I thought this may be of some interest to a few of the southern guys..
www.coastlive.com.au/news/local-news/falcon-bay/

This is certainly of interest and protects swimmers in that limited location. I guess it begs the question about what efforts are to be made by the governmental authorities to enhance the safety of surfers and other water users at Gearies, Avalon and Bitumens and other places nearby. e.g. culling, drone detection shark spotting and other shark management strategies.

Select to expand quote

RichardG said..
This is certainly of interest and protects swimmers in that limited location. I guess it begs the question about what efforts are to be made by the governmental authorities to enhance the safety of surfers and other water users at Gearies, Avalon and Bitumens and other places nearby. e.g. culling, drone detection shark spotting and other shark management strategies.

Surf at your own risk

Select to expand quote

DARTH said..

RichardG said..
This is certainly of interest and protects swimmers in that limited location. I guess it begs the question about what efforts are to be made by the governmental authorities to enhance the safety of surfers and other water users at Gearies, Avalon and Bitumens and other places nearby. e.g. culling, drone detection shark spotting and other shark management strategies.

Surf at your own risk

Yes that is what I thought. So zero new efforts will be taken by governments in WA for surfers, since culling and drum lines were ended by the WA government. That is in stark contrast to NSW governments efforts in shark detection, monitoring and the like.

Select to expand quote

RichardG said..

DARTH said..

RichardG said..
This is certainly of interest and protects swimmers in that limited location. I guess it begs the question about what efforts are to be made by the governmental authorities to enhance the safety of surfers and other water users at Gearies, Avalon and Bitumens and other places nearby. e.g. culling, drone detection shark spotting and other shark management strategies.

Surf at your own risk

Yes that is what I thought. So zero new efforts will be taken by governments in WA for surfers, since culling and drum lines were ended by the WA government. That is in stark contrast to NSW governments efforts in shark detection, monitoring and the like.

Not that this was meant to be a shark thread but, in fact WA is doing more as far as mitigation for water users than NSW. The big difference is the WA government are currently running a rebate system on shark shields, They have promised that will be extended once a surfing versions (Rpela) has its independent testing completed. The NSW government is looking to repeat also. Also safe swimming enclosures like the one above are also an increased effort. No it wont protect every one but its another step in the right direction.

Ariel patrols have been increased and drones have now been provided to 5 beaches to help with spotting. The WA fisheries has also increased the tagging effort and detection stations, mostly around Esperance. The WA monitoring network is a lot more extensive than NSW although they have tagged lots more sharks, but that could also be due to the fact of their are simply more sharks to tag.

The NSW government has started a new net trail that even they say is more about business/tourist perception than actual safety. Don't forget the last attack only weeks ago at Avoca beach. A netted beach.

My criticism of governments and the shark problem is still the same though, they spend far too much money, on issues that either wont help, or they pay through the roof for something. For example recently they paid $100000 for 5 drones..

The shark problem is/was never going to be an easy solution to resolve. Id suggest our government would have better chance stopping Mount Agung from erupting then 100% stopping shark interactions.

Well it got turned into a shark thread quick enough....

It would be interesting to see if anyone is keeping track on how many people actually use the one at Sorrento and how many of those use it because it's a safe area to swim, or it's their local and they go there anyway.

Select to expand quote

Chris6791 said..
Well it got turned into a shark thread quick enough....

It would be interesting to see if anyone is keeping track on how many people actually use the one at Sorrento and how many of those use it because it's a safe area to swim, or it's their local and they go there anyway.

Personally I like the shark factor.

People always say to me, I don't surf because I'm scared of sharks or I don't like the beach because of sharks.

Excellent don't surf and don't swim and leave it too the rest of us that want to play in the ocean

Select to expand quote

Chris6791 said..
Well it got turned into a shark thread quick enough....

It would be interesting to see if anyone is keeping track on how many people actually use the one at Sorrento and how many of those use it because it's a safe area to swim, or it's their local and they go there anyway.

A good mate lives a few hundred meters away from Sorrento. He was very un happy about its installation and said he refused to use it.

Well now he swims it every day, wont stop raving about it and although he says the beach carp park is often full, still raves about its success. Its a good one to swim laps as it is so far out to sea that people don't really get in anyone doing laps way.

