Very informative four corners report on the recent spate of shark attacks.
Ps - don't start me on the cage diving though

Very interesting viewing indeed.

Head scientists called Barry Bruce hahaha

Did you watch Australian story before that. Did a trip to Fiji with Andy Witton on his yatch Kaileia some years before his misadventure in the pacific with Simon Golding.
RIP Andy
Shark show was well done

Thanks for heads up Snags, I'm still in WA so it's coming up

I think nets are useless as well, especially hooked drum lines. They kill more other types of creatures than the actual sharks themselves, especially the dangerous ones.

The guy that says he won't go back into the water without a net enclosure is still traumatised. I don't blame him, but over time I'd expect his tune to change.

Here is the show...

www.abc.net.au/4corners/shark-alarm-promo/7140546

The take-home message for me was that a couple of scientists had looked very hard at the data, and found no correlation between the number of sharks and the number of attacks. There was a strong correlation between the number of people in the area and shark attacks though.

This tended to support the idea that drum lines / shark nets don't work, unless of course they fully enclose the swimming area.

Good show Snags, I've always hated those nets. In FNQ they have them but it's OK for crocs to take over swimming holes, a croc will deff hunt you down

I only caught the 2nd half of Aus Story DJT, another good show. I don't watch much TV now days, must remember it's not all crap

Select to expand quote

nebbian said...
The take-home message for me was that a couple of scientists had looked very hard at the data, and found no correlation between the number of sharks and the number of attacks. There was a strong correlation between the number of people in the area and shark attacks though.

This tended to support the idea that drum lines / shark nets don't work, unless of course they fully enclose the swimming area.

Wouldn't that mean that there would be heaps of attacks in Bondi and almost none in SW Oz or Ballina? My take home message was that attacks seem to happen in clusters.

Select to expand quote

da vecta said..

Wouldn't that mean that there would be heaps of attacks in Bondi and almost none in SW Oz or Ballina? My take home message was that attacks seem to happen in clusters.

I learnt that from 'Jaws' 40 years ago.

There is no possible way that can be true , like most the scientific studies they just have extrememly limited sample size and the numbers that they come out with are luck as much as science I guess to be fair in this case they dont have many options short of telling every one to go swimming alot to get the attack numbers up but they always seem to try there hardest to pretend they got some hard data from all that research they have been paid to do even when the correct answer would be " we have no idea " .It is logical that the more people in the water the more would get attacked but obviously if you killed almost all the sharks there would be very few attacks.Im all in favor of a cull why does every one want to save the shark and then eat a fish for dinner it defies all logic why not eat the shark and leave the 100 fish it would have taken for that much food the fish arnt going to eat us

Maybe introduce some of these guys down to areas they have a shark problem.

Select to expand quote

sausage said...
Very informative four corners report on the recent spate of shark attacks.
Ps - don't start me on the cage diving though

What cage diving??

Reggae Shark solution... may only be temporary

Select to expand quote

nebbian said..
The take-home message for me was that a couple of scientists had looked very hard at the data, and found no correlation between the number of sharks and the number of attacks. There was a strong correlation between the number of people in the area and shark attacks though.

This tended to support the idea that drum lines / shark nets don't work, unless of course they fully enclose the swimming area.

Yeah. The real problem are the people. The more people, the more chances of attacks. NO brainer

Select to expand quote

Loftywinds said..

nebbian said..
The take-home message for me was that a couple of scientists had looked very hard at the data, and found no correlation between the number of sharks and the number of attacks. There was a strong correlation between the number of people in the area and shark attacks though.

This tended to support the idea that drum lines / shark nets don't work, unless of course they fully enclose the swimming area.

Yeah. The real problem are the people. The more people, the more chances of attacks. NO brainer

I'm afraid its not, just do the maths. Look at population growth or any measure of increased water users and then overlay it with the increase in attack numbers and there is a large increase in attacks verses the population growth.

I wonder what has changed in the last 15-20 years that could have caused the spike in attacks?!!

Select to expand quote

nebbian said..
The take-home message for me was that a couple of scientists had looked very hard at the data, and found no correlation between the number of sharks and the number of attacks. There was a strong correlation between the number of people in the area and shark attacks though.

This doesn't really make sense though. Think about it.

Firstly there has to be some correlation between the number of sharks and the number of attacks. If there were zero sharks there would have to be zero attacks. (so saying 'no correlation' raises a flag immediately)

And if, as the couple of scientists are saying, we could have one million sharks in the area and still have the same number of attacks.
And if, as the couple of scientists are saying, the only parameter that actually changes the number of attacks is the number of people in the area

Well, then we have to blame people for shark attacks. The individuals themselves.

Sorry, the results make zero ****ing sense.

I agree more people = more contact, but it works both ways.

As an analogy: it's like saying they found no correlation between rolling a six on a dice and the number of times it was thrown, but did find a correlation between rolling a six and the number of people rolling. It says some people are (un)luckier than others. Some people are more prone to shark attacks.

Select to expand quote

Jfunk said..

