Select to expand quote

rod_bunny said..

Rupert said..
I'm sorry that I am quoting myself but my suggestion of a designated GWS Tournament was to have people catch and tag the smaller ones (with trackers if you like) whilst removing the big buggas from the system. This would be done all for free, at no cost to the shire or the taxpayer and provide revenue for the district..

A sponsored game fishing event for GWS's, week one out of Albany and then Bunbury/Busselton during the "open season" would attract those who can afford it from all over the world because they would be in with a chance to land the biggest fish ever caught on rod and reel.

Hell if I had the cash I would be hitting up the powers that be and be putting it together myself

Seriously, Why cant this be done??

I used to have to buy tags to fish for snapper at shark bay, why cant a fisher purchase a GWS tag (GPS Tracker) and fish for them?
Gamex but down south.

Low public cost. Funded by the fishers.
Tourism increase.
Scientific data collected.
Their "Protected" status doesn't need to be changed.

The GWS don't even need to be culled, just get the tags out there, at the very least determine how many there are and where they are going. We already have to do this for tagged fish and crabs and crays.



Cause at the moment, its:
"We cant cull the sharks because we don't know how many there are, so stay out of the water until we do."
When are you going to find out how many there are?
"We're not and we have no plans too. In the meantime, Stay out of the water"

This is a great theory, but unfortunately there has been NO testing on the impact these tags have on such highly sensitive beasts...
there has been numerous cases of tagged sharks showing aggression and less effective hunting ability, including some FACTS that reveal that the tag PING frequency is within the range of a seal (one of the GW primary food source) meaning it doesn't take long for seals to associate that noise to the GW.. (early warning/Cat collar effect)... there is not enough research to show what effects this has on other marine life or GW food sources..
this is just me thinking out loud now with only that one fact to back it up, but if the GW's loose ability to hunt their normal prey then we become more vulnerable as we bob around on our boards.
not to mention what the sharks go through to get tags implanted, they may not be clever but after a bunch of dudes drill holes and implant things inside their stomach what would you do when you saw the next human figure.....

Select to expand quote

Adriano said..

The ocean is not some fun park for us to do with as we please.

Well, it certainly was for most of my life.
For about 50 years we never gave a second thought to shark attacks along the west coast unless it was at some sharky place near a whaling station or similar.
Apparently now, under the new regime, the beach is a place where you go to risk your life engaging in what is slowly turning into a blood sport.
If everybody is happy with that, then that's fine. But I think when the six o'clock news features reports of your children and relatives being sacrificed for fish food, public opinion may change. The lunatics will be returned to the asylum and there will be a return to an all out and mostly uncontrolled cull by commercial fishermen on their way out to set the cray pots. That's where all this will end. 'When' depends on the rate of attacks.

I think the real reason why sharks are coming in closer to the mainland.one of the reasons is pollution cause by us.its a known fact.Predominantly most sharks prefer to stay way ofshore where their main food supply is.

Select to expand quote

gavnwend said..
I think the real reason why sharks are coming in closer to the mainland.one of the reasons is pollution cause by us.its a known fact.Predominantly most sharks prefer to stay way ofshore where their main food supply is.

What? Have ever seen seals huddled on rocks around islands and coastal bays? That's what GWS eat! Where are you getting your facts?

Select to expand quote

southace said..

gavnwend said..
I think the real reason why sharks are coming in closer to the mainland.one of the reasons is pollution cause by us.its a known fact.Predominantly most sharks prefer to stay way ofshore where their main food supply is.

What? Have ever seen seals huddled on rocks around islands and coastal bays? That's what GWS eat! Where are you getting your facts?

I i did say one of the reasons just backing my comment up.pollution in the water does bring in a lot of fish not just sharks.l dont see many seals playing in the shorebreak.

Select to expand quote

pweedas said..

Adriano said..

There are simply far more people in the water than decades ago, doing more adventurous things.

I don't buy the line that the only significant factor is more sharks in the water.

