I would like to see one day big whales migration along our shores.

But not that innocent blue humpbacks but real black and white orcas.

They will wipe the tasty sharks all sizes and no Green maniac could argue then natural process is occurring.

Hopefully Orcas are smart enough to spot the difference between surfer and seal or shark.

If you carnt handle it don't go in the water,
Simple

Select to expand quote

cauncy said...
If you carnt handle it don't go in the water,
Simple

....and if you don't want to get killed by a drunk driver, stay at home. And if you dont want to get sunburnt, stay at home. Or, as intelligent beings, we could have drink driving laws, wear a hat and keep sharks at sustainable but safe numbers. Its not complicated.

All very brave and all Cauncy but if we continue to let an apex predator breed at unprecedented levels, it won't be safe to kite anywhere in WA in 20 years time.

It's pretty simple really. Humpbacks numbers were down to around 5000 (worldwide) in the 60's. 50 years later they are at over 100,000 and growing strongly and reproduction is slower than whites and tigers.

You want your grand children to be able to enjoy the water in 30 years time? A scientific cull makes sense.

Select to expand quote

MDSXR6T said..
All very brave and all Cauncy but if we continue to let an apex predator breed at unprecedented levels, it won't be safe to kite anywhere in WA in 20 years time.

It's pretty simple really. Humpbacks numbers were down to around 5000 (worldwide) in the 60's. 50 years later they are at over 100,000 and growing strongly and reproduction is slower than whites and tigers.

You want your grand children to be able to enjoy the water in 30 years time? A scientific cull makes sense.

^^^^^

So So true , but tell the shark lovers that.

Why is it so hard to see this?

Select to expand quote

MDSXR6T said...
All very brave and all Cauncy but if we continue to let an apex predator breed at unprecedented levels, it won't be safe to kite anywhere in WA in 20 years time.

It's pretty simple really. Humpbacks numbers were down to around 5000 (worldwide) in the 60's. 50 years later they are at over 100,000 and growing strongly and reproduction is slower than whites and tigers.

You want your grand children to be able to enjoy the water in 30 years time? A scientific cull makes sense.

No not really, I was up shark bay, dhi last week kiting couple of weeks back,
Kited over plenty of sharks in varied length from reef to 10/12 ft, the recent footage of the 70 sharks having a feed in the passage wasn't that far away,
I accept I'm in their water, I'm not a shark hugger , but I certainly wouldn't want to see them killed for my pleasure, both my kids love the ocean and surf , but are aware of the risk,
Everyone complains about crowded waves, too many kiters, imagine a risk free ocean,
You carnt have it all

The problem is Cauncy is that this is a very emotional issue and when emotion is experienced the ego comes in to play and as Eckhart Tolle explains so lucidly the ego's biggest fear is the fear of death.

That is when logic heads out of the window and any consideration for the LAWS of nature vanish into thin air. Buster et al would be calling for the annihilation of the very last shark in all oceans if anyone was taken after their numbers were "controlled" but someone had the misfortune to be eaten.

Fortunately Logic will prevail as far as this issue is concerned and there will be no concerted effort to get rid of them.

The facile intellect that calls for the elimination of a species which is scientifically proven to be an integral component of the health of the oceans because people run the risk of being killed by them is just too ludicrous to contemplate.

Can you eloborate on what scientific evidence we actually have, I was under the impression we didn't know much about the gws ?

This protest should have been held in the water...

Sure. We do have very little scientific data on the GWS, likewise the oceans in their entirety. I've heard it said that we know more about the geography of our nearest planets than we do about what is in the seas.

However what we do know about ecology from centuries of observation and study is that ecology is pretty much an exact science and that every action or event has a reaction. We have stark examples of this in Australia, many other regions as well, where human intervention has resulted in cock ups of gargantuan proportions. Think cats, rabbits and carp.

Ecology can be likened to a spider web, intricately linked through complex strands. With a spider web when you break one strand it effects the shape of the whole web, sometimes only slightly but nevertheless the integrity is always compromised to some degree. With ecology if you break a strand by removing a species the same thing happens. But similar to a spider web some species play a larger part in the structural integrity of the whole.

The great white is an apex predator, similar to lions in the Serengetti. Lions play a major role in controlling the population density of herbivores. Remove the lions and nature has to adjust. One can only make a scientific guess, albeit an intelligent guess, at what would happen. You'd get an increase in herbivore numbers but without lions there would be room for the leopard and cheetah populations to grow.