Loftywinds said..

nebbian said..
The take-home message for me was that a couple of scientists had looked very hard at the data, and found no correlation between the number of sharks and the number of attacks. There was a strong correlation between the number of people in the area and shark attacks though.

This tended to support the idea that drum lines / shark nets don't work, unless of course they fully enclose the swimming area.

Yeah. The real problem are the people. The more people, the more chances of attacks. NO brainer

I'm afraid its not, just do the maths. Look at population growth or any measure of increased water users and then overlay it with the increase in attack numbers and there is a large increase in attacks verses the population growth.

I wonder what has changed in the last 15-20 years that could have caused the spike in attacks?!!

I would suggest over fishing.

Select to expand quote

evlPanda said..

nebbian said..
The take-home message for me was that a couple of scientists had looked very hard at the data, and found no correlation between the number of sharks and the number of attacks. There was a strong correlation between the number of people in the area and shark attacks though.

This doesn't really make sense though. Think about it.

Firstly there has to be some correlation between the number of sharks and the number of attacks. If there were zero sharks there would have to be zero attacks. (so saying 'no correlation' raises a flag immediately)

And if, as the couple of scientists are saying, we could have one million sharks in the area and still have the same number of attacks.
And if, as the couple of scientists are saying, the only parameter that actually changes the number of attacks is the number of people in the area

Well, then we have to blame people for shark attacks. The individuals themselves.

Sorry, the results make zero ****ing sense.

I agree more people = more contact, but it works both ways.

As an analogy: it's like saying they found no correlation between rolling a six on a dice and the number of times it was thrown, but did find a correlation between rolling a six and the number of people rolling. It says some people are (un)luckier than others. Some people are more prone to shark attacks.

But you can't just discount the results. Look for a reason.
OK the attack rate is non-linear with the number of sharks. Why could that be?

Maybe sharks are only prone to attack at a specific age. A slowdown of fishing and culling may have stretched the age distribution. More sharks in total but same number in attack mode?

Maybe close to shore is the preferred cruising zone for sharks, but they like breathing space, so as numbers increase they naturally spread a bit further off shore. The extra sharks don't come into contact with people?

Maybe shark density somehow affects shark behaviour. We assume they don't communicate. Maybe the word gets around better that we're not edible if the sharks are closer together?

The thing is there has got to be a reason, most likely one I haven't just dreamt up, but there is a reason.

The study appears to have been carried out with proper scientific and statistical method. If not it will be discounted, if it is as rigorous as you'd hope, someone will get funding to get to the bottom of it.

Select to expand quote

djt91184 said...
Did you watch Australian story before that. Did a trip to Fiji with Andy Witton on his yatch Kaileia some years before his misadventure in the pacific with Simon Golding.
RIP Andy
Shark show was well done

Didn't watch the shark but went and iviewed andys story. Sounded like a good bloke. Terrible way to go. As if ol mate didn't do it. Fkkr

Select to expand quote

myusernam said...

djt91184 said...
Did you watch Australian story before that. Did a trip to Fiji with Andy Witton on his yatch Kaileia some years before his misadventure in the pacific with Simon Golding.
RIP Andy
Shark show was well done

Didn't watch the shark but went and iviewed andys story. Sounded like a good bloke. Terrible way to go. As if ol mate didn't do it. Fkkr

Yeah it's hard not to be suspicious of SG when you hear the whole story, the true story of what happened out there will probably never be heard.
SG is good in the interviews though really good at keeping a straight face.

One of the worst ways to go watching your own yatch slowly sail away just enough wwind in the sails to make headway going... going...gone, watch it sail over the horizon while you tread water 500 nautical miles from the closest land and it'll be dark in 2 hrs.

These photos are from the trip to Fiji me, my brother and my old man did with Andy to Fiji approximately 15 yrs ago now, the island un the background is Namotu where Ben Wilson does his kite tour, the other one we're sailing to Kadavu which has a sweet barrelling left hander. Bad quality photos of photos.

rip Andy Witton

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

evlPanda said..

nebbian said..
The take-home message for me was that a couple of scientists had looked very hard at the data, and found no correlation between the number of sharks and the number of attacks. There was a strong correlation between the number of people in the area and shark attacks though.

This doesn't really make sense though. Think about it.

But you can't just discount the results. Look for a reason.
OK the attack rate is non-linear with the number of sharks. Why could that be?

The thing is there has got to be a reason, most likely one I haven't just dreamt up, but there is a reason.

The study appears to have been carried out with proper scientific and statistical method. If not it will be discounted, if it is as rigorous as you'd hope, someone will get funding to get to the bottom of it.

But the entire show was filled with observations to the effect of "We've never seen so many sharks before" and "Unprecedented biological event" (regarding the number of baitfish and such around Ballina).

There were more sharks closer to shore, more sharks in the area, during the time all the attacks happened around Ballina.

Fully half the episode or more covered exactly that scenario where there are more sharks in the area and from it more attacks.

Select to expand quote

GEOFF THOMPSON: These vast black shapes are schools of fish, known as bait balls - and they were drawn to the beaches of the NSW north coast last year. Chasing them were dolphins and big fish, including sharks.

