ONE of WA's most renowned boardriders says our waters are now so shark-infested that every surfer should be "prepared to die" if they paddle out.

Big-wave surfing legend Geoff "Camel" Goulden rescued 34-year-old holiday-maker Jon Hines after the civil servant from Newcastle was bitten on the arm and stomach as the pair surfed Red Bluff, 160km north of Carnarvon, on Tuesday afternoon.

Speaking from his camp site at Red Bluff yesterday, Mr Goulden, 40, said: "Surfing has become a very dangerous sport. If you spend a lot of time in the water, you have to admit that surfing has become really, really dangerous in the shark-infested waters you now have in WA.

"If you surf, you have to be prepared for the possibility you'll be attacked. There's quite a good chance of that happening.

"There's a chance you'll die and you have to be prepared for that.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
"It doesn't stop me surfing, but I do think about shark attacks every single day I go in the ocean. I'm always having those visualisations of a shark lunging out and grabbing at me. It's just a fact of life now when you're a surfer."

The Margaret River-based veteran boardrider said five fatal attacks in 10 months, as well as Tuesday's dramatic mauling and a string of recent close encounters, meant it was time to consider culling sharks.

"I don't want to sound like an idiot who wants a total cull. We are in their territory," he said.

"But there are a lot of sharks around and we should cull some of the great whites, especially the big ones that come into and hang around swimming and surfing spots.

"I don't know what type of shark it was that got Jon, it could have been a tiger or bull shark. But I saw a whale two minutes before it happened. White pointers hang around the migration paths of whales and we've had a plague of white-pointer attacks so it's a good chance it was a white pointer.

"They shouldn't be protected any more. It seems like there are plenty of them now and lives have been lost because of it. Taking some of them out of the system would mean surfing and diving and swimming would be a lot safer.

"I think most surfers in WA would agree with me. Some conservationists might not agree, but you have to look at the big picture and the rising number of attacks and encounters."

He has been backed by WA boardriding clubs.

Meanwhile, Mr Hines's parents, his wife, Bridget, and brother, Nathan, remained at his hospital bedside yesterday as the surfer faced more surgery that will be followed by a lengthy rehabilitation period.

Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke has not ruled out removing white pointers from the protected-species list, backing research to test whether their numbers are increasing.

The state's Fisheries Department is also researching shark numbers, but says testing whether great whites are increasing is extremely difficult because the animals are so elusive and cover vast distances.

Fisheries Minister Norman Moore said shoot-to-kill orders could be issued again in the event of another fatal attack.

I think you'll find more people agree with this than don't.
Including myself

But like Suba bought up in another thread. It's 'how' it could be done without major consequence that needs to be discussed.

I don't think anyone wants to see the white go extinct!

I reckon camels hit the nail on the head. For guys like him, or anyone else who surfs remote offshore reefs or islands, it's a real risk at the mOment. This didn't used to be the case.

Camel has just used current facts of recent sightings, attacks and near misses. He is basically saying what probably 60-70% of what people on this thread are trying to say (or are thinking). Funny how people listen when the person speaking has some fame, or in this case is a renowned waterman. Good on him. To me his response has merit and sense, not asking for a total cull but knock off the few that are hanging close to shore, surf spots etc.

I agree with "Camel" that GWS that are prowling our beaches should be removed, if need be through use of lethal force.

agree with the camel, funny story thought i was cool for hanging in the jungle for a few days and then found camel had been there for months.

they should be taken off endangered list to give fisheries more power.

this is the best outcome for all meaning that someone responsible does the job and it doesn't turn into a full on cull.

any one thats honest would actually agree with camel, its beyond a joke. The one that took our friend hung around for days and even annoyed the authorities boats, its an insult that it wasn't dealt with. Since the American was taken the tactics have changed to bait the area of the attck to terminate the shark if it grabs a bait.

This should happen regardless of the families wishes, hardly think they should be making another decision in a situation like that. Even for insurance purpose etc it becomes harder for the family if there is no body recovered.

Not interested in your comments about its not the sharks fault and what if an innocent one is caught. Anyone can see they're not endangered in SA and WA.

The camel sounds very clever. I agree with the man.

how would this be done? What sort of gear would be needed to do a cull? I've given it some thought and concluded that some serious fishing gear would be needed to do this humanely and accurately. They are not like other fish in the ocean and I think most would agree that the large GWS need to be targeted as they are the most likely culprit in most of the fatal attacks. A fish this size will destroy most conventional fishing gear, berlying up is problematic, shooting is uneconomical due to the amount of time required and netting wouldn't work plus other marine life will be effected. I'm thinking we'd need 200 or so baits in the water over a 300km stretch, checked three times a week. I'm sure someone would do it but who's going to pay for the catch? these baits would need to be secured wouldn't they? or put transmitters on and track them?

can't understand how the fed gov put them (GW) on the endangered list then net the east coast beaches for shark protection endangering all marine animals and poor old wa dont net and have restricted ability to control the sharks. cant tell me the east coast nets haven't gilled some GW's that the fed gov put on the endangered list. is it true that there are drum lines on the straddie islands too.
Isn't these drums and nets used by the east coast a method of cull? why is it ok for the goose but not the gander.

