Another attack on the W.A. coast. Red Bluff.

What's it going to take for the government to start culling sharks?
A child to die?

I don't really give a crap what greenies, research, scientists say about sharks.
At the moment, they don't mind a bit of human.

If we're taking fish in large numbers out of the ocean ecosystem, I think we need to keep the GWS's numbers in order as well.

Oh where's my pitch fork

I'll support a cull when they agree to cull drink drivers

Its not brain surgery, Stay out of the water and you'll be okay

Or maybe we can cull them if this happens

JB is selling the problem in the form of boats, hence his preachy attitude- everyone pushes their own barrow. (jb maybe i'm just jealous, always dreamed of selling boats)

so often they say fished out oceans..seems as though jb also has concerns re overfishing

i actually think wa has fish, a foodchain and a lot of sharkies

Stewart25 said...

Another attack on the W.A. coast. Red Bluff.

What's it going to take for the government to start culling sharks?
A child to die?

I don't really give a crap what greenies, research, scientists say about sharks.
At the moment, they don't mind a bit of human.

If we're taking fish in large numbers out of the ocean ecosystem, I think we need to keep the GWS's numbers in order as well.

I feel we need a cull of another kind

Okay, so let's say WA went ahead with a cull.
How do you determine which ones get killed and which ones live? Do you jduge it on size and kill the large ones which are also the most important for the survival of the species? Or do you just kill the ones we see close to shore? Which poses the problem that all white sharks forage in shore from time to time. Do you wait for another attack and go after that particular shark? what happens then when you cut the shark open and find out it's not the one that committed the attack? Go get another one till you do?

Aside from the fact I think the idea of a cull is ridiculous, I really don't know how they could attempt to do it sustainably. Last time we had a shark cull there was considerably less outside pressure on the species and that has allowed it to very slowly turn around.

EDIT: By the way, I'm not just arguing here for argument's sake. If more and more people become in favour of a shark cull then it's worth discussing how it would be done.

Be nice to get a reasonable idea of the numbers first before removing the apex predator .
Purely supposition but i don't think that shark feeding tourism programs should be encouraged either anywhere.

subasurf said...

Okay, so let's say WA went ahead with a cull.
How do you determine which ones get killed and which ones live? Do you jduge it on size and kill the large ones which are also the most important for the survival of the species? Or do you just kill the ones we see close to shore? Which poses the problem that all white sharks forage in shore from time to time. Do you wait for another attack and go after that particular shark? what happens then when you cut the shark open and find out it's not the one that committed the attack? Go get another one till you do?

Aside from the fact I think the idea of a cull is ridiculous, I really don't know how they could attempt to do it sustainably. Last time we had a shark cull there was considerably less outside pressure on the species and that has allowed it to very slowly turn around.

EDIT: By the way, I'm not just arguing here for argument's sake. If more and more people become in favour of a shark cull then it's worth discussing how it would be done.

OK I'll go.

First off I am not in favour of a go out to the ocean and just start culling a certain amount of sharks to reach a culling quota or anything like that. That IMO would be stupid.
I would be more in favour of a selective kill.
For example (which i think i have mentioned previously) a couple of weeks ago we had 3 sightings in 3 consecutive weekends, all metro of an approx 4 - 4.5m white.
One sighting by fisherman off southern cardinal marker (off scarb area)
One by a diver whilst diving off Hillary's
One by fisherman off Mindarie.
Too me it would seem like there is a pretty good possibility that it is at least one shark hanging around the same area for whatever reason. Snapper/winter tailor perhaps at this time of year.
I think that shark should have been baited, NOT berleyed for, for a short period after the sightings.
If there was a boat setup ready to go at a metro marina they could be at a spot within an hour of a sighting ready to go. A couple of hours at most! Yes the shark may be long gone by then, BUT it may not.

After an attack if a shark is followed directly and known to be the killer eg. Cott attack, destroy it.

Down south or Wedge Attacks for example bait for the shark directly after which i think they did in the case of the wedge one. Perhaps the more remote areas burley could be used but only with suitable signage,warnings in place to make all ocean users aware what is going on.
Burley in metro waters would definitly be a no no IMO.

I understand there may be bycatch which is unfortunate but there is also a very good possibility that the culprit will still be in the area.

