protect a small amount of sharks from being killed. You know how many sharks, on average, are killed each year for their fins? 10'000, 100'000....

try 38 million. People are talking about culling probably less than 100 sharks a year and there's mass hysteria, but I haven't heard them pipe up about the other 38 million. Armchair activists...

Well for starters we're not talking about the ones caught for their fins. Which is a fairly unpleasant topic as well.

But you say less than a 100 sharks. Why that many? Does anyone have any evidence to suggest that it would make a difference? The answer to that is no. It might, it might not but noone knows. And I personally think going out to kill a significant number of them (which if anyone suspects a difference to be made, it would need to be) with no idea if a difference would be made is wrong.

The top shelf predators (white pointers, tigers etc etc) generally are much fewer in numberrs than their prey. So 100 sharks might be a huge impact on the strength of their population. It also might not.

The arguement that there is a higher population of sharks around than 10-15 (since the ban) is also flawed. It is not possible for a species like this to have a large increase in numbers so quickly. That is not to say there isn't more coming into our waters than before, then the question is why is that the case?

And whilst this is very close to a touchy time, there is equal amounts of hysteria calling for the cull as there is against.

Also one year of more attacks over a period of approximately 100years isn't exactly sufficient to confidently say that there is an increasing trend of attacks. Maybe if it continues for 3,5 or 10 years, it could be suggested that attacks are on the rise. But a period of around 1 year could just be an unlucky blip over time (again it could also not be, but that will be found out in the future).

It is the Whales that are responsible for the decimated fish stocks - look at how big their mouths are. Time for a cull.

I know the answer but can somebody explain how the marine eco system will be worse off if the GWS ( an 'Apex' predator) has its population reduced by say 50% ?

IS EVERYBODY MENTAL????
CULL THIS, KILL THAT...BLAH BLAH BLAH
INVEST IN A TAGGING SYSTEM THAT DOES NOTHING BUT NOTIFY AND RATTLE US BUT NOT ACTUALLY PREVENT AN ATTACK.....

PREVENTION IS THE KEY RIGHT???

FUNDING FOR SHARK SHIELD TECHNOLOGY....MAKE IT SMALLER IE ANKLE BRACELET ETC
YES THERE ARE DEVICES LIKE THAT OUT THERE BUT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY TESTED AND TRIALLED LIKE THE SHARK SHIELD

FORGET TAGGING, CULLING ETC...UNDERSTAND THEY WILL ALWAYS BE THERE AND WITH THIS SS TECHNOLOGY WE CAN STILL SURF, KITE ETC WHILE HARMLESSLY TELLING EM TO GO AWAY

IF WE CAN PUT MEN IN SPACE IM SURE WE CAN DESIGN A BRACELET WITHOUT A TRAILING ANTENNAE THAT IS AS EFFECTIVE IN DETERRING SHARKS ONCE IN A PRESET VICINITY

THIS IS WHERE A GOVERNMENT WITH EVEN THE TINIEST OF COMMON SENSE WOULD ALLOCATE THE FUNDING. ITS DO ABLE, NON-LETHAL,EFFECTIVE AND VERY VERY VERY AFFORDABLE TO ALL

MY TWO CENTS WORTH

CONDOLENCES TO THE YOUNG SURFERS FAMILY AND FRIENDS, SHRED THOSE PERFECT WAVES UP THERE MATE,YEWWW!!!

How can you advocate that. What are your views on Poland?

Luther said...

kitelooper1 said...

It is the Whales that are responsible for the decimated fish stocks - look at how big their mouths are. Time for a cull.

I know the answer but can somebody explain how the marine eco system will be worse off if the GWS ( an 'Apex' predator) has its population reduced by say 50% ?

planet earth could perhaps benefit from a human cull of the same proportion....yeah ?

boost75 said...

IS EVERYBODY MENTAL????
CULL THIS, KILL THAT...BLAH BLAH BLAH
INVEST IN A TAGGING SYSTEM THAT DOES NOTHING BUT NOTIFY AND RATTLE US BUT NOT ACTUALLY PREVENT AN ATTACK.....

PREVENTION IS THE KEY RIGHT???

FUNDING FOR SHARK SHIELD TECHNOLOGY....MAKE IT SMALLER IE ANKLE BRACELET ETC
YES THERE ARE DEVICES LIKE THAT OUT THERE BUT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY TESTED AND TRIALLED LIKE THE SHARK SHIELD

FORGET TAGGING, CULLING ETC...UNDERSTAND THEY WILL ALWAYS BE THERE AND WITH THIS SS TECHNOLOGY WE CAN STILL SURF, KITE ETC WHILE HARMLESSLY TELLING EM TO GO AWAY

IF WE CAN PUT MEN IN SPACE IM SURE WE CAN DESIGN A BRACELET WITHOUT A TRAILING ANTENNAE THAT IS AS EFFECTIVE IN DETERRING SHARKS ONCE IN A PRESET VICINITY

THIS IS WHERE A GOVERNMENT WITH EVEN THE TINIEST OF COMMON SENSE WOULD ALLOCATE THE FUNDING. ITS DO ABLE, NON-LETHAL,EFFECTIVE AND VERY VERY VERY AFFORDABLE TO ALL

MY TWO CENTS WORTH

CONDOLENCES TO THE YOUNG SURFERS FAMILY AND FRIENDS, SHRED THOSE PERFECT WAVES UP THERE MATE,YEWWW!!!

