theDoctor said..


what happened to the lady and the dog...

It was a metaphor

WA71 said..

kiterboy said..

So, seems to be a 5m hanging around lefties again.

But it couldn't be the same shark, right?
He'd decided he didn't like the taste of people and is miles away by now, right?

Right....

How can you doubt that?

That's the established 'wisdom' coming from all of these shark threads.

kiterboy said..

WA71 said..

kiterboy said..

So, seems to be a 5m hanging around lefties again.

But it couldn't be the same shark, right?
He'd decided he didn't like the taste of people and is miles away by now, right?

Right....

How can you doubt that?

That's the established 'wisdom' coming from all of these shark threads.

Personally I dont think its the same shark, but thats my opinion. It could be. You dont have to agree.

You seem to be getting all cut up about others opinion, they are all opinions and wont change anything.

southace said..

Lets see the pictures to prove it? Maybe the media spotted a dolphin!

A bit of back ground history about down south. SLSWA was hiring a helicopter for ariel patrols down south but they wanted to buy one instead. SO when the proposal went in they started to spot all sorts of sharks. The numbers went through the sky over night and they then used that argument to say "well you've seen how many sharks are out there, we NEED to buy a helicopter NOW!" SO they will report a 1.5 meter hammer head sighted 5 miles out to sea As if that is a threat. So to report a 5mtr would be very convenient for the locals to get what they want. A cull..

Well another point to consider.

At the moment it is not against the law to come in under SLSWA or a rangers ruling. BUT they are trying to change the law so that a greater fine/control for these officers to be able to be able to force surfers in if they perceive the risk to high..We could end up getting our sport policed more than ever. Imagine if the authorities decide its too big, want the water cleared and now you could be forced in, just so that the local council's can't be found to be negligent for allowing you to stay out risking injury Bit of a stretch? Maybe but its the direction its heading..

kiterboy said..

WA71 said..

kiterboy said..

WA71 said..

kiterboy said..

So, seems to be a 5m hanging around lefties again.

But it couldn't be the same shark, right?
He'd decided he didn't like the taste of people and is miles away by now, right?

Right....

How can you doubt that?

That's the established 'wisdom' coming from all of these shark threads.

Personally I dont think its the same shark, but thats my opinion. It could be. You dont have to agree.

You seem to be getting all cut up about others opinion, they are all opinions and wont change anything.

Opinions are polarized beliefs based on knowledge or just plain hearsay.

Open-mindedness doesn't often show up in these threads and people don't like to think or have their opinion challenged.

This, in this thread mostly.

sausage said..

ADS said..
I want my three kids to be able to surf, swim,dive and kite in safety.

Well unless you kill every living creature that can possibly kill you in the ocean then that's not possible.

I cannot fathom the logic behind how killing one rogue shark is going to teach the next rogue shark not to bite a human. Also what defines a rogue shark - I suspect evolution and their behavioural patterns makes every shark a rogue one.

Anyway just some food for thought. Conservatively if 2000 people swim, surf, sail or other daily in WA waters, then that's around a quarter of a million people per year. So that's around say 10million people over 14 years since Cottesloe death. So with 11 deaths the probability of being killed by a shark is about one in a million. That risk is probably higher than elsewhere around Oz but one I'd probably take being an ocean lover.

You will never be completely safe doing anything.
As soon as you get out of bed in the morning you are subject to the risk of an untimely death.
The present matter is more to do with the fact that there is now a greater risk of a gruesome death from shark attack when 20 years ago there seemed to be almost none.
Parents don't wave their kids off to the beach thinking they are about to engage in an extreme sport.
They expect them to come home.
That expectation is now seen to be not supported by recent events.
The fact that it might only be one in a million does not figure prominently in the equation.
It's all in the perception, and the current perception is that ocean sports have become dangerous.
There is also the perception that nothing is being done about it.
You can work on changing the perception if you like, but when the next attack hits the headlines, your work will be totally negated.

jbshack said..

If we are really worried about our children, then we should look more at Bus travel..Its far more dangerous than sharks.

the number of children killed or seriously injured nationally during bus travel has steadily fallen from an estimated 14 fatalities and 190 hospitalisations in 1990, to an estimated 4 fatalities and 100 hospitalisations in 1998. Notwithstanding the reductions achieved, across the country about 9 children are seriously injured each month.
https://www.onlinepublications.austroads.com.au/items/AP-186A-01

If this is really a safety issue, than shouldn't we start at bigger threats than Sharks..?

These quoting numbers is absolutely stupidly pathetic without the percentage statistics to show us what the numbers REALLY mean.

How many millions of kids are riding the buses each day to give us those numbers??

What percentage of these kids of the total do these figure show?

Quoting these figures is dumb, absolutely DUMB without some sort of CONTEXT.

You are being extremely misleading and are acting no better than the people calling for a cull; perhaps you should run for government.



Do you deny that numbers need context to actually show the true picture?

hardpole said..

Dont know how true it is but I heard that the fisheries wanted to put out some lines andtry and catch the shark straight after the last attack but because some surfers had paddled out they couldnt / wouldnt. Evidentally the fisheries didnt have the right to force them out of the water and when they asked the police neither did they.

I didnt get why they couldnt just start fishing anyway but I suppose if one of the surfers got taken by a shark then the fisheries guys would have got the blame.

Personally I would have thougt burleying up with a few barrels of offal and blood off the back of the boat would have convinced the surfers to get out of the water but maybe not !

Fisheries have a policy that no one is aloud to be able to view a catch and Kill must be a single shot. So if people are in the area then they will do nothing Also not all officers have fire arms qualifications.

So that could very well be the case.

SirJman said..

Do fisheries want to kill an animal that they are normally trying to protect?

No. Is the short answer.

But the parameters there are forced to work under make it nearly impossible anyway.