Ive never been bothered by the sharks but never swam laps in the ocean. Now we often do so at Quinns. Actually i had only ever swam at the (Quinns) beach once in my life time before the net but now do weekly.

Their are beach numbers kept by surf life saving at individual beaches also, but i doubt they'd be out yet..I remember Coogee had something like a 450% increase in vacation swimming.

The new proposal for Mandurah though i thought it should have maybe started a little further out? It would be terrible for the placement to effect waves for the kids..

Select to expand quote

RichardG said..

DARTH said..

RichardG said..
This is certainly of interest and protects swimmers in that limited location. I guess it begs the question about what efforts are to be made by the governmental authorities to enhance the safety of surfers and other water users at Gearies, Avalon and Bitumens and other places nearby. e.g. culling, drone detection shark spotting and other shark management strategies.

Surf at your own risk

Yes that is what I thought. So zero new efforts will be taken by governments in WA for surfers, since culling and drum lines were ended by the WA government. That is in stark contrast to NSW governments efforts in shark detection, monitoring and the like.

From a Govt perspective everybody swims but not everybody surfs, so the reality is that concentrated expensive efforts on an already tight budget to protect Surfers would see a serious "fiscal over representation" especially when you consider actual risk v's likely-hood, even considering consequences. So there is a formal approach that is taken.

This is why the subsidy for the shark deterrent's was made available. Doesn't cover enough but they need to have boxes ticked etc and as you're well aware the options are limited as the subsidy doesn't include "Rpela" as an example.

So in a court of law you as a surfer would be expected to demonstrate a Duty of care to yourself ( and others, as far as is reasonably practicable ) and in the case of potential shark attack, if you believe that there's a risk then you are expected to mitigate or prevent an exposure to that risk. So cutting a really long story short, swimmers get better protection than surfers...as long as they use the protected areas.

SO..... get a shark deterrent's of some kind if you don't have one already. Its a bummer that all available deterrent's arent all getting subsidised. I've just had two installed on my grommets customs and they are not subsidised at all... and that pisses me off.

Not that anyone has a leg to stand on (no pun intended) legally to sue for compensation over shark attack, but those who have claimed somewhere (for example in social media) that there's a risk, would have an even weaker case by identifying that they are exposed to a risk but failed to take reasonable effort (as far as is practicable) to mitigate against the risk.

Hope that makes sense ?

Maybe put a bloody drink fountain there first
Also clear out some of the rocks right on the shore line

Select to expand quote

DARTH said..

Chris6791 said..
Well it got turned into a shark thread quick enough....

It would be interesting to see if anyone is keeping track on how many people actually use the one at Sorrento and how many of those use it because it's a safe area to swim, or it's their local and they go there anyway.

Personally I like the shark factor.

People always say to me, I don't surf because I'm scared of sharks or I don't like the beach because of sharks.

Excellent don't surf and don't swim and leave it too the rest of us that want to play in the ocean

thats cos you surf in a relatively shark safe area

fark you are a selfish bugger

Select to expand quote

Surf69 said..

RichardG said..

DARTH said..

RichardG said..
This is certainly of interest and protects swimmers in that limited location. I guess it begs the question about what efforts are to be made by the governmental authorities to enhance the safety of surfers and other water users at Gearies, Avalon and Bitumens and other places nearby. e.g. culling, drone detection shark spotting and other shark management strategies.

Surf at your own risk

Yes that is what I thought. So zero new efforts will be taken by governments in WA for surfers, since culling and drum lines were ended by the WA government. That is in stark contrast to NSW governments efforts in shark detection, monitoring and the like.

From a Govt perspective everybody swims but not everybody surfs, so the reality is that concentrated expensive efforts on an already tight budget to protect Surfers would see a serious "fiscal over representation" especially when you consider actual risk v's likely-hood, even considering consequences. So there is a formal approach that is taken.

This is why the subsidy for the shark deterrent's was made available. Doesn't cover enough but they need to have boxes ticked etc and as you're well aware the options are limited as the subsidy doesn't include "Rpela" as an example.

So in a court of law you as a surfer would be expected to demonstrate a Duty of care to yourself ( and others, as far as is reasonably practicable ) and in the case of potential shark attack, if you believe that there's a risk then you are expected to mitigate or prevent an exposure to that risk. So cutting a really long story short, swimmers get better protection than surfers...as long as they use the protected areas.