That's a few of my suggestions.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want the whites culled to a point of extinction.
I know we need them in our ecosystem.
I just don't think we need them in the numbers that we have been seeing them of late.

jbshack said...

I have read reports of were taggers have gone out for days in areas burlying up, baited lines and seen not a single shark. So i guess its alot harder than it may seem. As a shark attacks then obviously the possibility is there.
A mate was one of the water police in the small inflatable following the shark that hit Ken crew of Cott. He said it was eyeballing them for along time and had the shot but was told they did not have the authority. By the time it came it was too late.

If that shark you mentioned was taken out, what would stop another moving into its place and patrolling the same area?

I think the fact that they are being seen and reported more is good. It gives people a idea or a choice to enter the water (if a shark has been seen in the area) but i also look at this way. Obviously sharks, especially GW's are around all the time and yet we are not having daily attacks, so i THINK that shows they are not all for killing humans.

Post them JBs would be a good read

Woodo said...

You watched Rex Hunt on the news last night didn't you JB....

I saw it and felt dumber for it

subasurf said...

jbshack said...
when will we learn that the Ocean is already out of balance.

The same way humans learn all their lessons, when it comes back and bites them on the arse (no pun intended at all).

Your right, this problem has come back and bit us on the arse. 5X. Yet we still have learnt nothing and done nothing!

Surfing is a calculated risk if you dont want to get eaten by a shark dont go in the ocean culling GWS would be a massive over reaction in my opinion. How many base jumpers die a year lets level all the mountains FFS. If you want to save some humans cull a few KFC executives

I reckon blood up the water, get the sharks in, then kill them. My personal opinion is every last one just about, maybe leave about ten - twelve. Absolutely remove them from here, they'll come back some day from South Africa or some other joint. Just net them and drop them off at the rubbish tip. Or maybe dog food the pricks.

subasurf said...

Yep, us climbers don't demand cable lifts up mountains when ever a fellow mountaineer is killed. No one put him on that mountain but himself.

Avalanches used to kill scores of people in the Alps before the goverments took measures to reduce the danger (e.g. avalanche fences). In other words, people knew the danger, yet decided to do something to reduce the risk. Killer sharks are a danger, and extensive culling would reduce the risk.

Beelzebub said...

subasurf said...

Yep, us climbers don't demand cable lifts up mountains when ever a fellow mountaineer is killed. No one put him on that mountain but himself.

Avalanches used to kill scores of people in the Alps before the goverments took measures to reduce the danger (e.g. avalanche fences). In other words, people knew the danger, yet decided to do something to reduce the risk. Killer sharks are a danger, and extensive culling would reduce the risk.

Yes but protecting people from avalanches doesn't pose a a risk to a threatened species nor does it have an effect on the ecosystem and at a moral level you're not needlessly killing an animal for doing what it is suppose to.

Mask said...

What you should be asking is what would happen if 5 of your mountaneering buddies were eaten by a mountain lion or a bear in a short space of time in the same area? Im sure what you are going to say is that you wouldnt want anything done, but i can assure you that lion or bears' days would be numbered.

Same area? Well that's not really a legit comparison as these shark attacks have been separated by hundreds of kilometres. It's not like JAWS where one little beach community is being ravaged by a single rouge shark. Also, comparing the shark to other animals doesn't quite work either as they all respond differently to having their population culled...that and the fact that it is VERY easy to avoid marine animals. Not quite as easy with terrestrial ones.

[. It's not like JAWS where one little beach community is being ravaged by a single rouge shark.

You absolutely sure about that??

BTW, Does a rouge shark look a bit like this???

mate jb and suba will always have to have the last word on this subject whether it is reasonable or not. Its better not to encourage them, u can encourage suba if u like by making mention of his puppy dog theory.

someone needs to remind the GW of this theory cause at the moment they test,
then note its not a seal, then continue the attack consuming the whole lot and if interupted by a jetski they will stay there ground and attack that too.

Don't think the cull will happen, although the last attacks were met with fisheries baits and a crew ready for action (semi cull?)

They are obviously no longer endangered so the protection status should be lifted but don't think there will be a cull as the media drum up. Removing the protection will give fisheries more power to use their discretion. You can't tell me that fisheries are going to choose to destroy a population of big sharkies so stop winging shark lovers. flame away kooks