I don't know what things are like in the area you frequent, but I can reliably state that in the area I am very familiar with over a very long time, there are LESS people in the water, on the water, or even near the water now than there were twenty years ago, thirty years ago, and forty years ago.
I think you would need to go back to the late 1960's before the numbers were similar. As soon as fiberglass boards became popular in the mid sixties, the numbers in the water exploded, right up to when the fish started biting here in 2000.
If the attack rate was due to an increase in water users, the rate should have progressively increased from the 1960's to the year 2000. it did not. It remained close to zero. The attack rate increased after 2000 at a rate apparently unrelated to any change in the number of water users after that time.

In fact, from my observations, the number of swimmer/surfers took a serious dive at the first bite, (November 2000) and never really took off again. I noticed very clearly because I suddenly had the whole reef to myself. I still do.
There was a short respite between the first bite and later ones, but since the last feeding frenzy started a few years ago, it appears the numbers in the water have now dropped to all time lows, and it thins a bit more after every attack.

A quick look around on most days shows very few out in the water, even though there can be a half decent wave rolling through, one which would have attracted wall to wall surfers twenty years ago. There are hardly any short boarders or boogers, just a lot of old folk on SUPS where they probably feel a bit safer. At least the visibility is better so they should get a bit more warning when something comes to nibble their toes.
Whatever the reason for the recent upsurge in shark attacks is, it is not due to more people in the water. Well, not on the west coast anyway.

This is the typical human reaction. We don't like something in nature, so we want to stuff around with it for our own selfish reasons - to recreate of all things.

It's absurd.

If our survival hinged on culling sharks, I would be amenable to it, but we are talking about recreation.

Seriously, we need to get a grip on reality.

still safer than riding a motorbike on the road.
slim chance of it happening to you but its hard to get the thought out of ya head when not many people out.

Select to expand quote

Adriano said..
This is the typical human reaction. We don't like something in nature, so we want to stuff around with it for our own selfish reasons - to recreate of all things. It's absurd. If our survival hinged on culling sharks, I would be amenable to it, but we are talking about recreation. Seriously, we need to get a grip in the reality.

The absurdity is that a shark is just a big fish. Arguing that people are selfish for wanting to put the balance back into a better place for humans indicates a pretty slippery grip on reality, particularly in this country. It won't be the end of the world, for sharks or the ocean or for whatever else you think might go wrong. Good chance you won't even notice there are any sharks missing.

And you might have forgotten about the blokes taken while working under the ocean, so other people can eat abalone. It's not all about recreation.

Your chances are 1in 3746 067 this is the lifetime odds of being killed by a G.W.shark according to one surf magazine.realisticlly you got more chance of getting killed by a domestic dog.

Chances are if you go for a swim/surf/dive in southern oceans where GWS are frequent you could get eaten as we are a moving object that GWS pray on. Motorbikes much safer if you know how to ride!

Select to expand quote

Adriano said..

pweedas said..

Adriano said..

There are simply far more people in the water than decades ago, doing more adventurous things.

I don't buy the line that the only significant factor is more sharks in the water.

I don't know what things are like in the area you frequent, but I can reliably state that in the area I am very familiar with over a very long time, there are LESS people in the water, on the water, or even near the water now than there were twenty years ago, thirty years ago, and forty years ago.
I think you would need to go back to the late 1960's before the numbers were similar. As soon as fiberglass boards became popular in the mid sixties, the numbers in the water exploded, right up to when the fish started biting here in 2000.
If the attack rate was due to an increase in water users, the rate should have progressively increased from the 1960's to the year 2000. it did not. It remained close to zero. The attack rate increased after 2000 at a rate apparently unrelated to any change in the number of water users after that time.

In fact, from my observations, the number of swimmer/surfers took a serious dive at the first bite, (November 2000) and never really took off again. I noticed very clearly because I suddenly had the whole reef to myself. I still do.
There was a short respite between the first bite and later ones, but since the last feeding frenzy started a few years ago, it appears the numbers in the water have now dropped to all time lows, and it thins a bit more after every attack.

