Yeh ok, thought it would be something like that. Cheers.
And yeh, always sort of thought that if it wants you and you are target acquired, there probably isn't very much that could stop it.

Woodo said...

Dawn Patrol said...

I don't think many people understand that 18 months of a few more attacks than usual can't be used to say attacks are on the rise.

What would you suggest we use?

Dice?

Lol, no.

But from a statistical point of view, we've got approximately 200years of shark attack data. In something like this outliers could potentially exist. This last 1-2 years could be an outlier.
It could not be as well. But it is something that only time will tell. For a data set like this there is probably some way of determining the amount of time for a spike like this to be considered a new trend. I'd be surprised if it was only 18-24months.

It depends on what he shark is hunting as to wether it scopes something out or not, in theory.
As far as seals are concerned, the older and thus smarter white sharks hit them hard the first time. Seals are evolved to out maneuver sharks (hyper extensive ability of their spine) so for most attacks that are from predation you get hit hard and from 'out of nowhere'

Scavenging, preying on weak animals and explorative biting is different.

Dawn Patrol said...

Yeh ok, thought it would be something like that. Cheers.
And yeh, always sort of thought that if it wants you and you are target acquired, there probably isn't very much that could stop it.

Woodo said...

Dawn Patrol said...

I don't think many people understand that 18 months of a few more attacks than usual can't be used to say attacks are on the rise.

What would you suggest we use?

Dice?

Lol, no.

But from a statistical point of view, we've got approximately 200years of shark attack data. In something like this outliers could potentially exist. This last 1-2 years could be an outlier.
It could not be as well. But it is something that only time will tell. For a data set like this there is probably some way of determining the amount of time for a spike like this to be considered a new trend. I'd be surprised if it was only 18-24months.

Yeah I kinda get what you're saying, but at the same time I'd hate for this not to be just "a spike" as you put it, and have god knows how many more people killed or maimed by whites whilst the people who have the power to make the decisions continue to fark around just hoping the problem go's away.

I strongly believe this is a problem that we are all seeing, not just a freakish period in time that we are going through.

With all these recent attacks it's just all to coincidental too me. With them being protected in Australian waters, the apparent amount of time it takes fom them to breed and reach maturity and the time that has now gone by since they became protected, that adds up to a fairly decent increase in numbers.

Kiting said...

subasurf said...

Kiting said...
Surely this is the logical solution.

The issue is in inventing a device that actually works. There are exploratory bites and then there is predation attacks where you are hit at full speed, usually from below.

Not hard to build a device that stops the exploratory bites. Stopping the hard and fast ambush is what matters. I don't think it's possible, sadly.

Suba,

I agree, I wouldnt think much would stop one in attack mode. However whenever I have watched sharks behaviour, they usually scope something out for a while before hand. This is when I was thinking a refined version of the "shark shield" could be useful. I suppose having a 20-30m range (or however far a GWS has a look from) would be required to deter them in the first place.

I believe the ones currently on the market are a waste of time, however the concept has potential just needs some $$ and clever people behind it.

Thinking about it, I suppose the shark simply relies on different senses when in attack mode. Wouldnt have a clue what these are though!

Hey Kiting, I came across this link; www.elasmodiver.com/shark_senses.htm
(Shark Shield works on the last lot of senses mentioned), interesting the theory posed about the reaction of these electroreception senses to boat engines etc..
Makes me wonder if different people give off unique electrical currents and that some people just stand out to sharks more? eg: that poor dude at Bunker Bay sitting in a pack. I don't know enough about these things to do anything but ponder that one.....

Yea don't trip out over gettin chomped surfin then havin yer kids without a Father. Dunno how long you've been surfing mate but i've surfed the SW my whole life and up till about three years ago never had a problem with these guys comin in close or killing a few surfers cos it really didn't happen.Then since Brad smith at gracetown their has been the deaths we know about and also the injuries and near misses that are getting more and more frequent. Can't blame more in the ocean as look at the population of ocean users on the east australian coast and on the entire continent of americas coast. No where near is wa's comparrison, not even close. Yea I still surf but don't believe we should think as humans we can accept these happenings. They are more consistent than a loose dog smashing a pedestrian, and what happens to that loose dog? Death. Seriously what is the diff and saying "it's their ocean" will not float with me as anyone who has ever caught a fish, cray, crab, whatever, well where do they come from? not the farken wheatbelt.no offence mate but current stats and fabricated car crash stats don't match up, not havin a crack but come on don't be another who could lose a mate in the ocean. Can't see a problem with knockin out the ones that come close to shore regularly. Hell they are tagged and are already setting off beacons, what next, do nothing and lose another brother? as i said not a personal attack. Just frustration starting to kick. sorry to those that i offend.

^^^that ones probably 3=3.5m comparing it to the people in the background. Imagine a 5 or 6 metre beast! pphhwaaaaaaaaarrrrk.

PRAWNDOG said...

Soleman good post, summed it up pretty well I think

+1

soleman said...

^^^that ones probably 3=3.5m comparing it to the people in the background. Imagine a 5 or 6 metre beast! pphhwaaaaaaaaarrrrk.

Yes faaaaaaarrrrrrrrrkkkkk. Indeed....

Your pretty close with your guess, it was reported as a bees over 4 m.

beastsurf said...

Simply put the old way worked so we go back to it with a bit of a tweak and everybody wins. Relate this to the present shark problem.

Culling worked once. The method is there. Why not save lives if we can.

There won't be any going back to the "old ways".
Far too much has changed in the last 20 to 30 years.

