shark attack at umbies cont

> 10 years ago
Reply
Register to post, see what you've read, and subscribe to topics.
Kneeling
Kneeling
WA
166 posts
WA, 166 posts
30 Nov 2013 5:34pm
A quick question who sh!ts themselves driving a car?
And who's know starting to or a least thinking about whether there going to come in after there weekly surf which is about what most of get a chance to have?
Is that the way we are heading or do we just go with the flow and suck it up.
southace
southace
SA
4795 posts
SA, 4795 posts
30 Nov 2013 8:18pm
Toph said..

southace said..

Each radio transmitter attached to the shark has its own ID number so the shark that comes in contact with the listening station can be identified so the stats quoted is on separate shark numbers not the same shark Toph.
News in from cage diving is that tagging will be increased over the next few weeks.


Southace, but if the shark has its own ID number, and that shark swims past a listening station, and the authorities say that there where 10 GW sightings, surely they can tell whether it is 1 shark or 2 or 10... Even if they do not know ALL the sharks, they could at least say there were 10 signals activated but 7 of them were from the same one shark.. Or am I not understanding the purporse of the tags.


Yes mate it goes on the data base the shark is named,dated,location etc......the information you may receive is through the media and we all know how accurate that is!
southace
southace
SA
4795 posts
SA, 4795 posts
30 Nov 2013 8:28pm
jbshack said..

pweedas said..

WA71 said..
Personally I think people will take things into their own hands and its already happened from what I've been told.

Will culling twenty stop the attacks?


I thnk it will.
An indication of this is that you said someone in an area north of perth might have removed an offending shark, or two maybe?
jbhack was quite upset about it.
Maybe one or two others have done likewise.

I don't think they cleared the ocean of sharks but whatever has happened, if anything at all, the fact is that in the previous year we had about six attacks.
So far this year, xmas to xmas, we have had just one.

Now if you believe that someone has removed just a few sharks, and you said you did, then that is a very good indication that removing just a few will very much reduce the problem.
And yet a few days ago you said that it would make no difference. ???

Of course it will never totally fix the problem, because if there are sharks in the water, eventually someone will get bitten, even if by a reefy or wobbygong.
But it will definitely remove any problem caused by a shark or sharks which don't mind snacking on the occasional swimmer as a matter of course.
Ther remaining risk we have lived with always and is taken as acceptable.


I think if you killed 20 great whites of our WA coast line then you would see a big difference in Great White sittings, for a few years at least. If what Pweeda is hinting at if at best 4 have been killed already (back door style) and there is a difference in this years attacks because of that, than I think by killing 20 will make a big difference.

It will also put us as a nation on the same list as the rest of worlds poorest or most arrogant nations who thumb our noses at the rest of the world.


I would have to disagree with that sorry. If you took 20 from WA waters the 20 that would be current at South Australia. Will possibly arrive with in the following months...

This is all a bit crazy do you guys know how old these sharks are that are attacking? They where not born last year! They have been swimming round half of OZ for the past 7 to 20 years for all we know only 20 sharks may have been born this year!

About 9 males to 1 female and they don't reach maturity till approx 15 years. THIS IS WHY THEY ARE PROTECTED

Nothing has really changed... These same sharks have been in the same waters they are not new this year.

If we had a outburst of small GWS causing havoc yes then it might be time for a cull.

I have seen approx 100 GWS and only approx 3 under 2 meters. 90 males and maybe 10 females.
Rex
Rex
WA
949 posts
Rex Rex
WA, 949 posts
30 Nov 2013 5:58pm
Kneeling said..

A quick question who sh!ts themselves driving a car?


Iv'e got to admit after watching too many of the Russian car crash cam vids I'm starting to sh!t myself when I drive.
WA71
WA71
WA
1382 posts
WA, 1382 posts
30 Nov 2013 6:06pm
teatrea said...
These attacks are sad , but I cant believe all the rednecks calling for shark culling'sAround 1,500 people die on our roads each year , its around 40,000 in the States. Facts are their are a Billion ways to die and dying from a shark attack is low on the list of possibilities even if you spend a lot of time in the ocean.