SO..... get a shark deterrent's of some kind if you don't have one already. Its a bummer that all available deterrent's arent all getting subsidised. I've just had two installed on my grommets customs and they are not subsidised at all... and that pisses me off.

Not that anyone has a leg to stand on (no pun intended) legally to sue for compensation over shark attack, but those who have claimed somewhere (for example in social media) that there's a risk, would have an even weaker case by identifying that they are exposed to a risk but failed to take reasonable effort (as far as is practicable) to mitigate against the risk.

Hope that makes sense ?

Except NO electronic repellant stops a great white in attack mode. A inconvenient fact you and McClown keep ignoring.

That's frigging Awesome. Im gona feel so much safer now they have installed a 20sq metre net in Falcon. Seems the state government has done its research and Is now hitting home runs.

Select to expand quote

Bara said..

DARTH said..

Chris6791 said..
Well it got turned into a shark thread quick enough....

It would be interesting to see if anyone is keeping track on how many people actually use the one at Sorrento and how many of those use it because it's a safe area to swim, or it's their local and they go there anyway.

Personally I like the shark factor.

People always say to me, I don't surf because I'm scared of sharks or I don't like the beach because of sharks.

Excellent don't surf and don't swim and leave it too the rest of us that want to play in the ocean

thats cos you surf in a relatively shark safe area

fark you are a selfish bugger

Yes I am

Select to expand quote

Bara said..

Surf69 said..

RichardG said..

DARTH said..

RichardG said..
This is certainly of interest and protects swimmers in that limited location. I guess it begs the question about what efforts are to be made by the governmental authorities to enhance the safety of surfers and other water users at Gearies, Avalon and Bitumens and other places nearby. e.g. culling, drone detection shark spotting and other shark management strategies.

Surf at your own risk

Yes that is what I thought. So zero new efforts will be taken by governments in WA for surfers, since culling and drum lines were ended by the WA government. That is in stark contrast to NSW governments efforts in shark detection, monitoring and the like.

From a Govt perspective everybody swims but not everybody surfs, so the reality is that concentrated expensive efforts on an already tight budget to protect Surfers would see a serious "fiscal over representation" especially when you consider actual risk v's likely-hood, even considering consequences. So there is a formal approach that is taken.

This is why the subsidy for the shark deterrent's was made available. Doesn't cover enough but they need to have boxes ticked etc and as you're well aware the options are limited as the subsidy doesn't include "Rpela" as an example.

So in a court of law you as a surfer would be expected to demonstrate a Duty of care to yourself ( and others, as far as is reasonably practicable ) and in the case of potential shark attack, if you believe that there's a risk then you are expected to mitigate or prevent an exposure to that risk. So cutting a really long story short, swimmers get better protection than surfers...as long as they use the protected areas.

SO..... get a shark deterrent's of some kind if you don't have one already. Its a bummer that all available deterrent's arent all getting subsidised. I've just had two installed on my grommets customs and they are not subsidised at all... and that pisses me off.

Not that anyone has a leg to stand on (no pun intended) legally to sue for compensation over shark attack, but those who have claimed somewhere (for example in social media) that there's a risk, would have an even weaker case by identifying that they are exposed to a risk but failed to take reasonable effort (as far as is practicable) to mitigate against the risk.

Hope that makes sense ?

Except NO electronic repellant stops a great white in attack mode. A inconvenient fact you and McClown keep ignoring.

And the evidence you are putting forward for this is? Im sure you have something??

What bloody good is drone detection unless they have rpgs attached

Select to expand quote

Bara said..

Surf69 said..

RichardG said..

DARTH said..

RichardG said..
This is certainly of interest and protects swimmers in that limited location. I guess it begs the question about what efforts are to be made by the governmental authorities to enhance the safety of surfers and other water users at Gearies, Avalon and Bitumens and other places nearby. e.g. culling, drone detection shark spotting and other shark management strategies.

Surf at your own risk

Yes that is what I thought. So zero new efforts will be taken by governments in WA for surfers, since culling and drum lines were ended by the WA government. That is in stark contrast to NSW governments efforts in shark detection, monitoring and the like.