Select to expand quote

kwalkington said...

can't understand how the fed gov put them (GW) on the endangered list then net the east coast beaches for shark protection endangering all marine animals and poor old wa dont net and have restricted ability to control the sharks. cant tell me the east coast nets haven't gilled some GW's that the fed gov put on the endangered list. is it true that there are drum lines on the straddie islands too.
Isn't these drums and nets used by the east coast a method of cull? why is it ok for the goose but not the gander.

To be honest I am not a fan of shark nets - they do a lot of damage to other species as well - the glorious un-intended consequences.

In Qld - 714 sharks killed in 2011-12 of which 281 were over 2m

http://www.oesr.qld.gov.au/products/tables/shark-control-program-caught-area/index.php

Here are the types of sharks caught

www.oesr.qld.gov.au/products/tables/shark-control-program-caught-type/index.php

What strikes me is that the the total number of sharks caught in 2011-12 is 716 on this list. Jeepers - seems the people that put those tables out should learn to count!

How about letting commercial fishermen carry and use smokies for when they come across bigger great whites near populated area's? Used to be standard practice in the past I believe.

I don't think many people understand that 18 months of a few more attacks than usual can't be used to say attacks are on the rise.
Some years we get none, others (like the past 2) a few more than usual.
If in 3/5/10/x years times, they are continuing at the rate we have recently seen, then it could be said they are rising.
For all we know in 10 years we could look back and go, 'ahh ****, they were a bad two years'.

The is not 'quite a good chance' you'd get attacked surfing. If that were the case, there would be much less people in the water. And even if attacks continue at the rate of the past 18 months, 5 deaths out of all the surfers out there isn't really 'quite a good chance'. Still seems like a **** load of bad luck to me.

I think one that has attacked a person should be removed.
Suggesting only big ones to be killed does seem like the right ones to target. But they are likely to be the main breeders so could be very important the species.
Also, step out 3 metres. A 3 metre shark is also going to turn your day into sh!t very quickly. It seems the culprits range in size from the various reports, so killing the important big ones could make SFA difference.

I bet most big sharks come close to shore at some stage, killing just the ones that come close to shore could result in a lot of them being removed. It is those sort of questions that need answering before we create a solution. If only a small percentage come right close to shore, maybe getting rid of them wouldn't be bad. Who knows.

I would love nothing more than for a shark shield that is smaller and less intrusive with proven results to be a reality. Allowing us to use the water with more peace of mind and without having to kill a ton of beautiful creatures out of fear.

I know my opinions on culls are probably in the minority now, but hey, gotta look at both sides of the story .

Hooking and bringing in larger white sharks isn't all that hard really. Just need heavy gear and the patience to let the shark wear itself out. No point fighting a run away train when you can just let it run out of fuel. This is how tagging is achieved, both here and overseas. The yanks do it differently than us but the tactics are similar. Hook the shark, let it run, maybe attach some buoys (like in Jaws) and follow it until it's tired enough to handle.

You guys can call me a greenie or a hippy all you want (even though I'm most certainly not one) but I really hope that if they go ahead with selective culling that they don't just set baited drums and allow the sharks to drown. You wouldn't do it to a dog and a sharks cognitive ability is more than comparable.

If you have to do it then do it humanly, bring them along side the boat and put a 12gauge slug through their brain.

EDIT: regarding Camel saying that there is a high likelyhood of being attacked, I'm sorry but this is just bull5hit. I absolutely respect the man and his abilities and always have since I first saw him surf. But there is no high likelyhood of being attacked. There are so many bloody surfers and lidders in the water at any given time that the probability of you being the one singled out is so slim I just don't worry about it. Sure, that's no comfort to the guy who's number is up but then again I still drive to the beach which in itself is far more of a statistical risk.

I agree with camel.

Suba- I respect your view however I dont think you can draw a comparison between driving to the beach and surfing. There are to many variables and we can argue to the cows come home about them. We have a solution and it worked. Lets use it until we find a better one.

Select to expand quote

beastsurf said...

Suba- I respect your view however I dont think you can draw a comparison between driving to the beach and surfing.