Come and surf here then tell me that.
surferstu
surferstu
1011 posts
1011 posts
30 Nov 2013 6:26pm
WA71 said..



teatrea said...
These attacks are sad , but I cant believe all the rednecks calling for shark culling'sAround 1,500 people die on our roads each year , its around 40,000 in the States. Facts are their are a Billion ways to die and dying from a shark attack is low on the list of possibilities even if you spend a lot of time in the ocean.




Come and surf here then tell me that.



I doubt those qlders will want to leave those protected from sharks drumline baited waters.
PRAWNDOG
PRAWNDOG
WA
306 posts
WA, 306 posts
30 Nov 2013 6:40pm
I think the only solution is some sort of personal device you can attach to yourself that is proven/guaranteed to keep sharks out of an individuals proximity, something like the shark shield that actually works. This is where the government should focus there efforts stuff the bubbles, stuff the whale noises just develop a small device people can use and trust, that way no matter where you are in the water you can have piece of mind, everyone is happy including the sharks . This way we can move forward from this mentality we have been stuck in after every shark attack pro cull/anti cull then nothing happens and people keep getting chomped, whats the definition of insanity again.....
GPA
GPA
WA
2529 posts
GPA GPA
WA, 2529 posts
30 Nov 2013 6:44pm
^^^
Very well said!
teatrea
teatrea
QLD
4177 posts
QLD, 4177 posts
30 Nov 2013 9:13pm
WA71 said..
teatrea said...

These attacks are sad , but I cant believe all the rednecks calling for shark culling'sAround 1,500 people die on our roads each year , its around 40,000 in the States. Facts are their are a Billion ways to die and dying from a shark attack is low on the list of possibilities even if you spend a lot of time in the ocean.

Come and surf here then tell me that.



Id be more worried about driving your car to the beach.
WA71
WA71
WA
1382 posts
WA, 1382 posts
30 Nov 2013 7:15pm
teatrea said...
WA71 said..
teatrea said...

These attacks are sad , but I cant believe all the rednecks calling for shark culling'sAround 1,500 people die on our roads each year , its around 40,000 in the States. Facts are their are a Billion ways to die and dying from a shark attack is low on the list of possibilities even if you spend a lot of time in the ocean.

Come and surf here then tell me that.



Id be more worried about driving your car to the beach.


Haha

Why can't you drive a manual?
pweedas
pweedas
WA
4642 posts
WA, 4642 posts
30 Nov 2013 7:39pm
jbshack said..
I think if you killed 20 great whites of our WA coast line then you would see a big difference in Great White sittings, for a few years at least. If what Pweeda is hinting at if at best 4 have been killed already (back door style) and there is a difference in this years attacks because of that, than I think by killing 20 will make a big difference.

It will also put us as a nation on the same list as the rest of worlds poorest or most arrogant nations who thumb our noses at the rest of the world.


If stopping your people being turned into fish food for a few white pointers is considered "thumbing our noses at the rest of the world", then so be it, although I'm not sure why you make the correlation.
It might be because the poorest nations don't have the luxury wasting millions on useless talkfests and actions which will have no effect on the problem at all. The poorest nations will just get straight in there and do the obvious thing .


pweedas
pweedas
WA
4642 posts
WA, 4642 posts
30 Nov 2013 8:01pm
southace said..
jbshack said..
pweedas said..
WA71 said..

Personally I think people will take things into their own hands and its already happened from what I've been told.
Will culling twenty stop the attacks?


I thnk it will.

An indication of this is that you said someone in an area north of perth might have removed an offending shark, or two maybe?
jbhack was quite upset about it.
Maybe one or two others have done likewise.

I don't think they cleared the ocean of sharks but whatever has happened, if anything at all, the fact is that in the previous year we had about six attacks.

So far this year, xmas to xmas, we have had just one.
Now if you believe that someone has removed just a few sharks, and you said you did, then that is a very good indication that removing just a few will very much reduce the problem.
And yet a few days ago you said that it would make no difference. ???



Of course it will never totally fix the problem, because if there are sharks in the water, eventually someone will get bitten, even if by a reefy or wobbygong.

But it will definitely remove any problem caused by a shark or sharks which don't mind snacking on the occasional swimmer as a matter of course.