From a Govt perspective everybody swims but not everybody surfs, so the reality is that concentrated expensive efforts on an already tight budget to protect Surfers would see a serious "fiscal over representation" especially when you consider actual risk v's likely-hood, even considering consequences. So there is a formal approach that is taken.

This is why the subsidy for the shark deterrent's was made available. Doesn't cover enough but they need to have boxes ticked etc and as you're well aware the options are limited as the subsidy doesn't include "Rpela" as an example.

So in a court of law you as a surfer would be expected to demonstrate a Duty of care to yourself ( and others, as far as is reasonably practicable ) and in the case of potential shark attack, if you believe that there's a risk then you are expected to mitigate or prevent an exposure to that risk. So cutting a really long story short, swimmers get better protection than surfers...as long as they use the protected areas.

SO..... get a shark deterrent's of some kind if you don't have one already. Its a bummer that all available deterrent's arent all getting subsidised. I've just had two installed on my grommets customs and they are not subsidised at all... and that pisses me off.

Not that anyone has a leg to stand on (no pun intended) legally to sue for compensation over shark attack, but those who have claimed somewhere (for example in social media) that there's a risk, would have an even weaker case by identifying that they are exposed to a risk but failed to take reasonable effort (as far as is practicable) to mitigate against the risk.

Hope that makes sense ?

Except NO electronic repellant stops a great white in attack mode. A inconvenient fact you and McClown keep ignoring.

Their was a story in "The Australian" recently. (It wont let me copy it here for some reason). A small paragraph shared a story from a local surfer says your wrong Bara. The story was about Esperance being under attack.
Quote:
Another surfer, Tilo Massenbaeur, says he has had three brushes with great whites in the past three years, two at Kelp Beds. On one occasion, a 3m great white charged at him but veered away "like it had been punched in the face" when it was within just 2m of him. He attributes this to the shark deterrent device that was fitted to his board.


I did some research, he was using a Rpela and i guess was glad he didn't take your word for it Bara

Select to expand quote

busterwa said..
That's frigging Awesome. Im gona feel so much safer now they have installed a 20sq metre net in Falcon. Seems the state government has done its research and Is now hitting home runs.

No one is saying their is a silver bullet. But how can it not help local swimmers and young grommets.. My god some people are just never happy..

I simply shared the report for local in the area that may not be aware, good to see that the same old whiners haven't changed a bit

Select to expand quote

jbshack said..

Bara said..

Surf69 said..

RichardG said..

DARTH said..

RichardG said..
This is certainly of interest and protects swimmers in that limited location. I guess it begs the question about what efforts are to be made by the governmental authorities to enhance the safety of surfers and other water users at Gearies, Avalon and Bitumens and other places nearby. e.g. culling, drone detection shark spotting and other shark management strategies.

Surf at your own risk

Yes that is what I thought. So zero new efforts will be taken by governments in WA for surfers, since culling and drum lines were ended by the WA government. That is in stark contrast to NSW governments efforts in shark detection, monitoring and the like.

From a Govt perspective everybody swims but not everybody surfs, so the reality is that concentrated expensive efforts on an already tight budget to protect Surfers would see a serious "fiscal over representation" especially when you consider actual risk v's likely-hood, even considering consequences. So there is a formal approach that is taken.

This is why the subsidy for the shark deterrent's was made available. Doesn't cover enough but they need to have boxes ticked etc and as you're well aware the options are limited as the subsidy doesn't include "Rpela" as an example.

So in a court of law you as a surfer would be expected to demonstrate a Duty of care to yourself ( and others, as far as is reasonably practicable ) and in the case of potential shark attack, if you believe that there's a risk then you are expected to mitigate or prevent an exposure to that risk. So cutting a really long story short, swimmers get better protection than surfers...as long as they use the protected areas.

SO..... get a shark deterrent's of some kind if you don't have one already. Its a bummer that all available deterrent's arent all getting subsidised. I've just had two installed on my grommets customs and they are not subsidised at all... and that pisses me off.

Not that anyone has a leg to stand on (no pun intended) legally to sue for compensation over shark attack, but those who have claimed somewhere (for example in social media) that there's a risk, would have an even weaker case by identifying that they are exposed to a risk but failed to take reasonable effort (as far as is practicable) to mitigate against the risk.

Hope that makes sense ?

Except NO electronic repellant stops a great white in attack mode. A inconvenient fact you and McClown keep ignoring.