A quick look around on most days shows very few out in the water, even though there can be a half decent wave rolling through, one which would have attracted wall to wall surfers twenty years ago. There are hardly any short boarders or boogers, just a lot of old folk on SUPS where they probably feel a bit safer. At least the visibility is better so they should get a bit more warning when something comes to nibble their toes.
Whatever the reason for the recent upsurge in shark attacks is, it is not due to more people in the water. Well, not on the west coast anyway.

This is the typical human reaction. We don't like something in nature, so we want to stuff around with it for our own selfish reasons - to recreate of all things.

It's absurd.

If our survival hinged on culling sharks, I would be amenable to it, but we are talking about recreation.

Seriously, we need to get a grip on reality.

I'm guessing you don't eat fish then? if you do please stop "stuffing around" with it..

Select to expand quote

southace said..
Chances are if you go for a swim/surf/dive in southern oceans where GWS are frequent you could get eaten as we are a moving object that GWS pray on. Motorbikes much safer if you know how to ride!

People like to be able to say that. " I'm far better than the average Joe it won't happen to me" it reassures them.
But no matter how good you think you are you can't say that about sharks. And that's what people don't like about sharks. Never mind the statistics if you can't put faith in your superior self you turn to jelly.

9,500 motor bike riders in Victoria alone stop thinking that way each decade.
www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/statistics/summaries/motorcycle-crash-data

Select to expand quote

OverUnderImages said..

I'm guessing you don't eat fish then? if you do please stop "stuffing around" with it..

I'm not following that logic. Eating fish is not recreation. It's survival.

Culling sharks to reduce the risk of attacks on people recreating in water is selfish. Nothing to do with survival.

I think this is why the topic upsets many people, because they know if they look at themselves honestly, they would admit that the desire to cull to reduce risk during their recreation activities is a selfish one.

Select to expand quote

Adriano said..

OverUnderImages said..

I'm guessing you don't eat fish then? if you do please stop "stuffing around" with it..

I'm not following that logic. Eating fish is not recreation. It's survival.

Culling sharks to reduce the risk of attacks on people recreating in water is selfish. Nothing to do with survival.

I think this is why the topic upsets many people, because they know if they look at themselves honestly, they would admit that the desire to cull to reduce risk during their recreation activities is a selfish one.

Us eating sharks primary food source isn't a selfish act?

Since sharks are on top of the feeding chain, what problems would arise if they were culled? Usually this would mean an overpopulation of whatever the top dog feeds on, but since this is fish, and us humans are already doing a pretty good job of over fishing, does that mean removal of the GWS has no serious ecological ramifications?

I'm not suggesting we do it, it's just an academic conjecture.

Think you are really in control of your destiny on a motorbike??? Maybe if you're a weekend warrior who only goes out riding for their Sunday morning scratch, but if you are a bonafide commuter, then you're rolling the dice every day.

Select to expand quote

gavnwend said..
Your chances are 1in 3746 067 this is the lifetime odds of being killed by a G.W.shark according to one surf magazine.realisticlly you got more chance of getting killed by a domestic dog.

I like statistics,

this is number is equated from all the people in the entire world....

let me me break it down further
1.371 billion (2015) People in China with hardly any surfers
1.311 billion (2015) People in India
Than there are another 47 land locked countries...

lets go to reunion island where there have been 20 attacks with 12 of those fatal since 2011
Population 720000 total.

thats a 1/36000 chance of a shark attack, but out of the entire population and as per all islands or places you would be hard pressed to say the population that surfs is 30% so it's a 1/12000 chance of shark attack for these people. But this is only from 2011 until now. So if you double the time span it's only another 6 years and the stats are now 1/6000.....
but generally people who surf will surf forever right up until 50 or 60 +++++ so another 18 years from 2023 takes us to 2041 where as a surfer on reunion island you would have a stat of 1/750 of being attacked by a shark........

lets ts now move our attention back to Australia where there are 27 million people, how many of these people surf... Half???

ok being generous 13.5 million people in Australia surf so immediately the stats are at around 1/750000 chance of being killed by a shark...
but how many of these people surf in the shark state wa maybe and at most with Perthshire population 2 million total plus another million or so scattered through the state so 3million total.