Ther remaining risk we have lived with always and is taken as acceptable.


I think if you killed 20 great whites of our WA coast line then you would see a big difference in Great White sittings, for a few years at least. If what Pweeda is hinting at if at best 4 have been killed already (back door style) and there is a difference in this years attacks because of that, than I think by killing 20 will make a big difference.
It will also put us as a nation on the same list as the rest of worlds poorest or most arrogant nations who thumb our noses at the rest of the world.


I would have to disagree with that sorry. If you took 20 from WA waters the 20 that would be current at South Australia. Will possibly arrive with in the following months...

This is all a bit crazy do you guys know how old these sharks are that are attacking? They where not born last year! They have been swimming round half of OZ for the past 7 to 20 years for all we know only 20 sharks may have been born this year!

About 9 males to 1 female and they don't reach maturity till approx 15 years. THIS IS WHY THEY ARE PROTECTED

Nothing has really changed... These same sharks have been in the same waters they are not new this year.

If we had a outburst of small GWS causing havoc yes then it might be time for a cull.

I have seen approx 100 GWS and only approx 3 under 2 meters. 90 males and maybe 10 females.


I wasn't suggesting anyone hop out there and remove 20 sharks just for the sake of removing a specific number.
I said all along, every time there is an attack, fatal or not, get out there quickly and remove the shark while it is still in the area.
Don't waste weeks talking about it and then be surprised when removing the first shark you come across makes no difference.
Of course it wont. It will most probably be a different one.
But if you remove the shark which is in the same area as the attack, within hours of the attack, then there is a high probability that it will be the right one.
And then, don't kill any more until and unless, there is another attack.
If you cant get someone there within hours then you have given the job to the wrong people.

If another shark swims in from south australia or africa, which initially it no doubt will, and attacks someone, then that gets removed too.
That way, even if it takes two or three or five years to clean the place up, at least it will be done eventually.
For those that say it will take too long and still cost lives, I agree. It will.
But it will be less lives than it is costing us now by doing nothing.
Because that is what we are doing now, nothing.
If we had started this ten years ago, the loss of lives would have been far less and the oceans would be far safer, at the cost of maybe 10 sharks and less shark victims.

If we keep doing nothing, eventually public opinion will swing so far as to demand an all out indiscriminate culling of hundreds of them.
It's close to that now.
ThinkaBowtit
ThinkaBowtit
WA
1134 posts
WA, 1134 posts
30 Nov 2013 8:10pm
southace said:

This is all a bit crazy do you guys know how old these sharks are that are attacking? They where not born last year! They have been swimming round half of OZ for the past 7 to 20 years for all we know only 20 sharks may have been born this year!

About 9 males to 1 female and they don't reach maturity till approx 15 years. THIS IS WHY THEY ARE PROTECTED

Nothing has really changed... These same sharks have been in the same waters they are not new this year.

If we had a outburst of small GWS causing havoc yes then it might be time for a cull.

I have seen approx 100 GWS and only approx 3 under 2 meters. 90 males and maybe 10 females.



Where we live southace, we ARE having an outburst of great white sharks causing havoc, but not the small ones. The sharks born last year are not the problem, nor are the sharks born 10 years before that. As I've pointed out already, researchers have shown that the jaw cartilage in juveniles doesn't stand up to solid biting on things such as seals, and humans, it has no strength and is easily damaged.

Biting hard things = maturity = big white pointer, not small.

It's the ones now entering adulthood that are the issue, the ones who spent their 15 juvenile years under our loving protection.

So yes, things really have changed. More people are being eaten. Eating us is not such a nice way to say thanks for the protection.

I'm curious about your 9 to 1 claim, is that data gathered from cage diving? Because that's fascinating if it is, and opens another can of worms. Maybe it's the males that are most likely to put themselves out there to check out a potential threat. Bit like how we do things really. Perhaps the females are more reluctant to put themselves in danger because they're all pregnant?
pweedas
pweedas
WA
4642 posts
WA, 4642 posts
30 Nov 2013 8:12pm
PRAWNDOG said..
I think the only solution is some sort of personal device you can attach to yourself that is proven/guaranteed to keep sharks out of an individuals proximity, something like the shark shield that actually works. This is where the government should focus there efforts stuff the bubbles, stuff the whale noises just develop a small device people can use and trust, that way no matter where you are in the water you can have piece of mind, everyone is happy including the sharks . This way we can move forward from this mentality we have been stuck in after every shark attack pro cull/anti cull then nothing happens and people keep getting chomped, whats the definition of insanity again.....