Their was a story in "The Australian" recently. (It wont let me copy it here for some reason). A small paragraph shared a story from a local surfer says your wrong Bara. The story was about Esperance being under attack.
Quote:
Another surfer, Tilo Massenbaeur, says he has had three brushes with great whites in the past three years, two at Kelp Beds. On one occasion, a 3m great white charged at him but veered away "like it had been punched in the face" when it was within just 2m of him. He attributes this to the shark deterrent device that was fitted to his board.


I did some research, he was using a Rpela and i guess was glad he didn't take your word for it Bara

Lol except the electromagnetic field only extends 80cm. It would have had to have veered off at under 1m to be the field that stopped it. You know that jb. Clutching at straws there mate.

Yeah they might be better than nothing as they might deter an investigative nibble but they dont stop a charge.

That's the la la land cop out that let's McClowan pretend he's doing something when's he's actually not. Politics at its lowest.

Anyway coincidentally I'm off to durban today where they havnt had a fatal attack on protected beaches for nearly 40 years (Down from 140 odd deaths previously). They sold the electro mag tech to Australians as they have a clearly more effective aproach - Drums and nets.

There is a massive multibillion dollar tourist economy there ala the gold coast but bigger that's popped up in the last decade that simply wouldn't exist with the previous level of fatalities. Thats the **** McClowan should be looking at.

Select to expand quote

Bara said..

jbshack said..

Bara said..

Surf69 said..

RichardG said..

DARTH said..

RichardG said..
This is certainly of interest and protects swimmers in that limited location. I guess it begs the question about what efforts are to be made by the governmental authorities to enhance the safety of surfers and other water users at Gearies, Avalon and Bitumens and other places nearby. e.g. culling, drone detection shark spotting and other shark management strategies.

Surf at your own risk

Yes that is what I thought. So zero new efforts will be taken by governments in WA for surfers, since culling and drum lines were ended by the WA government. That is in stark contrast to NSW governments efforts in shark detection, monitoring and the like.

From a Govt perspective everybody swims but not everybody surfs, so the reality is that concentrated expensive efforts on an already tight budget to protect Surfers would see a serious "fiscal over representation" especially when you consider actual risk v's likely-hood, even considering consequences. So there is a formal approach that is taken.

This is why the subsidy for the shark deterrent's was made available. Doesn't cover enough but they need to have boxes ticked etc and as you're well aware the options are limited as the subsidy doesn't include "Rpela" as an example.

So in a court of law you as a surfer would be expected to demonstrate a Duty of care to yourself ( and others, as far as is reasonably practicable ) and in the case of potential shark attack, if you believe that there's a risk then you are expected to mitigate or prevent an exposure to that risk. So cutting a really long story short, swimmers get better protection than surfers...as long as they use the protected areas.

SO..... get a shark deterrent's of some kind if you don't have one already. Its a bummer that all available deterrent's arent all getting subsidised. I've just had two installed on my grommets customs and they are not subsidised at all... and that pisses me off.

Not that anyone has a leg to stand on (no pun intended) legally to sue for compensation over shark attack, but those who have claimed somewhere (for example in social media) that there's a risk, would have an even weaker case by identifying that they are exposed to a risk but failed to take reasonable effort (as far as is practicable) to mitigate against the risk.

Hope that makes sense ?

Except NO electronic repellant stops a great white in attack mode. A inconvenient fact you and McClown keep ignoring.

Their was a story in "The Australian" recently. (It wont let me copy it here for some reason). A small paragraph shared a story from a local surfer says your wrong Bara. The story was about Esperance being under attack.
Quote:
Another surfer, Tilo Massenbaeur, says he has had three brushes with great whites in the past three years, two at Kelp Beds. On one occasion, a 3m great white charged at him but veered away "like it had been punched in the face" when it was within just 2m of him. He attributes this to the shark deterrent device that was fitted to his board.


I did some research, he was using a Rpela and i guess was glad he didn't take your word for it Bara

Lol except the electromagnetic field only extends 80cm. It would have had to have veered off at under 1m to be the field that stopped it. You know that jb. Clutching at straws there mate.

Yeah they might be better than nothing as they might deter an investigative nibble but they dont stop a charge.