30% either surf or dive so 1 million total with about 14-15 deaths in west oz in ten years you have a chance of at a bare minimum 1/75000 to be eaten and killed by a shark in ten years of surfing, and this is being generous on the stats..... Over 20 years 1/37500 over 30 years 1/18000 over 40 years 1/9000.....
but this takes the whole coast into account and the whole population in west oz...
isolate it by break or location Ie Esperance to Perth. Km divided by amount of surfers divided by amount of attacks divided by people in the water.......
lets go further too many surfers would fall into the once a month category so people who surf twice as much as these people have odds that are double 1/4500

people that surf every day in the aw have odds by the power of 7.....

1/1285

one chance of being eaten to death in 1285 down south how do you like those stats

( it would be higher than this if I had used a calculator and taken in all other factors surf break or specific area erect ect)

Select to expand quote

Adriano said..
I'm not following that logic. Eating fish is not recreation. It's survival.
Culling sharks to reduce the risk of attacks on people recreating in water is selfish. Nothing to do with survival.

Eating fish is not survival unless you are stuck somewhere with no access to a shop or packed camping esky or other food source. The overwhelming majority of fish-eating Australians are not surviving on fish. Stop kidding yourself.

Stress is a well known killer, it is incredibly harmful to the body. Recreation is a human necessity to maintain low stress levels. Exercise is also a human necessity to keep the body healthy. We live in a country girt by sea. Let us all rejoice that we can use it for our good health and sanity. Returning to methods that kept shark attacks to a minimum will positively impact a lot of people, and as I said, you won't even notice there are any sharks missing.

Select to expand quote

gavnwend said..
I think the real reason why sharks are coming in closer to the mainland.one of the reasons is pollution caused by us. It's a known fact.Predominantly most sharks prefer to stay way offshore where their main food supply is.

That can't be the case on the west coast. The standards concerning what can be dumped in the ocean have been tightened up very much over the last 40 years. It used to be that pretty much anything could be taken out to sea and dumped.
There was a sewage outfall pipe dumping carp into the ocean just up the road from a major swimming beach and surf spots. Never even a nibble.
Barge loads of rubbish could be taken out to sea from Fremantle and dumped. I don't see that any more. (maybe they do it at night?)
All that is now strictly controlled and unless it's fit to drink, (almost) it doesn't get dumped.
It might be different on the east coast but I would be surprised if it was.

Select to expand quote

Razzonater said..

I like statistics,


people that surf every day in the aw have odds by the power of 7.....

1/1285

one chance of being eaten to death in 1285 down south how do you like those stats

So in other words if you take a sample of 1285 surfers who are out in the water every day only one of them will die due to shark attack?

What do the other 1284 die of ? Bee stings? Falling off motorbikes? Jilted lover? pneumonia is probably up there. Whichever way you look at it surfers are needlessly worried about sharks.

Select to expand quote

tightlines said..
Another fatality at Reunion Island yesterday, 20th attack since 2011.

I wonder how long (how many more attacks) until water sports activities are banned in WA.

www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39038833

Yep and the sad part is culling didn't and still isn't working for them either..

R.I.P

Select to expand quote

gavnwend said..
Your chances are 1in 3746 067 this is the lifetime odds of being killed by a G.W.shark according to one surf magazine.realisticlly you got more chance of getting killed by a domestic dog.

Ha you tell yourself that if it gets you in the water but you are fooling yourself depending on where you surf. If you regularly surf in the south west its more like one in 10,000 you will eventually have a bad interaction with a large shark. I knew/know three. 2 dead and one missing an arm.

