They are cutting shark nets....wonder what happens when someone inside net gets attacked and dies . Will this be manslaughter?
Fu cking tree huggers.

You do know that shark nets are not designed to keep sharks out, right?

As in, it's not a big net all the way around a beach?


Sharks always have been able to just swim around them... but you knew that, right?

Too true nebs.

I wish they'd stop using the term shark "net".

It is pretty damn misleading...

Speaking to one of the guys who maintain the nets, he explained how the shark nets were/are designed to work.

He said they weren't designed to catch sharks that were just cruising around, rather to catch sharks that come charging in, in attack mode. I really don't know if they work that way or not given how small they are, but I suspect they must have some effect based on their record of success.

I wonder if the sharks just learn to stay away from netted beaches?

Select to expand quote

fingerbone said..
They are cutting shark nets....wonder what happens when someone inside net gets attacked and dies . Will this be manslaughter?
Fu cking tree huggers.

Look at the big picture. 7 billion people on the planet but you'd compromise the ocean ecosystem to save one or two.

On an individual level, yes the relatives of the poor victim will mourn. But why are we so special? The relatives of the whales and dolphins drowned in the nets as by catch are likely to be just as mournful.

An interesting account by a zoologist studying marine mammal behaviour.

radio.abc.net.au/programitem/peW0L4Bg63

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

fingerbone said..
They are cutting shark nets....wonder what happens when someone inside net gets attacked and dies . Will this be manslaughter?
Fu cking tree huggers.

Look at the big picture. 7 billion people on the planet but you'd compromise the ocean ecosystem to save one or two.

On an individual level, yes the relatives of the poor victim will mourn. But why are we so special? The relatives of the whales and dolphins drowned in the nets as by catch are likely to be just as mournful.

An interesting account by a zoologist studying marine mammal behaviour.

radio.abc.net.au/programitem/peW0L4Bg63

But what about the children!!

I see rednecks............... everywhere

Select to expand quote

fingerbone said..
They are cutting shark nets....wonder what happens when someone inside net gets attacked and dies . Will this be manslaughter?
Fu cking tree huggers.

They have yet to produce any evidence from what i have seen, thats just a paper trying to sell headlines. Unless they are now calling the whales that get caught in them Environmentalists..

Then why cut holes in them?

Select to expand quote

fingerbone said..
Then why cut holes in them?

Who says anyone does

so what exactly is a shark net ?

Select to expand quote

seanhogan said..
so what exactly is a shark net ?

I found the pesky environmentalists who are damaging the nets

Select to expand quote

seanhogan said...
so what exactly is a shark net ?

Baited drum lines, are what the "nets" the Eco terrorists are cutting up are.

They run a line of them along a stretch of well populated beach to act as a "barrier".

The idea being the sharks fall for the old hook line and sinker gag, rather than swimming in to nibble on swimmers.

Select to expand quote

seanhogan said..
so what exactly is a shark net ?

Everything's here:www.wa.gov.au/organisation/department-of-the-premier-and-cabinet

"The program was designed to reduce the number of potentially dangerous sharks in particular areas rather than creating an impenetrable barrier against shark attack. Nets (see Appendix 1) manufactured to DPI&F specifications are 186 metres in length. Each net is made up of 3 x 62 metre sections. The nets have a depth of 6 metres and a mesh size of 500 millimetres. They are marked with inflatable buoys and are anchored to the seabed using either Danforth or CQR pattern high-holding anchors."






And Drum lines (same objective):

Reduce the number of large sharks; reduce the number of fatalities. Just like in the past decades when whaling stations shot them and fisho's caught them for trophies. The 'cull' drama needs to be dropped and a legal size limit introduced.

I dont understand most of you.
Surely any protection we can get while swimming is better than none.
You do realise that your precious sharks and other sea creatures have the rest of the fuc king ocean to play in. You knew that right?

Select to expand quote

fingerbone said...

I dont understand most of you.

Surely any protection we can get while swimming is better than none.

You do realise that your precious sharks and other sea creatures have the rest of the fuc king ocean to play in. You knew that right?

They could play out there but it's more interesting near the coast. Seals need a rock to rest on, nutrients flow from rivers, a sandy bottom for flathead, coral, seaweed, reefs. The coast concentrates the food chain. You knew that.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_white_shark
"
The great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), also known as the great white, white pointer, white shark, or white death, is a species of large lamniform shark which can be found in the coastal surface waters of all the major oceans."

It's common knowledge that most sharks that are caught in "shark nets" are caught on the inside.
That is they made it inside and are caught existing.

Do we really wish to have a shark contained in the swimming area longer than one chasing schooling fish?
We really do need to do much more shark research.
I see that has started on the east coast.
There is a chance we have changed the balance of fish to sharks and this may ultimately see that we need to even things up a bit until we reduce the catch enough for the balance to head naturally the other way.

I have also heard it said that because sea temperatures have risen more bait balls are hugging the coast more than before.
Thus attracting sharks more often than before closer to the coast
Once again more research needs to be done to get the facts and the best way forward.

Select to expand quote

fingerbone said..
I dont understand most of you.
Surely any protection we can get while swimming is better than none.
You do realise that your precious sharks and other sea creatures have the rest of the fuc king ocean to play in. You knew that right?