So then the shark just moves on to the next person who doesn't have a shark shield. Cant afford it or left it at home or someone else stole it and they can't afford another one. In all liklihood, some kid. Maybe yours.
What do you say then?
Well if you don't like the risk then don't go in the water?

This is a bit like blaming the poor old folk who get mugged in their homes because they didn't have their doors and windows bolted shut, even when they are home.
It's truly pathetic.
Fix the problem.!
Don't just make it another defect to try and work around.
PRAWNDOG
PRAWNDOG
WA
306 posts
WA, 306 posts
30 Nov 2013 9:46pm
pweedas said...
PRAWNDOG said..
I think the only solution is some sort of personal device you can attach to yourself that is proven/guaranteed to keep sharks out of an individuals proximity, something like the shark shield that actually works. This is where the government should focus there efforts stuff the bubbles, stuff the whale noises just develop a small device people can use and trust, that way no matter where you are in the water you can have piece of mind, everyone is happy including the sharks . This way we can move forward from this mentality we have been stuck in after every shark attack pro cull/anti cull then nothing happens and people keep getting chomped, whats the definition of insanity again.....


So then the shark just moves on to the next person who doesn't have a shark shield. Cant afford it or left it at home or someone else stole it and they can't afford another one. In all liklihood, some kid. Maybe yours.
What do you say then?
Well if you don't like the risk then don't go in the water?

This is a bit like blaming the poor old folk who get mugged in their homes because they didn't have their doors and windows bolted shut, even when they are home.
It's truly pathetic.
Fix the problem.!
Don't just make it another defect to try and work around.


I surf, kite and sup getting chomped by a shark is a risk I'm going to take because I love being on the water. So pewee or what ever your name is how do you suggest they fix it?? Cull 20 sharks good one mate! , why don't you keep comparing sharks to magpies and keep makin a fool of yourself........ Nuff said
pweedas
pweedas
WA
4642 posts
WA, 4642 posts
30 Nov 2013 11:31pm
PRAWNDOG said..
I surf, kite and sup getting chomped by a shark is a risk I'm going to take because I love being on the water. So pewee or what ever your name is how do you suggest they fix it?? Cull 20 sharks good one mate! , why don't you keep comparing sharks to magpies and keep makin a fool of yourself........ Nuff said


Fine.
No ones stopping you. Least of all me.
Nuff said.
burnsy11
burnsy11
WA
122 posts
WA, 122 posts
30 Nov 2013 11:48pm
Razzonater said..

By placing set baits at specific locations these sharks could be selectively culled ie drum bait 3 miles off grace town,3 miles off Cottesloe, 3 miles off rottnest . If baited with whale a shark can smell 1 drop of blood from around half a mile, a piece of bait the size of approx 2 kg could be detected at around two miles away ( at least) this would eliminate sick sharks( as these are the ones most likely to be in this close for easy feeding) aggresive sharks. A number of around twenty great whites removed specifically ( and I say this as they are habitual feeders) from these areas would result in fewer chase ins and attacks. For every fatal attack there have been at least 5 or 6 close and over friendly encounters. In the case of the wedge shark this shark was seen for days and days leading up to the attack. In this case a set hook would be placed out off the break to
A lure the shark off the beach and out of the surf zone
B catch the menace shark.
These are very specific targeting methods and would only target one shark at a time in a specific spot.
On my return to australia I will happily start a formal petition to forward to state parliament. I for one have had enough. Jbshack on many forums here I agree with your perspective on things. I find it odd though that a man who sells boats to divers,fishermen( probably the majority) and surfers can take such a strong stance against selective culling. Every boat you sell would end up in the deaths of dhu fish,snapper,whiting,squid, sharks etc etc. please do not take this as an attack as it is more of an honest observation. I do not think there should be a slaughter, however the removal of twenty great white sharks would have minimal effect on the ecosystem. Imagine if every boat you sold did one drift for snapper at the same time through coburn sound after spawning season. I believe the weight of the fish caught would be of the same weight of 20 great whites approx 20 tonne. The removal of that much Demersel fish would have far more impact.
There are three charter boats in hillaries, all have twenty lines in the water all day each has two hooks they do ten drifts a day. If each person catches two fish a day that's 120 fish a day caught and killed taking rough conditions and days fish able into account at 200 days a year( again on the cautious side I know cause I've driven boats from hillaries ) that's 200 x 120 fish per year. Versus killing twenty sharks, now I'm pretty sure the removal of 24000 fish is a greater threat to the environment than 20 sharks a year. Furthermore 24000 fish is a lot of shark food. Once again these are conservative calculations, there's charter boats from freo too and jurien and bun bury exmouth etc etc. fisheries granted these licenses and they can do the same for a managed shark fishery.