These kind of rubbish statistics spreading number of incidents over entire populations really should be called out for what it is. A great big lie. And those that believe them without thinking it through for just a few minutes even- retards.

Take the risk over the relevant population and its actually a very real risk for some surfers, divers, swimmers

Select to expand quote

Adriano said..

OverUnderImages said..

I'm guessing you don't eat fish then? if you do please stop "stuffing around" with it..

I'm not following that logic. Eating fish is not recreation. It's survival.

Culling sharks to reduce the risk of attacks on people recreating in water is selfish. Nothing to do with survival.

I think this is why the topic upsets many people, because they know if they look at themselves honestly, they would admit that the desire to cull to reduce risk during their recreation activities is a selfish one.

Eating fish is a matter of survival? Really ?
Interesting logic. Maybe logical in a third world country where your only source of protein is fish.
In Australia? I don't think so.

I don't think I've ever heard of a case where a doctor lists as cause of death on a death certificate , "Terminal case of not eating fish."

I think fish eating in Australia is just as much a matter of choice as choosing to stay healthy by swimming/surfing in the ocean.

And re:
"I think this is why the topic upsets many people, because they know if they look at themselves honestly, they would admit that the desire to cull to reduce risk during their recreation activities is a selfish one."

I don't think so. When I look at it I see it firmly in the category of self-survival.
Moreso than CHOOSING to eat fish because I felt like eating fish on any particular day.
Has anyone ever died by choosing to not eat the fish and eating a tin of baked beans on toast? I don't think so.
Both cases are definitely a matter of preference and I choose to eat the fish rather than the fish eating me.
Both are a matter of choice.
Eating fish is depleting the oceans just as much as culling sharks.

Select to expand quote

gavnwend said..
Your chances are 1in 3746 067 this is the lifetime odds of being killed by a G.W.shark according to one surf magazine.realisticlly you got more chance of getting killed by a domestic dog.

Just great... now I have to be worried about domestic dogs when I paddle out!

Select to expand quote

OverUnderImages said..

rod_bunny said..

Rupert said..
I'm sorry that I am quoting myself but my suggestion of a designated GWS Tournament was to have people catch and tag the smaller ones (with trackers if you like) whilst removing the big buggas from the system. This would be done all for free, at no cost to the shire or the taxpayer and provide revenue for the district..

A sponsored game fishing event for GWS's, week one out of Albany and then Bunbury/Busselton during the "open season" would attract those who can afford it from all over the world because they would be in with a chance to land the biggest fish ever caught on rod and reel.

Hell if I had the cash I would be hitting up the powers that be and be putting it together myself

Seriously, Why cant this be done??

I used to have to buy tags to fish for snapper at shark bay, why cant a fisher purchase a GWS tag (GPS Tracker) and fish for them?
Gamex but down south.

Low public cost. Funded by the fishers.
Tourism increase.
Scientific data collected.
Their "Protected" status doesn't need to be changed.

The GWS don't even need to be culled, just get the tags out there, at the very least determine how many there are and where they are going. We already have to do this for tagged fish and crabs and crays.



Cause at the moment, its:
"We cant cull the sharks because we don't know how many there are, so stay out of the water until we do."
When are you going to find out how many there are?
"We're not and we have no plans too. In the meantime, Stay out of the water"

This is a great theory, but unfortunately there has been NO testing on the impact these tags have on such highly sensitive beasts...
there has been numerous cases of tagged sharks showing aggression and less effective hunting ability, including some FACTS that reveal that the tag PING frequency is within the range of a seal (one of the GW primary food source) meaning it doesn't take long for seals to associate that noise to the GW.. (early warning/Cat collar effect)... there is not enough research to show what effects this has on other marine life or GW food sources..
this is just me thinking out loud now with only that one fact to back it up, but if the GW's loose ability to hunt their normal prey then we become more vulnerable as we bob around on our boards.
not to mention what the sharks go through to get tags implanted, they may not be clever but after a bunch of dudes drill holes and implant things inside their stomach what would you do when you saw the next human figure.....