BARRY BRUCE (lol): There was certainly a lot of stuff happening up in the Ballina area last year with schools of bait fish, with whales, with pods of dolphins, with pelagic fish, with sharks moving in the area.

It was a really interesting biological event and I know, when we spoke to locals up there, they were unanimous in that they hadn't seen that sort of bait fish activity in that area for a very long time - or not at all.

So clearly something was going on up there, but th- that's a natural event and, and that's why the sharks were there: because it was a good place to feed.

There were more sharks in the area than usual. There were more attacks that usual. This is fact.

And as for nets; they work. There hasn't been a fatality on a netted beach in Australia ever. Zero.

What I "love" about the counter argument is that if there were one fatality then this would prove without a doubt that they don't work. But this argument ignores the zero count entirely because it's inconvenient.

I'll listen to and agree that the nets are culling marine life indiscriminately, and unfairly, ditto shark culls, but while the nets can't ever be 100% effective they do actually work.

Select to expand quote

evlPanda said..
And as for nets; they work. There hasn't been a fatality on a netted beach in Australia ever. Zero.

So that's really the premise of your posts, ain't it? That the nets "work". Yeah they "work" but that's a fairly disastrous way of managing shark attacks, when they kill far more of everything else. And there are stats here in Townsville showing our drum lines have caught more dolphins and duggons than tiger sharks or crocs! But my point is the nets and drum-lines are synonymous. They are stealth killers of anything - even people if you happen to dive past one and get hooked by accident.

Select to expand quote

Loftywinds said..

evlPanda said..
And as for nets; they work. There hasn't been a fatality on a netted beach in Australia ever. Zero.

So that's really the premise of your posts, ain't it? That the nets "work". Yeah they "work" but that's a fairly disastrous way of managing shark attacks, when they kill far more of everything else. And there are stats here in Townsville showing our drum lines have caught more dolphins and duggons than tiger sharks or crocs! But my point is the nets and drum-lines are synonymous. They are stealth killers of anything - even people if you happen to dive past one and get hooked by accident.

Mmm yes. I thought I'd wait to see what others said first. I'm broadly in agreement with lofty.

The investigations showed that there were still plenty of shark attacks in netted areas, but the difference is that medical assistance is far better than in the 1950's. For instance there have been many victims who have survived but would have died from blood loss had it not been for Medivac helicopters loaded with blood pouches and modern paramedic apparatus. That's a triumph of modern medics - not partially effective netting.

It really does pay to listen to the whole story and not just focus on bits that support a particular viewpoint.

Also the indiscriminate mass deaths that nets cause are unacceptable collateral IMHO. The blanket "kill them all" approach didn't work with DDT, it didn't work with Cane Toads, it didn't work in Vietnam...deforesting and bombing half the country proved useless in the end.

IMHO, we should do nothing other than study sharks and educate, continue to fund the best emergency services and conduct aerial surveillance in the busiest city beaches. No more, no less.

How did the nets prevent these sharks from attacking anyone



One shark net and two drum lines at Kirra .... None of their culling tools stopped an attack.. Its sadly an issue of chance

Lets also not forget that 59 people drowned at Australian beaches between Dec and the 29th of january this year.. Were is the outrage. Thats a 16% increase in previous years. Why the increase?

Exactly. Netting appears to be a waste of time and money. You want to play, sometimes you must be willing to pay.

Put all the money into:

Emergency Medical
Surveillance
Shark Research & Education

Just my opinion. More of the same doesn't seem to be working.

The nets and drum lines are here to stay. Not one politician wants to be the one that made it happen when a year later someone is killed at a formerly meshed beach.

this is by far the most sense made of the shark debate everrrrrrrr LMAO
BTW sharks move into shore on colder water spells following a lot of rain from river mouths flowing hard out.
PLUS more peeps is not real - In WA we need a reggae shark cos they just keep munchin the fxxk outta peeps here in isolated areas too !
Just sayin
It also has a lot more to do with Whale migration as the big White sharks follow this pattern like the masters with the biggest brains they have and between SEPT and JAN its " Danger Will Robinson time in WA"
Use your head peeps - Seals - Dawn - Twilight - Whale Migration - Colder water flow close to the Coast - Plus Ron & Val stopped the Cull 30 years ago so we have sharks appearing bigger and bigger in bigger numbers (bigger ok) = MORE CHANCES OF BEING BITTEN
We need Reggae shark Maaaan !!
Jus Sayin

REGGAE SHARRRRRK MAN ! LOL

Select to expand quote

ikw777 said..
The nets and drum lines are here to stay. Not one politician wants to be the one that made it happen when a year later someone is killed at a formerly meshed beach.

We are certainly in agreement that politicians don't always do what's right or good.

It's really all about money . If people and especially tourists are drawn to our netted beaches then the economy of the whole town benefits. If the perception is that certain beaches are prone to shark attacks because there are no nets then the dollar would go elsewhere.
Tourism is the life of the Gold Coast because people rightly or wrongly feel safe in the water because of the nets. The fact that sharks are still out there and I know they are because I have seen them. You see a lot on a stand up. But your average swimmer would not have a clue what they are swimming with especially when the bait fish are running.