Well Said Mate - sick of these shark loving muppets - start the cull & make the waters safer - Wouldn't be a bad thing to take them out of existence - horrible, ugly pests that are KILLING people
Chris6791
Chris6791
WA
3271 posts
WA, 3271 posts
1 Dec 2013 12:06am
WA71 said..

teatrea said...
WA71 said..
teatrea said...

These attacks are sad , but I cant believe all the rednecks calling for shark culling'sAround 1,500 people die on our roads each year , its around 40,000 in the States. Facts are their are a Billion ways to die and dying from a shark attack is low on the list of possibilities even if you spend a lot of time in the ocean.

Come and surf here then tell me that.



Id be more worried about driving your car to the beach.


Haha

Why can't you drive a manual?


There some truth to this Doggie, especially if you drive IOD to the BR or Wedge. Even with the fella that died last year driving along IOD between Seabird and Ledge is far more risky, it's a very deadly stretch of road
southace
southace
SA
4795 posts
SA, 4795 posts
1 Dec 2013 5:46am
ThinkaBowtit said..

southace said:

This is all a bit crazy do you guys know how old these sharks are that are attacking? They where not born last year! They have been swimming round half of OZ for the past 7 to 20 years for all we know only 20 sharks may have been born this year!

About 9 males to 1 female and they don't reach maturity till approx 15 years. THIS IS WHY THEY ARE PROTECTED

Nothing has really changed... These same sharks have been in the same waters they are not new this year.

If we had a outburst of small GWS causing havoc yes then it might be time for a cull.

I have seen approx 100 GWS and only approx 3 under 2 meters. 90 males and maybe 10 females.



Where we live southace, we ARE having an outburst of great white sharks causing havoc, but not the small ones. The sharks born last year are not the problem, nor are the sharks born 10 years before that. As I've pointed out already, researchers have shown that the jaw cartilage in juveniles doesn't stand up to solid biting on things such as seals, and humans, it has no strength and is easily damaged.

Biting hard things = maturity = big white pointer, not small.

It's the ones now entering adulthood that are the issue, the ones who spent their 15 juvenile years under our loving protection.

So yes, things really have changed. More people are being eaten. Eating us is not such a nice way to say thanks for the protection.

I'm curious about your 9 to 1 claim, is that data gathered from cage diving? Because that's fascinating if it is, and opens another can of worms. Maybe it's the males that are most likely to put themselves out there to check out a potential threat. Bit like how we do things really. Perhaps the females are more reluctant to put themselves in danger because they're all pregnant?



Someone on this thread has listed the deaths going back over the past 10 years or so......Various differnt sharks and sizes.

I really doubt that suddenly as a coincidence a bunch of sharks that have been swimming round Austraila for the past say 10 years (feeding on seals) have sudenlly reached maturity which in cause has caused a increase in attacks.

Approx 5 years Ago there where about 5 attacts in South Australia waters in the one 12 month period I really think it varies from year to year with alot of factors involved.

I dont think there is such a thing as a rogue shark , Unfortanity as long as humans wear black suits to enjoy their sports sharks will attack us they don't know any better!

How many attacks have been in South Australia this year? How many in South Africa ? Florida ? This would be interesting to RESEARCH.