WTF??
How is ^this^ going to cause trauma to a shark??

Select to expand quote

rod_bunny said..


WTF??
How is ^this^ going to cause trauma to a shark??

It might damage their self esteem and cause the other sharks to tease them.....Nah nah you got caught....Loser!

Select to expand quote

rod_bunny said..

OverUnderImages said..

rod_bunny said..

Rupert said..
I'm sorry that I am quoting myself but my suggestion of a designated GWS Tournament was to have people catch and tag the smaller ones (with trackers if you like) whilst removing the big buggas from the system. This would be done all for free, at no cost to the shire or the taxpayer and provide revenue for the district..

A sponsored game fishing event for GWS's, week one out of Albany and then Bunbury/Busselton during the "open season" would attract those who can afford it from all over the world because they would be in with a chance to land the biggest fish ever caught on rod and reel.

Hell if I had the cash I would be hitting up the powers that be and be putting it together myself

Seriously, Why cant this be done??

I used to have to buy tags to fish for snapper at shark bay, why cant a fisher purchase a GWS tag (GPS Tracker) and fish for them?
Gamex but down south.

Low public cost. Funded by the fishers.
Tourism increase.
Scientific data collected.
Their "Protected" status doesn't need to be changed.

The GWS don't even need to be culled, just get the tags out there, at the very least determine how many there are and where they are going. We already have to do this for tagged fish and crabs and crays.



Cause at the moment, its:
"We cant cull the sharks because we don't know how many there are, so stay out of the water until we do."
When are you going to find out how many there are?
"We're not and we have no plans too. In the meantime, Stay out of the water"

This is a great theory, but unfortunately there has been NO testing on the impact these tags have on such highly sensitive beasts...
there has been numerous cases of tagged sharks showing aggression and less effective hunting ability, including some FACTS that reveal that the tag PING frequency is within the range of a seal (one of the GW primary food source) meaning it doesn't take long for seals to associate that noise to the GW.. (early warning/Cat collar effect)... there is not enough research to show what effects this has on other marine life or GW food sources..
this is just me thinking out loud now with only that one fact to back it up, but if the GW's loose ability to hunt their normal prey then we become more vulnerable as we bob around on our boards.
not to mention what the sharks go through to get tags implanted, they may not be clever but after a bunch of dudes drill holes and implant things inside their stomach what would you do when you saw the next human figure.....

WTF??
How is ^this^ going to cause trauma to a shark??

WTF?
you must be pretty clueless if you think that's an image of a GPS tag.....

Select to expand quote

jbshack said..

tightlines said..
Another fatality at Reunion Island yesterday, 20th attack since 2011.

Yep and the sad part is culling didn't and still isn't working for them either..

Here's some food for thought:

"In the 5 years since shark culling is allowed in Reunion, no less than 178 animals were killed through the various programs (83 bull sharks and 95 tiger sharks). It seems like a lot, but it is in fact approximately the same tonnage of all the shark species that were fished in less than two years by the non-industrial fisheries in the 1990s." ocean71.com/chapters/shark-reunion-innovative-solutions-global-interest/

Select to expand quote

OverUnderImages said..

rod_bunny said..

OverUnderImages said..

rod_bunny said..

Rupert said..
I'm sorry that I am quoting myself but my suggestion of a designated GWS Tournament was to have people catch and tag the smaller ones (with trackers if you like) whilst removing the big buggas from the system. This would be done all for free, at no cost to the shire or the taxpayer and provide revenue for the district..

A sponsored game fishing event for GWS's, week one out of Albany and then Bunbury/Busselton during the "open season" would attract those who can afford it from all over the world because they would be in with a chance to land the biggest fish ever caught on rod and reel.