It's only conjecture but leopards, whilst rarely seen, are already the most prolific of the big cats in Africa and without a doubt already account for many humans early demise.

The same thing could possibly happen in the ocean if you remove an apex predator. It will be replaced but you cannot tell by what.

Greed has already screwed things up beyond imagination by overfishing. It's naive and big headed to think that we can manage the vast bodies of water to bring things back into balance.

People need to get their heads around the fact that whilst the oceans are fun to play in they are also the prime source of oxygen. Screw that up beyond repair and Homo sapiens, along with everything else that relies on oxygen, joins the long list of extinct species.

So to f u c k around with the ecology in the naive attempt to reduce fatalities is both dangerous and stupid in that it will not only not deliver the desired result but will in all probability result in unforeseen increases in fatalities.

Is ~5 deaths a year worth wiping out the GW population in Australia?

Some say yes, some say no. It's becoming an Israel V Palestine discussion.

I don't have the answers, but I feel this solution will come from technology, not by slaughter.


I hope the evolution in Shark Deterrent Technology will play its part in reducing attacks while keeping swimmers and GW's alive.

if there was tiger snake living in your kids bedroom would you remove the threat or try and make love to it.

Theyve deployed drumlines so you might want to go out in you tinny with its ****ty 2 stroke motor and stop them. Better still go have a polite conversation with the shark and tell it to move on. Please give it a big hug for me.

Select to expand quote

cauncy said...
No not really, I was up shark bay, dhi last week kiting couple of weeks back,
Kited over plenty of sharks in varied length from reef to 10/12 ft, the recent footage of the 70 sharks having a feed in the passage wasn't that far away,
I accept I'm in their water, I'm not a shark hugger , but I certainly wouldn't want to see them killed for my pleasure, both my kids love the ocean and surf , but are aware of the risk,
Everyone complains about crowded waves, too many kiters, imagine a risk free ocean,
You carnt have it all

Yet you're happy to post photos of you proudly holding snapper, dhuies and crays but you don't want to kill a shark?

You saw loads of sharks up north (no whites though and lets face it most other sharks wont attack you) and thats great but you do realise a few weeks ago i killed 2 smaller sharks (for food) and it was fine and legal. Plenty of other people do and yet the balance is still there isnt it? Why is a white different?

Koalas were/are being culled over east because some populations are starving and are rife with chlyamidia. Most normal people see the science behind this. It's not a pleasant idea but its the best thing for their survival. If science, tagging programs and research backed this up with white sharks, why is it a problem?

At some point over the next 100 years humpback whale numbers may be out of control. What then? We'll sit at the dinner table eating fish, chicken and steak and be outraged at the Japanese taking a few dozen.

From there we can take it right to the top of the food chain, humans, but it gets a little confronting.

We know so little about Great Whites and the government should be spending more money on tagging them. Tagging gives a much better understanding of areas that they stay in and travel to. We know so much more now due to tagging, areas where the water was deemed too warm, have now been found to be some of there breeding areas, the so called experts only found this out because of tagging. I am not a shark hugger and agree that some of the big ones need to be knocked off. What can we do to make us feel safer? Get on the sharksmart site if your in W.A , this will give you a good idea of shark activity in the area. If you see a shark report it to the water police(94428600) this will then come up on the sharksmart site. I check this web site before i dive and will influence where i dive, if large sharks have been hanging around the area i wont dive there. I also were a shark shield while diving.

Select to expand quote

japie said..
Buster et al would be calling for the annihilation of the very last shark in all oceans if anyone was taken after their numbers were "controlled" but someone had the misfortune to be eaten.

Fortunately Logic will prevail as far as this issue is concerned and there will be no concerted effort to get rid of them.

The facile intellect that calls for the elimination of a species which is scientifically proven to be an integral component of the health of the oceans because people run the risk of being killed by them is just too ludicrous to contemplate.

It's hard to keep up with the attacks and deaths. Prior to white sharks being protected, approximately one person was killed a decade or more apart, victims' names were remembered for a long time. Now you need to consult a list to get them all and in the right order! Two people have been killed by sharks this week less than 100 kms apart. Doesn't bode well for people wanting to catch any kind of water time in a 300 km stretch really, does it?