The only stats you go on seem to be when someone gets attacted. What goes on under the sea? How do we know there was only one so called Rogue shark in the area? Could have been 7 but only one is blamed cause it attacted.The sharks could be in the area for a reason but without the RESEARCH AND STUDY how would we know that to warn us.

Yes stats are from Cage diving , The females are most of time larger than males so I'm not sure about your theory about females not putting themselfs in danger cause they are old pregnent, They all have to eat sooner or later.

I personalty belive that it's a combination of a human population rise and Ocean stock decline that is leading to a possible small increase of current attacks.










ThinkaBowtit
ThinkaBowtit
WA
1134 posts
WA, 1134 posts
1 Dec 2013 8:24am
Your'e right Southace, it hasn't been sudden. It has been happening over the past 10 years more and more, particularly the past 5 years. And the next 5 or 10 if this trend continues will...yeah, you surely get it.

You're wrong about the young ones feeding on seals. Research shows they can't. Check out my cartilage facts for yourself.

And again, I think it is a trend because having been left alone to increase under protection for 18 years their offspring will have now started to mature. The more mature sharks = the more attacks on humans. Why do otherwise intelligent people have a problem comprehending that?

Bit rich calling for research in other places while humans here become the lab rats for what was obviously going to occur anyway? Surely all these deaths are being counted as part of someone's interesting research anyway?

As for the 9 male to 1 female ratio - what is your theory about why you see so many males to females at cage-diving locations? This seems an unusual disparity and I'm interested to hear a research-based explanation for it. Mine was a guess about females protecting themselves and their unborn by not putting themselves into danger by willingly approaching small groups of their only predator. My logic was that the females that DO front up to the dangerous humans might be the ideal ones to pop off.

And please tell me you don't think the cage food is becoming a food source they're relying on... "they have to eat sooner or later".
WA71
WA71
WA
1382 posts
WA, 1382 posts
1 Dec 2013 11:54am
Chris6791 said...
WA71 said..

teatrea said...
WA71 said..
teatrea said...

These attacks are sad , but I cant believe all the rednecks calling for shark culling'sAround 1,500 people die on our roads each year , its around 40,000 in the States. Facts are their are a Billion ways to die and dying from a shark attack is low on the list of possibilities even if you spend a lot of time in the ocean.

Come and surf here then tell me that.



Id be more worried about driving your car to the beach.


Haha

Why can't you drive a manual?


There some truth to this Doggie, especially if you drive IOD to the BR or Wedge. Even with the fella that died last year driving along IOD between Seabird and Ledge is far more risky, it's a very deadly stretch of road


Yep, too many caravans
southace
southace
SA
4795 posts
SA, 4795 posts
1 Dec 2013 2:37pm
ThinkaBowtit said..

Your'e right Southace, it hasn't been sudden. It has been happening over the past 10 years more and more, particularly the past 5 years. And the next 5 or 10 if this trend continues will...yeah, you surely get it.

You're wrong about the young ones feeding on seals. Research shows they can't. Check out my cartilage facts for yourself.

And again, I think it is a trend because having been left alone to increase under protection for 18 years their offspring will have now started to mature. The more mature sharks = the more attacks on humans. Why do otherwise intelligent people have a problem comprehending that?

Bit rich calling for research in other places while humans here become the lab rats for what was obviously going to occur anyway? Surely all these deaths are being counted as part of someone's interesting research anyway?

As for the 9 male to 1 female ratio - what is your theory about why you see so many males to females at cage-diving locations? This seems an unusual disparity and I'm interested to hear a research-based explanation for it. Mine was a guess about females protecting themselves and their unborn by not putting themselves into danger by willingly approaching small groups of their only predator. My logic was that the females that DO front up to the dangerous humans might be the ideal ones to pop off.

And please tell me you don't think the cage food is becoming a food source they're relying on... "they have to eat sooner or later".


Ok well I did not state exactly that the young ones are feeding on seals i meant the sharks that have been around for approx 10 years. Actually in 600 days in GWS water I only seen two kills on seals most of the times the GWS where not interested in the seals swimming around.

As for Research I would just wondering why the attacts seem to be more concentrated around WA coast and not so much in South Oz.