Hell if I had the cash I would be hitting up the powers that be and be putting it together myself

Seriously, Why cant this be done??

I used to have to buy tags to fish for snapper at shark bay, why cant a fisher purchase a GWS tag (GPS Tracker) and fish for them?
Gamex but down south.

Low public cost. Funded by the fishers.
Tourism increase.
Scientific data collected.
Their "Protected" status doesn't need to be changed.

The GWS don't even need to be culled, just get the tags out there, at the very least determine how many there are and where they are going. We already have to do this for tagged fish and crabs and crays.



Cause at the moment, its:
"We cant cull the sharks because we don't know how many there are, so stay out of the water until we do."
When are you going to find out how many there are?
"We're not and we have no plans too. In the meantime, Stay out of the water"

This is a great theory, but unfortunately there has been NO testing on the impact these tags have on such highly sensitive beasts...
there has been numerous cases of tagged sharks showing aggression and less effective hunting ability, including some FACTS that reveal that the tag PING frequency is within the range of a seal (one of the GW primary food source) meaning it doesn't take long for seals to associate that noise to the GW.. (early warning/Cat collar effect)... there is not enough research to show what effects this has on other marine life or GW food sources..
this is just me thinking out loud now with only that one fact to back it up, but if the GW's loose ability to hunt their normal prey then we become more vulnerable as we bob around on our boards.
not to mention what the sharks go through to get tags implanted, they may not be clever but after a bunch of dudes drill holes and implant things inside their stomach what would you do when you saw the next human figure.....

WTF??
How is ^this^ going to cause trauma to a shark??

WTF?
you must be pretty clueless if you think that's an image of a GPS tag.....

WTF?? Did I say that was a picture of GPS tag?? That's all that is left after the GPS tag has fallen off!



As you can ^see^ adding the GPS part adds sooo much more.... and given that it falls off after time, impacts the sharks feeding how?
The GPS tags don't transmit unless they are at surface, so unlikely to give warning.

I did suggest that Joe Average should be able to tag the shark.
Did I advocate removing the shark from the water?
Did I suggest we take out the battery black & decker to bolt it to a shark?



and if you're gonna get all quotey...

Select to expand quote

ThinkaBowtit said..

jbshack said..

tightlines said..
Another fatality at Reunion Island yesterday, 20th attack since 2011.

Yep and the sad part is culling didn't and still isn't working for them either..

Here's some food for thought:
In the 5 years since shark culling is allowed in R?union, no less than 178 animals were killed through the various programs (83 bull sharks and 95 tiger sharks). It seems like a lot, but it is in fact approximately the same tonnage of all the shark species that were fished in less than two years by the non-industrial fisheries in the 1990s.

A big part of the problem was that they had a very aggressive commercial fishing industry. They heavily reduced shark numbers across the board, Bull sharks breed fast and have recovered so much quicker than any other species (Mostly Tigers) and have now taken territory. The marine reserve was established to try and re introduce a balance in all shark numbers, to try and reduces bull sharks, but sadly the culling program, mostly drum lines is really mostly killing those Tigers they want.


Then in Hawaii they culled over 4700 large sharks and they found an increase in attacks. Its not about how many you cull.

Culling is not the answer because it doesn't work..Thats all..

When WA was having a bad run everyone would claim that NSW has been culling sharks and it works for them. Then they have had an increase in attacks and now many claim that they need to cull, that the nets are only their to change swimming pattens. So what when culling isn't working what then..

Sorry its simply not the answer, science keeps telling us that, but just because the truth is inconvenient, doesn't mean it should be discounted..

For the record, I'm not really going to argue culling, i understand, some people just don't get it, and never will..

^^ The low number of attacks (until recently) indicate nets and drum lines have worked well for NSW and Queensland for a long time. It is now that shark numbers are increasing that the limited culling by those methods is starting to reveal inadequacies. For the record, I'm not going to stop arguing culling, because some people just don't get it, and never will.