I'd pay $1000 bucks for a bracelet that would repel sharks, imagine the return on that one.

Can someone go tell Adolf to invent one, or at least import one.

And while they invent this magical shark repellant watch could they also build me a invisible
Cloake??

If this was that easy an practical (in size) I'm sure they would have one built years ago. Why not one For bears, bees, ants, mozzies, pirranas, lions, and sups/bodyboarders while they are at it??

Its a tough call , to kill a few or not .
Having come from a background of dealing with them on a regular basis as part of my job ( tuna farm diver ) and having a close friend taken recently I think I can probably have a slightly more informed view than most here and they without a doubt are increasing in numbers .

One only has to speak to people in both cage diving and tuna farm industry in South Aus who have been there for many years to see this .
After having been protected for a lot of years this should not come as surprise .

Having been up close in the water with them ( many times )they are a magnificent creature and it is a real pity to have to consider killing them , unfortunatley their numbers are only going to get more and more and a time will come where a solution which may involve getting rid of a few of them may occur .

LiveToFly said...

Shark shields are sh1thouse! The fact is, all sharks can sense electromagnetic fields in the ocean and that is what attracts them to their prey. All creatures give off electromagnetic frequencies due to their nerves and muscles. In the ocean, a great conductor, these frequencies travel for miles and cause sharks and rays to get curious and excited.

Shark shields just use electrodes to create an electromagnetic frequency which causes spasms in the sharks muscles when in very short range, up to around 4 metres. Further than that they are definitely attracting them. Its just a fact of physics.

When a whitey is scoping the scene from distance and lurking at the ocean floor, deciding whether its safe to launch itself at its prey for an initial hit, the shark shields are just revving them up. I doubt very much that at top speed, rocketing towards a potential meal, getting a nose spasm in the last few metres will do FA!

If we really want to remain anonomous in the ocean we would need to attenuate these electromagnetic frequencies, not emit them. Maybe some full body dry suit which converts the bodies electomagnetic radiation into heat?? Just food for thought..

Sharkshields do work, but I've seen footage of GWs attacking seals, launching themselves from depth, hitting the seal at full speed and yeah is it going to be effective in that situation? I doubt it.

kiter64 said...

Its a tough call , to kill a few or not .
Having come from a background of dealing with them on a regular basis as part of my job ( tuna farm diver ) and having a close friend taken recently I think I can probably have a slightly more informed view than most here and they without a doubt are increasing in numbers .

One only has to speak to people in both cage diving and tuna farm industry in South Aus who have been there for many years to see this .
After having been protected for a lot of years this should not come as surprise .

Having been up close in the water with them ( many times )they are a magnificent creature and it is a real pity to have to consider killing them , unfortunatley their numbers are only going to get more and more and a time will come where a solution which may involve getting rid of a few of them may occur .

Would you attribute the increase in numbers with cage diving or tuna farms to the food thats there. I.e. cage diving operators are known to chum the water even though they aren't supposed to and it doesn't take long for an animal to associate boats with food.

LiveToFly said...

Yeah thats what i was getting at Zed. In that situation they are useless.

Yeah I was agreeing with you. The footage on youtube I've seen where the shield has been successful is a shark swimming casually around, gets too close and then swims off. And usually it's a 6ft reef shark not a 20ft gw in full attack mode! I think the technology is still in it's infancy, but I still can't imagine it ever completely stopping an attack.

LiveToFly said...

Further than that they are definitely attracting them. Its just a fact of physics.

I know! I wonder why fisheries spent hundreds of thousands of dollars searching for the shark after the attack on Saturday (without success of course), when they could have just dropped a shark shield down there and he would have been there in an instant.

kitelooper1 said...



I know the answer but can somebody explain how the marine eco system will be worse off if the GWS ( an 'Apex' predator) has its population reduced by say 50% ?

A described below: not much of an effect.

Science 30 March 2007:
Vol. 315 no. 5820 pp. 1846-1850

Cascading Effects of the Loss of Apex Predatory Sharks from a Coastal Ocean

Impacts of chronic overfishing are evident in population depletions worldwide, yet indirect ecosystem effects induced by predator removal from oceanic food webs remain unpredictable. As abundances of all 11 great sharks that consume other elasmobranchs (rays, skates, and small sharks) fell over the past 35 years, 12 of 14 of these prey species increased in coastal northwest Atlantic ecosystems. Effects of this community restructuring have cascaded downward from the cownose ray, whose enhanced predation on its bay scallop prey was sufficient to terminate a century-long scallop fishery. Analogous top-down effects may be a predictable consequence of eliminating entire functional groups of predators.

eppo said...

It is interesting reading these posts. We all have to admit they come from a source of fear. About to go for a surf with my bro and i have to be honest, I'm more nervous than I have ever been.

Wont stop me going in the water, but I know the risks seem to be increasing.

Anybody considered the psychological impact of this and how they have dealt with it?

..and do you have a comfy couch?

Risk of being bitten is 1/300000000 (yes, 1 in 300 million), basically means you're 10x more likely to win the lotto and ironically, there is more chance of you being killed by an aircraft falling out of the sky and crashing into you on the ground than a shark.

I remember one comedian talking about a plane crash where half of the survivors were killed by sharks. How unlucky do you have to two of the most unusual things happen to you in the same day? I.e. 1/1000000 and 1/300000000