That's the la la land cop out that let's McClowan pretend he's doing something when's he's actually not. Politics at its lowest.

Anyway coincidentally I'm off to durban today where they havnt had a fatal attack on protected beaches for nearly 40 years (Down from 140 odd deaths previously). They sold the electro mag tech to Australians as they have a clearly more effective aproach - Drums and nets.

There is a massive multibillion dollar tourist economy there ala the gold coast but bigger that's popped up in the last decade that simply wouldn't exist with the previous level of fatalities. Thats the **** McClowan should be looking at.

You are the one clutching at straws, plus they have a 3m radius(still a bit small if you ask me )

www.sharkattackdata.com/place So theres the data. Notice why there isn't any shark attacks in places like. China ... or the republic of ricechowder? Lets just say these countries don't have a problem with stray dogs and cats either. So how do you like your steak?

Select to expand quote

busterwa said..
www.sharkattackdata.com/place So theres the data. Notice why there isn't any shark attacks in places like. China ... or the republic of ricechowder? Lets just say these countries don't have a problem with stray dogs and cats either. So how do you like your steak?

Far out...Australia is number one for KILLS way ahead of the second place (with a population 15x bigger).
SHARK ISLAND should be the name of the country...

Select to expand quote

novetti said..

busterwa said..
www.sharkattackdata.com/place So theres the data. Notice why there isn't any shark attacks in places like. China ... or the republic of ricechowder? Lets just say these countries don't have a problem with stray dogs and cats either. So how do you like your steak?

Far out...Australia is number one for KILLS way ahead of the second place (with a population 15x bigger).
SHARK ISLAND should be the name of the country...

1929 was a big year :(

Select to expand quote

Stuthepirate said..

Have you got the chart for provoked attacks?

Bara one day do some real leg work and have a chat to Dave about sharks stopping at full charge

www.mandurahmail.com.au/story/5098631/council-to-decide-length-and-consultation-plan-for-falcon-shark-barrier/?src=rss

Understandable with population increase

cdn3.chartsbin.com/chartimages/l_eoo_45b739414a40ac11afacf3f3167b2a1d

Select to expand quote

jbshack said..
Bara one day do some real leg work and have a chat to Dave about sharks stopping at full charge

It's only taken 331 years but we must congratulate Dave on the discovery of the 4th law of motion

Changing the trajectory of a 5m long, 1000kg object doing 40km/h in a split second and mere centimetres is a remarkable scientific discovery. Even moreso when it's a living creature that is hell bent on eating its lunch.

Forget the sharks though, the future is trucks, cars, trains and boats that stop instantly! Inertia is so 17th century and now is the perfect time to buy lithium* and energizer stocks

*AVZ Minerals were 7c in July, now 22c, not a bad buy

Select to expand quote

MDSXR6T said..

jbshack said..
Bara one day do some real leg work and have a chat to Dave about sharks stopping at full charge

Changing the trajectory of a 5m long, 1000kg object doing 40km/h in a split second and mere centimetres is a remarkable scientific discovery. Even moreso when it's a living creature that is hell bent on eating its lunch.

DO some simple research, most people who have ever been charged at speed, who have lived to tell the tale all one of the first comments is that they didn't think it possible for such a large beast to turn 180 degrees on itself..

Don't forget what percentage of a shark is muscle..

A sceptic would probably suggest the countless(?) humans who have been charged by an 1000kg shark might have been lucky and were pushed to the side and momentum has kept the shark moving in a forward direction before deciding to turn around in at least a few metres.

Forget the sceptics though because now there is this proven, evidence based, research it will be in every scientific website, journal, vlog and tv show!!

A 1000kg great white shark travelling at 40km/h proven to stop almost immediately and turn itself 180 degrees Was it a traditional swimming style tumble turn or more of a horiztonal spin and roll? Maybe they alternate depending on water depth? I mean a 5m shark is going to need at least 5 or 6m depth to tumble?

It's safe to assume that this battery powered technology is behind these findings? Have they started work with anything land based? Hippos, lions, elephants etc

Select to expand quote

MDSXR6T said..


It's safe to assume that this battery powered technology is behind these findings? Have they started work with anything land based? Hippos, lions, elephants etc

Do any of those animals have Ampullae Of Lorenzini

Clearly by that question, you are not even aware of how the system works..