Japie, no one is calling for the annihilation of every last shark in all oceans; that's emotive language doing nothing to help the situation. By the alarmist reckoning of some people if we put humans before sharks and knock the population down to a more manageable level the entire ecosystem will collapse and suck life on earth down the plug hole with it. Great story, but clearly it doesn't work like that, or it already would have. The end of the world would have come when attacks were separated by decades, not days.

It is alarmist nonsense. Even with the huge amount of pressure put on it historically, before protection was introduced, the species hung in there. It's time to bring some balance back by reinstating the shark fishery. And before anyone says we're not great at managing fisheries, just look what a ****ing great job we did with white sharks already. A lot has been learned by allowing numbers to get dangerously low, and it won't happen again: But it's time to admit they've now they've become dangerously high and do something to change that.

And +1 to the comment that the save the shark protests should be held in the water. This week would be good...

Best comment here so far. ''This protest should have been held in the water...

Please, someone call another shark hugging gathering to happen this week.

Attenders would only be able to sign in their petition if they get the rears wet otherwise sent back home to sip their Soy latte flat whites...

Select to expand quote

ThinkaBowtit said...

japie said..
Buster et al would be calling for the annihilation of the very last shark in all oceans if anyone was taken after their numbers were "controlled" but someone had the misfortune to be eaten.

Fortunately Logic will prevail as far as this issue is concerned and there will be no concerted effort to get rid of them.

The facile intellect that calls for the elimination of a species which is scientifically proven to be an integral component of the health of the oceans because people run the risk of being killed by them is just too ludicrous to contemplate.

It's hard to keep up with the attacks and deaths. Prior to white sharks being protected, approximately one person was killed a decade or more apart, victims' names were remembered for a long time. Now you need to consult a list to get them all and in the right order! Two people have been killed by sharks this week less than 100 kms apart. Doesn't bode well for people wanting to catch any kind of water time in a 300 km stretch really, does it?

Japie, no one is calling for the annihilation of every last shark in all oceans; that's emotive language doing nothing to help the situation. By the alarmist reckoning of some people if we put humans before sharks and knock the population down to a more manageable level the entire ecosystem will collapse and suck life on earth down the plug hole with it. Great story, but clearly it doesn't work like that, or it already would have. The end of the world would have come when attacks were separated by decades, not days.

It is alarmist nonsense. Even with the huge amount of pressure put on it historically, before protection was introduced, the species hung in there. It's time to bring some balance back by reinstating the shark fishery. And before anyone says we're not great at managing fisheries, just look what a ****ing great job we did with white sharks already. A lot has been learned by allowing numbers to get dangerously low, and it won't happen again: But it's time to admit they've now they've become dangerously high and do something to change that.

And +1 to the comment that the save the shark protests should be held in the water. This week would be good...

+1 to thinkaboutits comments. We already manage many fisheries here in WA successfully. Even herring have bag limits now. The numbers of GWs 30 years ago seemed ok as a water user but didn't lead to any of collapse of the ecosystem around Australia. Allowing some sort of managed GW fishing would be a good compromise.

Both sides of the coin have plenty of experts that know nothing.

Select to expand quote

Surf69 said..
Both sides of the coin have plenty of experts that know nothing.

well said

Guys I hear where you are coming from I really do. Whilst I don't surf every time I lose my board kiting the anxiety rises.

However I also have a degree in fishery management, ( for what it's worth!) and I can assure you that in my experience fishery management in Australia is largely limited to scientists producing documents on how crap the situation is and the issuers of licenses ignoring their advice.

And that is inland waters. We have no frigging idea what is happening in the sea. When I first came to Australia the Orange Roughy fishery in thE Tasman was in its infancy but by the time they'd figured out that they reached maturity around eighty years of age (from memory) the fishery was facing collapse through over exploitation.

I have no idea whether or not the proliferation of Great Whites on your section of coast is a result of overfishing of their target fish but you can bet your bottom dollar that there is a distinct likelihood that that is the case. Where I'm living the Chings have just about done for the tuna to the extent that Wahoo, once trash fish, are now being advertised.

Point is is that trying to intervene is more than likely to have a negative effect than saving lives. I know the logic is infallible, no one is going to be taken by a dead shark but there are a myriad of ways of addressing the problem which don't involve killing sharks. There is also a distinct possibility that killing sharks may even increase the incidents or result in the influx of smaller whites or an increased population of bull sharks or tigers.