I don't see why not? When someone makes a statement along the lines of "high likelihood" or "a high chance" etc then the argument becomes a probability one. Granted I'll admit that the probability of having an encounter with a shark seems to have increased in the last couple of years. But if you step back and look at it purely as a mathematical argument and take all emotion out of it, the chances of being in a car accident on the way to the beach is still going to be higher than the chance of being attacked in the water and it would still be that way if you weighted the statistics to make up for the difference in people on the road as compared to people in the water.

That's not to say I don't think it's an issue that needs addressing, but I still stand by my argument that any individual surfer in the water shouldn't be sitting there thinking that he has a high likelihood of being attacked by a shark. Some of those comments by Camel don't hold much weight.

Select to expand quote

subasurf said...

beastsurf said...

Suba- I respect your view however I dont think you can draw a comparison between driving to the beach and surfing.

I don't see why not? When someone makes a statement along the lines of "high likelihood" or "a high chance" etc then the argument because a probability one. Granted I'll admit that the probability of having an encounter with a shark seems to have increased in the last couple of years. But if you step back and look at it purely as a mathematical argument and take all emotion out of it, the chances of being in a car accident on the way to the beach is still going to be higher than the chance of being attacked in the water and it would still be that way if you weighted the statistics to make up for the difference in people on the road as compared to people in the water.

That's not to say I don't think it's an issue that needs addressing, but I still stand by my argument that any individual surfer in the water shouldn't be sitting there thinking that he has a high likelihood of being attacked by a shark. Some of those comments by Camel don't hold much weight.

I agree with ya there mate.

Select to expand quote

kwalkington said...

can't understand how the fed gov put them (GW) on the endangered list then net the east coast beaches for shark protection endangering all marine animals and poor old wa dont net and have restricted ability to control the sharks. cant tell me the east coast nets haven't gilled some GW's that the fed gov put on the endangered list. is it true that there are drum lines on the straddie islands too.
Isn't these drums and nets used by the east coast a method of cull? why is it ok for the goose but not the gander.

I wonder if the government would have put the GWS on the endangered list at the time if they had the track record of the last 12 months
I dont think so

Compare it if you want mate. I think about when im surfing. I never did a few years or even months ago. Given the drop in crowds I think there are a few of us thinking about it a lot more than we proberbally should. I heard today board sales are down at surf shops around town. Might find a bargan but is it worth it if your gonna be eatin. Might have to compare the pros and cons of that one.

Select to expand quote

Dawn Patrol said...

I don't think many people understand that 18 months of a few more attacks than usual can't be used to say attacks are on the rise.

What would you suggest we use?

Dice?

Beastsurf, I'm genuinely interested in why you don't think the comparison can be made.

I'm not trying to say that your opinion is invalid because the opinion of anyone that goes in the water is valid as we are the people that this whole issue concerns the most. But you just said that you don't think the comparison can be made, then when I explain why I think it can be made you just gave up arguing it. I am sincerely interested why people think that you can't compare shark attack probabilities to other things. Is it purely the fact that we as humans just don't sit well with the idea of being a prey item and thus it's worse? I'm a numbers man but yes, I give any shadows I see a second glance; I just don't sit on my board waiting for a wave thinking that there is a good chance that something is hunting me.

Select to expand quote

subasurf said...

Beastsurf, I'm genuinely interested in why you don't think the comparison can be made.

I'm not trying to say that your opinion is invalid because the opinion of anyone that goes in the water is valid as we are the people that this whole issue concerns the most. But you just said that you don't think the comparison can be made, then when I explain why I think it can be made you just gave up arguing it. I am sincerely interested why people think that you can't compare shark attack probabilities to other things. Is it purely the fact that we as humans just don't sit well with the idea of being a prey item and thus it's worse? I'm a numbers man but yes, I give any shadows I see a second glance; I just don't sit on my board waiting for a wave thinking that there is a good chance that something is hunting me.

I think some comparisons that people use are just plain stupid and show that either they don't know WTF they are actually trying to argue or they just have absolutely no idea.
Personally I'd rather just stick to the topic at hand but each to their own i guess.

Suba me old mate. Maybee you should think you are being hunted. Ha ha.

I dont think there is any value in comparing the possibility of a shark attack to a car crash. I supose if you throw in all the data you can come up with a conclusion but why. We have a problem and it seems we have to consult every bloke under the son and keep every one happy and warm before we act.

I will give you a comparison. Asylum seekers pre john Howard. Boats coming out of control crashing people dead. Offshore prosessing no more boats. Julia for the right reasons and peoples best interest at hand tried a new way. It did not work. Hense offshore processing reitroduced with an increase in imigration numbers.