Peoples attitudes have changed so much since then. In the 60's and 70's nobody cared about the environment and conservation was unheard of. Like most things involved with the ocean, the GWS had a pretty rough time.
If one was hanging about, and it was convenient somebody would stick a hook in it, cut its head off and clean the jaws, or the entire carcass would be towed to shore and dragged up the beach like some sort of morbid trophy. Sometimes it would make the local paper. Headline would read,"maneater slayed" and everyone would heave a sigh of relief. At the same time they were a by-catch in several fisheries. Hundreds if not thousands died this way.

In the eighties they got a bit thin on the ground. In the ten years I spent Tuna fishing we only managed to catch 3 White sharks. We had a shark hook out whenever we could, as did the rest of the fleet. We saw a few others, that we weren't in a position to or couldn't catch.

It became painfully obvious that what was being done to the ocean was totally unsustainable so budgets were committed to scientific study and fisheries were adapted to this research through management by government fisheries departments. Nature has a remarkable ability to rejuvenate itself so now we see recovering fish stocks, whale populations increasing, seal and sealion numbers multiplying. Due to protected species status for White sharks in the 90's coinciding with an evolution in some fishing techniques eliminating by-catch, it would be apparent white shark nunbers are increasing as well.

I'm sure that everyone wants a healthy ocean. Unfortunately the side effect of this is the interaction of humans and sharks in general not just whites and its a huge problem.

So a return to "the old ways" and a cull. I just don't see todays modern society tolerating that. The environment and conservation movement is very strong. They will claim " Wasn't the whole point of protection to bring back their numbers." and they will have a point. I'm not saying I disagree with the concept, I just reckon it could only ever look like a medieval witch hunt.

SUBA... I find your posts so much more enlightening now that you've moderated your style. There is significant logic in what your saying. People like me can spend decades at sea and form opinions from what we observe but there is nothing I can offer as a solution to the shark attack issue. Ultimately the answer may lay with yourself and your peers in the scietific community.

One things for sure. The set of White jaws I've got behind my bar won't bite anybody.

soleman what about david weir, ken ..... and im pretty sure theres a couple more 2 before brad 04 is that right cobber? how many poeple around 20 years ago mate? i think ur pointing fingers,gws gws what about the whalers and bulls and tigers theyre every where up nth go for it kill as many big ones as u want, it'll still happen maybe not as much. but it'll never be like swimming in a pool there's always risks and thats why ive loved it for 2/3's of my life cobber and make no mistake there may not have been many attacks back in the day but i have always known not to take anything for granted. they shouldn be protected but i dont think it should be open season 4 all, do u know what a big set of jaws were worth back in the tuna days lots and thats why every man and dog tryed to get them untill they were hardly eva seen.wonder if that''''ll happen again, protected to cull classic!! any way sorry for upsetting ua mate just a different point of view

leave it to u

still can't understand why its ok to cull by default over east with nets. but little options for a responsible party like fisheries to act over here. Not saying all out cull but fisheries should be given more power to use their discretion. Believe currently can only act in state waters- within three mile from coast?

subasurf said...

www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop108.pdf

A paper outlying the implications of netting beaches in West Australia.

Read that this morning Suba.
I'd like to point out point 5 and 6 on the Executive summary.

Localised fishing was shown to have reduced greatly after a few years around netted areas. SO that means even less fish stock.

Also note page 12 shows nearly 4000 animals killed for only 100 off those being Great Whites. This being just for NSW nets for a period.

Page ten then talks about the effectiveness of Performance and Impacts and opens another can of worms. Were would people suggest we net in WA

I will say i'm not super excited about the idea of surfing with baited Drums and hooks floating around me either

I'd prefer the Millions spent on this was used to build a few more artificial reefs

It's protected in Australia, NZ, US, South Africa, Namibia and a few other places.

Also rbl, I wasn't posting that link in response to your comment, just a coincidence.
I am very opposed to the shark netting program over east and in south africa. This isn't just because of my interest in protecting sharks, but also in my interest in protecting everything in the ocean. The real kicker for me with shark nets is the fact that so many sharks are caught on their way out of the netted area, which shows how ineffective they are at protecting swimmers by forming a barrier.

You're right that it's only 'useful' function is the passive culling of large sharks...along with anything else that gets caught in them.

It's a ridiculous method of protecting people and has no place in WA, or anywhere in the world.

it may be protected in australia officially but not really as ausy nets are killing them, its all just a lie.

Leave the sharks alone. If I get nibbled by a shark I will have to accept that I chose to enter their domain. I accept that I do not have 'control' over the situation.Yes, it could be viewed as gambling with life, but realistically we all do this, to varying degrees, every time we venture outside the front door. I am not making light of the pain suffered by those who have lost someone because of an attack or have been injured by a shark, but at the end of the day we all have a pretty simple choice. Surf and accept the risk/relinquish control or don't surf and retain control/find something else as a means of keeping fit etc. I don't get how surfers, kitesurfers, wind surfers, SUP riders, wave skiers, swimmers, and anyone else I've missed seems to believe that it is their 'right' to be able to surf without a twitching asshole and demand that the Government take action. Kind of like an ugly form of localism.
If it is that scary, don't go in the water. Either accept that the danger exists or don't and behave/adapt accordingly. I cannot speak for others, but I honestly get more angry at the attitudes of people in the water on some of the better days.
The good thing about SB is that everyone can put forward an opinion, even if it is 'WWWWWrrroooonggggg'