So do you plus the rest of the land...

Select to expand quote

fingerbone said...
I dont understand most of you.
Surely any protection we can get while swimming is better than none.
You do realise that your precious sharks and other sea creatures have the rest of the fuc king ocean to play in. You knew that right?

That's a terrible attitude to have and unfortunately represents far too many peoples views. It's about time we start to respect this world before it becomes inhospitable. Killing apex predators off is not the way to go. How selfish are you that you think killing such a great animal is OK so that you can have a slightly safer surf. Next you'll want to heat the ocean so you can wear boardies year round.

Septfun = Troll

How many of you calling for nets/culls/any other thing that doesn't work take your own preventative measures, such as a surfsafe/sharkshield?

Surely some of the responsibility, if not all of it, lies in the user (of the ocean).

How many people should be attacked or killed before anyone is allowed to do anything?

The standard on land I have noticed is any animal that attacks is put down, why are surfers treated differently?

Because they have knowingly gone into the dangerous water. They don't cull planes every time a skydiver dies. Cars are still around despite the fact they regularly kill inocent people.

You are allowed to do something. ~ 400 bucks and you'll have something in/on your board.

I suppose there is a difference in the circumstances. Surfing/diving/windsurfer etc are all purely recreational. As an example, a villager in Africa getting eaten by a lion collecting dinner is a much different scenario. At least in my opinion anyway.

To be fair though, I'm not against them taking out a large shark in the vicinity immediately after an incident. At least that would also put the "rough" shark theory to bed...

The plane has nothing to do with the death of a ski diver - the earth on the other hand has a big say in the outcome. Its a poor analogy. Planes, cars, bikes.... are all heavily controlled, imbued with safety systems, speeds limited in close quarter situations to prevent any injury.

My feeling is that if a bunch of people were on land, say watching a kids soccer game and every month something came out of the bushes and attacked or killed someone, something would be done straight away.

I just want to know why there is a double standard.

I also want to quantify at what level of attacks would people want something to be done?

In my view, never. Run your own risk vs reward analysis and either go in the ocean or don't. Go to the swimming pool if you're scared.

I'd probably stop playing soccer at that ground, that's for sure!

Why should anything be done? If it gets to a large number, surely it would just be stupid to get into the water? Why should we kill our way to safety?

Most sports like this have several deaths a year. Surfing/snowboarding/rockclimbing/anything that's fun! It's part of the risk and that risk can instantly be reduced to zero, purely by not participating. They are all 100% preventable.

That is something that can be done. It's free, it's easy and it is immediately effective.

Select to expand quote

Jfunk said..
How many people should be attacked or killed before anyone is allowed to do anything?

The standard on land I have noticed is any animal that attacks is put down, why are surfers treated differently?

I shouldn't be saying this ...but

If your logic makes sense, then here I have collected a list of "must cull" for you to peruse..

(1). Speeding drivers
(2). Drug addicts who would do anything, including murder to get fixes
(3). Speed hoons
(4). Pedophiles
(5). Fast cars
(6). Drunk drivers
(7). Hot-heads on steroid
(8). Simple people with even simpler minds

I had better stop as I am running out of room

Select to expand quote

Dawn Patrol said..
I'm not against them taking out a large shark in the vicinity immediately after an incident. At least that would also put the "rough" shark theory to bed...

Ah, the Canadian Mountie "rough" justice approach. "The Canadian Mountie always gets his man." May not be the right man, doesn't matter.

This may be the completely wrong thing to do. The rogue shark theory has never been validated. The large shark that has taken a bite and spat the foul tasting surfer out will possibly learn from his mistake. Maybe we're better off catching him to tattoo a big "I'm OK now" green thumb on his side. To take it out will just allow another smaller, inexperienced, yet-to-taste-surfer shark take his place. More research needed.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

Dawn Patrol said..
I'm not against them taking out a large shark in the vicinity immediately after an incident. At least that would also put the "rough" shark theory to bed...

Ah, the Canadian Mountie "rough" justice approach. "The Canadian Mountie always gets his man." May not be the right man, doesn't matter.

This may be the completely wrong thing to do. The rogue shark theory has never been validated. The large shark that has taken a bite and spat the foul tasting surfer out will possibly learn from his mistake. Maybe we're better off catching him to tattoo a big "I'm OK now" green thumb on his side. To take it out will just allow another smaller, inexperienced, yet-to-taste-surfer shark take his place. More research needed.

Select to expand quote

Jupiter said..

Jfunk said..
How many people should be attacked or killed before anyone is allowed to do anything?

The standard on land I have noticed is any animal that attacks is put down, why are surfers treated differently?

I shouldn't be saying this ...but

If your logic makes sense, then here I have collected a list of "must cull" for you to peruse..

(1). Speeding drivers
(2). Drug addicts who would do anything, including murder to get fixes
(3). Speed hoons
(4). Pedophiles
(5). Fast cars
(6). Drunk drivers
(7). Hot-heads on steroid
(8). Simple people with even simpler minds

I had better stop as I am running out of room

Dont misinterpret my questions as opinion. I am just fleshing out peoples arguments, just exploring the extremes of their logic. Your response is a classic example.

Cage diving ought to be banned immediately. To have the sharks afraid of human interaction as they likely were thirty years ago would be a logical place to start.