9 to 1 ratio that's just my personal experience and personal count I did mention it was a approx .....90 males and 10 females in 600 days at sea.

Shark cage diving .....I'm not going to comment my thoughts on how that may offect shark attacks perhaps go check it out for your self.

ThinkaBowtit
ThinkaBowtit
WA
1134 posts
WA, 1134 posts
1 Dec 2013 1:54pm

Southace, don't take my questions the wrong way, I'm not harassing, just picking your brains. You are in the water watching them a lot more than anyone else here by the sound of it, so your personal observations interest me. I'm just putting theories and thoughts out there based on the little first-hand information I can find.

When you say you've only seen two kills on seals in 600 days, is that because a) there were seals around but the sharks weren't eating them;
or b) because you weren't in areas where seals are typically seen.
If it's a) that leads to other questions, such as what size sharks your were observing. If you say mostly under 3m, then it also fits my theory that the majority of whites are only just starting to reach maturity.
If it's b) then it's probably not relevant.

Even if your 9 to 1 count is approx, there's clearly a big difference. There has to be a reason for that. Is there a marine biologist present at these dives, a resident one each boat or something?
southace
southace
SA
4795 posts
SA, 4795 posts
1 Dec 2013 6:43pm
Lots of NZ fur seals in the area of cage diving, The sharks go there for that very reason originally.
The Seals put out quite a slick of urine and smell and when a seal gets taken by a shark it puts out a oil slick which no dought would attract others in.
I have seen days where the Seals play cat and mouse with GWS and most of the times the sharks really did not seem that interested and returned to the Cage for tuna chunks on string.
Most average sharks are 3.5 to 4.5 meters the occasional 2 to 3 meter.
The smaller sharks seem more agitated and go a bit spastic...the larger more placid.
Most of the sharks in this area visit East and West Australia every year and most return back to the same Island which is truly an amazing effort without a GPS! Of coarce whales, dolphins , marlin and tuna all do the same annual cruise around.

For my instance maybe the females hang somewhere else most of the time history has told us they visit the island mainly in winter months.....I don't no the actual stats on male/female GWS but I'm sure there would be a rough estimate somewhere.

A good thing about Shark cage diving is it gives us opportunity to study such species which other wise would be difficult and expensive.... There are marine biologists that do work with some of the operators.
rbl
rbl
WA
153 posts
rbl rbl
WA, 153 posts
1 Dec 2013 5:53pm
I find it very annoying when eastern staters preach shark love and no action in wa then go for a surf behind there shark nets and drum lines which continually cull both sharks and other fish, I'm not pro shark but think the preachers from the east are missing there own sins
pweedas
pweedas
WA
4642 posts
WA, 4642 posts
1 Dec 2013 5:53pm
southace said..
I dont think there is such a thing as a rogue shark , Unfortanity as long as humans wear black suits to enjoy their sports sharks will attack us they don't know any better!


I know most are wearing black wetsuits, and I don't think that's a good idea.
But one or two in the last year were wearing budgie smugglers. One at Cottesloe beach.
And one that I know of about 10 years ago was also in budgie smugglers.
I think once a GW has taken a liking to you they are not put off by poor fashion sense.


pweedas
pweedas
WA
4642 posts
WA, 4642 posts
1 Dec 2013 6:04pm
southace said..
Actually in 600 days in GWS water I only seen two kills on seals most of the times the GWS where not interested in the seals swimming around.


There was a doco on GW's and seals on ABC or SBS a few years ago which showed seals swimming around happily with the GW's and frollicking all around them them.
They said that while the seals are alert they can easily avoid the GW's because they are so agile and can flip out of the way at the last second.
It said even when the sharks plan an attack from underneath , the seals can detect the pressure wave of the approach and can flip out of the way at the last second.
Apparently the sharks get to know they have little success with an attack and so mostly don't bother,.. unless for some reason the seal is slow, disabled, sick, or unaware that the risk exists.
pweedas
pweedas
WA
4642 posts
WA, 4642 posts
1 Dec 2013 6:19pm
ThinkaBowtit said..
Even if your 9 to 1 count is approx, there's clearly a big difference. There has to be a reason for that. Is there a marine biologist present at these dives, a resident one each boat or something?