Simply put the old way worked so we go back to it with a bit of a tweak and everybody wins. Relate this to the present shark problem.

Culling worked once. The method is there. Why not save lives if we can.

Funny thing is that people always used to ask me about sharks before this recent spate of attacks and I always said its more dangerous driving to work in ya car than surfing. I still think the same but sharks make me think about where Im going to surf rather than am I or arnt I going to surf.

I still agree with Dawn patrol, cheaper and easier to develop a "shark shield" device that actually works. Surfers pay $500 and dont have to worry about being eaten plus the ecosystem continues on.. Fisheries dont have to kill hundreds of sharks..

Surely this is the logical solution.

Select to expand quote

Kiting said...
Surely this is the logical solution.

The issue is in inventing a device that actually works. There are exploratory bites and then there is predation attacks where you are hit at full speed, usually from below.

Not hard to build a device that stops the exploratory bites. Stopping the hard and fast ambush is what matters. I don't think it's possible, sadly.

Uncrowded surf has been a refreshing change

Select to expand quote

subasurf said...

... I'm genuinely interested in why you don't think the comparison can be made.

It is not about numbers and relative risk. Rather, it is about personal choice and freedom. If we choose a dangerous activity (e.g. racing motocycles), we accept the inherent risks. If the danger is external and forced on us (e.g. by drunk drivers or marine scientists), we have reason to be unhappy (particularly if we are admonished to stay home if we don't like it).

Select to expand quote

subasurf said...

Kiting said...
Surely this is the logical solution.

The issue is in inventing a device that actually works. There are exploratory bites and then there is predation attacks where you are hit at full speed, usually from below.

Not hard to build a device that stops the exploratory bites. Stopping the hard and fast ambush is what matters. I don't think it's possible, sadly.

I could be way wrong, but those high speed from below attacks, does a big shark need a little more water depth than at the average surf break?
If that's so perhaps a shark shield could be more effective from a surfing perspective, as opposed to kiting/windsurfing/diving in deeper water.

Select to expand quote

Dawn Patrol said...

subasurf said...

Kiting said...
Surely this is the logical solution.

The issue is in inventing a device that actually works. There are exploratory bites and then there is predation attacks where you are hit at full speed, usually from below.

Not hard to build a device that stops the exploratory bites. Stopping the hard and fast ambush is what matters. I don't think it's possible, sadly.

I could be way wrong, but those high speed from below attacks, does a big shark need a little more water depth than at the average surf break?
If that's so perhaps a shark shield could be more effective from a surfing perspective, as opposed to kiting/windsurfing/diving in deeper water.

The deeper the water, the harder you will be hit, to an extent. This is why the sharks in some spots in South Africa will fully breach when hitting a seal. It does happen here too (saw a juvenile white shark do it at redgate when it hit a salmon ball) but not quite as much. If you are picked out from a distance the shark is still going to hit you with a tremendous amount of force, regardless of if it is a vertical attack or not. The bodyboarder that got killed at Bunker Bay last year is a perfect example of this. He was singled out and hit hard. I would say the same about the guy at Wedge too but I keep hearing conflicting accounts of what happened. These two cases were clearly predation and not exploratory bites.

Fact of the matter is, if you get singled out and the shark intends to kill you then a shark shield device is likely to do very little. The effective range is a deterrent, not a shield. Given the speed at which seals are hit, by the time the shark feels the electric signal it's already about to smash you. Your biggest deterrent is for a shark to bite your board first. White sharks struggle to digest animals with high bone density and 'tend' to ignore something if it realises it's solid after a first bite.

None of this is very reassuring though I know. It just explains why I don't think looking towards personal deterrent devices is going to be quite the full proof solution people often think it is.

Select to expand quote

Beelzebub said...

subasurf said...

... I'm genuinely interested in why you don't think the comparison can be made.

It is not about numbers and relative risk. Rather, it is about personal choice and freedom.

If it's not an issue about relative risk and numbers then people shouldn't be making comments saying that there is a high likelihood of being attacked by a shark. Those kind of statements by definition make it about probability. It doesn't have to be mutually exclusion. I am free to make my personal choice and support my choice with the knowledge the probability of being taken by a shark is still low. Even if the probability has increased, it went from being extremely small to slightly less extremely small.

A couple in Dunsborough actually survived a full on charge from a large white whilst wearing a shield. The guy said it came at them so fast he closed his eyes and said good buy the first time it charged. Then repeatedly charged after turning on a dime after hitting what he referred to as the shields current.(he estimated less than a foot or two from him) They managed to avoid three or four charges before they made there boat. About two or so years ago now.

Shark Shield say the bigger the shark the better it should effect there receptors at close range.

Just reporting what they publicise. Not sure i believe it