What needs to happen is the authorities need to be coerced into researching a realistic solution but experience tells me that our politicians thrive better on doing zut because it results in division which they feed on.

Oh, and putting bag limits on species is hardly management. It's putting bag limits on species full stop. Anyone who has been on a trawler will tell you that bag limits mean nothing because what's illegal ends up dead but not on the market.

Less sharks less shark attacks Its not rocket science.

Select to expand quote

ThinkaBowtit said..




The end of the world would have come when attacks were separated by decades, not days.

It is alarmist nonsense.

That statement certainly is alarmist nonsense.

You have to normalise the rate of attacks by at least population, if you can't get data for man hours spent in the water.

For instance there were 3 attacks in the 1920s, another particularly bad decade, when the population was 300,000. That's still a very low risk but nevertheless worse odds than 16 or so in a decade when the population is getting on to 3 million. And how many hours did people swim for in those days? Before the advent of wetsuits you wouldn't be swimming at this time of year.

And how many people do you know who won't even swim in the ocean for fear of sharks? I know at least half a dozen. Of those that do, how many stay between the flags for safety in numbers and don't stray too far off shore? I'd guess that indirectly the perceived risk of shark and crocodile attack saves more people from drowning each year than the sterling efforts of all the SLSCs combined.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_shark_attacks_in_Australia

You have to be careful to make conclusions based on their protection since 1999. GWS sharks don't breed until 25 years of age and live until 70. The sharks involved in the latest unfortunate incidents have possibly been cruising the coast for decades before being protected, that's decades before making the mistake of attacking the wrong prey.

fremantle doctor

cape town doctor

both full of big whities

both awesome kitesurfing

both going thru a decline in paddle surfers

where is the issue?

average speed of a kiter is 40kph ? top speed 100kph

great white 15kph? top speed 40 kph (short bursts only)

you want to splash around createing the exact same noise as a single finned wounded fish on your surfboard GO AHEAD. i reccomend you do it on the sunshine coast where the whities dont reside, or any other tropics. seriously its like crawling thru tiger country covered in steaks and acting surprised when you gain one of there attention.

why would you kill the sharks if people are doing this? we know how sharks work, we understand that they interpret our splashing as a wounded fish and an easy lunch, educate the surfers and leave it at that. use the government cull money on a kiteing program so the surfers have a chance :) win win


OH! i almost forgot. everytime i hear this **** i just imagine WHAT WOULD CAPE TOWN DO?!? because its identical. and you know what they would do? sweet **** all and i think we should follow there example. they got lions and **** to worry about

Select to expand quote

busterwa said...
Less sharks less shark attacks Its not rocket science.

Unless you get the wrong species

Select to expand quote

Kozzie said..

you want to splash around createing the exact same noise as a single finned wounded fish on your surfboard GO AHEAD. i reccomend you do it on the sunshine coast where the whities dont reside, or any other tropics. seriously its like crawling thru tiger country covered in steaks and acting surprised when you gain one of there attention.

why would you kill the sharks if people are doing this? we know how sharks work, we understand that they interpret our splashing as a wounded fish and an easy lunch, educate the surfers and leave it at that. use the government cull money on a kiteing program so the surfers have a chance :) win win

Only problem with your theory is, just one species of shark is doing the killing, the other species are happy to mind their own business.

Where does that leave you?

I hear "don't mess with nature", well define nature. We think of this pristine untouched, virginal wilderness that must not be touched. Unfortunately we don't know where we started, where the balance should be sitting. Our influence from so many actions has been massive on land and substantial in our coastal waters. It's so stuffed now we may as well tweak the balance once more in our favour.

Hey colin listen to this

Select to expand quote

Sparky said..
I hear "don't mess with nature", well define nature. We think of this pristine untouched, virginal wilderness that must not be touched. Unfortunately we don't know where we started, where the balance should be sitting. Our influence from so many actions has been massive on land and substantial in our coastal waters. It's so stuffed now we may as well tweak the balance once more in our favour.

We started in the position that humans were top of the food chain, rightly or wrongly, and made decisions based on that premise.
Then we found a conscience, rightly or wrongly, and made decisions based on that premise.
Now, we are dealing with the outcome of that decision, which was predictable.
So now we need to rethink.
Or simply decide that human sacrifice is okay for that sake of some unseeable, unknowable, untouchable big fishes.
Long live the big fishes...

Please see below pictures of what is required