I suppose the first question is, what is the normal spread of male to females in the GW species.
If it's 9 males to 1 female then you would expect to see a 9 to 1 ratio around dive cages etc.
If it is known that the normal spread is 50/50 male/female, then it obviously means the males are more inquisitive or agressive and are more inclined to come up to the cage to escort you off the premises.
I might say that this is consistent with being chased out of the cow paddocks.
It's never by the cows. It's always by the bulls.
And just to amuse Prawnlog, even with magpies, it's always the males which attacked.
(And yes, I can easily tell a male from female maggie at more than 50 metres.)

And more and,.. I don't know why anyone would assume that for some reason the nature of a shark would not be consistent with every other species on the planet.
Even ordinary old snapper will very quickly learn that if they swim to the surface and poke their mouth above the surface, tourists will drop fish food into it. Apart from it being very cute, it demonstrates remarkable similarites to any land species.
It seems everything soon determines when free food is in the offering and they are quick to take advantage of it.
Even reptillian shape shifting lizzard people, and my guess is, they would have a smaller more basic brain than a shark.
PRAWNDOG
PRAWNDOG
WA
306 posts
WA, 306 posts
1 Dec 2013 6:52pm
Okay so Pweedas, last night I had a few to many and may have made a fool of myself, so let me set things straight.

You said the below

So then the shark just moves on to the next person who doesn't have a shark shield. Cant afford it or left it at home or someone else stole it and they can't afford another one. In all liklihood, some kid. Maybe yours. What do you say then?

You answered your own question with your next statement saying

Well if you don't like the risk then don't go in the water?

This is a bit like blaming the poor old folk who get mugged in their homes because they didn't have their doors and windows bolted shut, even when they are home. It's truly pathetic. Fix the problem.!

You are comparing people who are attacking people/breaking in to homes to steal things to probably fund a drug habit with shark attacks, old people are still getting there homes broken into and still getting mugged so we haven't fixed that problem either and guess what we don't cull the people that do that when we catch them......


Don't just make it another defect to try and work around.[/b]

How is this a defect, what I was suggesting was a pro-active approach prevention is a solution. You also commented saying that when a shark attacks a person we should kill the shark as a solution to the problem, now I'm not saying this is entirely wrong, but lets break down what your saying here; lets do nothing just wait till the next person gets attacked so we can kill the shark that attacked or killed someone, this will fix the shark problem...... So what if the next victim was one of your family members, what do you say to the family, send them a card thanking them for their sacrifice, tell them there child, father or mother was collateral damage and its all for the greater good, all we have to do know is wait for the next attack so we can kill that shark to make the ocean even safer this sounds so much more logical, than a device people can buy to attach to themselves.

LOL maybe your magpie theory was the most logical thing you said.....maybe ?
southace
southace
SA
4795 posts
SA, 4795 posts
1 Dec 2013 9:58pm
From the start of this thred I offered a good solution ....the problem is not hard to solve and I kick myself and so do my mates for let it out.

Marine biologists have the tecnnoligy (just right now watching shark week with yanks tagging a GWS and having a sub with video follow the tag wtf! Anyway the only options are........wait for it!
1) Stay out of the water....(wont happen)
2) kill the sharks (wont happen)
3) use the current tecnnoligy to warn us a shark in area which may help reduce the chances. (Helicopters expensive)
4) Education learn there high ways and habitats and keep away. (Marine biologist)
5) Tag and use listening stations coneccted with ww2 bom sirens on the shore line(my plan)

Unfortantly most marine biologists like the idea of sitting behind a computer and taking the stats hoping they will give us direction in the future where and when to surf etc.
They Have the electronics,some funding and experience,Unfortantliy this seems a long process with them.

It's possible with the technology they now have set up , To use a listening station connected to siren and alarms in surf breaks and around beaches this system which could save lives! Even a vibrating leg rope or wrist bracelet.
But someone needs to get the ball rolling and personally I don't have the time or the funds what I can offer is the contacts.

There you go my idea is on the table snap it up! Save lives and make a dollar!


Please Register, or first...
Topics Subscribe Reply

Return To Classic site 😭
Or... let us know if a problem, so we can tweak! 😅