Has anyone else been receiving these posts on Facebook
I don't really agree or disagree with the shark arguments anymore. To tell you the truth I'm over it as everyone claims to be an expert
Both sides make some good points though
But listening to the conservation groups is full on. It's their way or the highway
Anyone who even thinks about raising a feather to a shark look out
Next time your on Stalker Book check it out

I don't have stalker book or any social media. I just use this surf forum really. I have not looked into the wa shark problem at all. But sharks are part of the ocean. They come with the territory. They travel from wa to south Africa, really covering serious kms.

As long as they head to WA, I dont see the problem?. They love them over there, they are now baiting them even closer to shore with drum baits.

leave the sharks alone, pay out the victims or there dependants 1m depending on severity . every one is happy,no sharks get hurt, government saves money and victims win even if they are killed.

Select to expand quote

lotofwind said..
As long as they head to WA, I dont see the problem?. They love them over there, they are now baiting them even closer to shore with drum baits.

Easy to say when you''re on the east coast benefitting from a shark culling drum line and netting program that's been running there for last 60 odd years and going strong.

If it's good enough for people on the east coast it should be good enough for everyone else, what's the difference that's makes it ok to cull sharks on the east coast but not in WA? << genuine question..

Select to expand quote

goofy said..

lotofwind said..
As long as they head to WA, I dont see the problem?. They love them over there, they are now baiting them even closer to shore with drum baits.

Easy to say when you''re on the east coast benefitting from a shark culling drum line and netting program that's been running there for last 60 odd years and going strong.

If it's good enough for people on the east coast it should be good enough for everyone else, what's the difference that's makes it ok to cull sharks on the east coast but not in WA? << genuine question..

It doesn't make a difference, they should both be stopped for more serous alternatives. Genuine answer.
Have people not released that they cull on the East coast of Australia, yet they still have attacks from sharks

As for Tim's original question I'm not sure what adds your referring to, But FB is smart, you must have searched something similar and it then links your preferences. I couldn't believe this week all i have is Bali advertising after searching holidays..

Stop saying the east coast way doesn't reduce shark attacks / contact with people.
It does. And always will.


As for the paying victim post above..

That is stupidest thing I've seen in a long time... What a disgusting way to describe the loss of someone's family member.

Here's a mil now suck it up and **** off... For someone selling the de humanity of hurting sharks you don't show any for the rest of society

Select to expand quote

SP said..

Stop saying the east coast way doesn't reduce shark attacks / contact with people.
It does. And always will.


As for the paying victim post above..

That is stupidest thing I've seen in a long time... What a disgusting way to describe the loss of someone's family member.

Here's a mil now suck it up and **** off... For someone selling the de humanity of hurting sharks you don't show any for the rest of society

So you don't have any shark attacks on the Eastern seaboard

I agree about paying compensation. Compensation for what Everyone who enters the water, does so at their own risk..

Of course we have attacks.
One this morning actually but that doesn't mean that nets don't reduce the incidence of contact with sharks.

We also have whites breed just up the road and have very few white attacks.

But we've done this before so...

How was Hawaii....? Kids have a good time? You get some waves?
Where are the photos

Select to expand quote

SP said..
Of course we have attacks.
One this morning actually but that doesn't mean that nets don't reduce the incidence of contact with sharks.

We also have whites breed just up the road and have very few white attacks.

But we've done this before so...

How was Hawaii....? Kids have a good time? You get some waves?
Where are the photos

We have done it before, but their is still no evidence to say the killing has made any difference either. But will just agree to disagree..

Hawaii was amazing. Honestly if they had a boating industry i'd move their..

Select to expand quote

jbshack said..

SP said..
Of course we have attacks.
One this morning actually but that doesn't mean that nets don't reduce the incidence of contact with sharks.

We also have whites breed just up the road and have very few white attacks.

But we've done this before so...

How was Hawaii....? Kids have a good time? You get some waves?
Where are the photos

We have done it before, but their is still no evidence to say the killing has made any difference either. But will just agree to disagree..
Hawaii was amazing. Honestly if they had a boating industry i'd move their..

move "their" boats?

At least you would fit in with uneducated Seppo swill !!!

Select to expand quote

jbshack said..

SP said..

Stop saying the east coast way doesn't reduce shark attacks / contact with people.
It does. And always will.


As for the paying victim post above..

That is stupidest thing I've seen in a long time... What a disgusting way to describe the loss of someone's family member.

Here's a mil now suck it up and **** off... For someone selling the de humanity of hurting sharks you don't show any for the rest of society

So you don't have any shark attacks on the Eastern seaboard

I agree about paying compensation. Compensation for what Everyone who enters the water, does so at their own risk..

The point is there could of been more, the sad thing is we will never know. Its likely there are people walking around today who wouldn't be here if it wasn't for those control program's and they'll never know.

Think of the attack at Kelp beds, there was a perceived threat in that area leading up to the incident, he was attacked by 2 GWS and within 12 hours of the attack drum lines had been put out and 2 GWS caught. What would of happened if those drum lines were out a day or 2 earlier? I think there's a good chance those sharks could of been taken before the attack but no one would have been any wiser to what it prevented. Similar situation to the Wedge attack, a GWS was know to be hanging around the area.

I personally think in WA we should give more powers to fisheries to be pro active in removing sharks in any given area that are deemed to pose a threat to the public. If there's a large shark known to be hanging around a given location drop the drum lines in, I''m sure there would still be a lot less sharks taken overall and less by catch than what happens on the east coast. Fisheries and government will still probably cop the usual threats of violence but really that sh!t is just not on..

Select to expand quote

goofy said..

jbshack said..

SP said..

Stop saying the east coast way doesn't reduce shark attacks / contact with people.
It does. And always will.


As for the paying victim post above..

That is stupidest thing I've seen in a long time... What a disgusting way to describe the loss of someone's family member.

Here's a mil now suck it up and **** off... For someone selling the de humanity of hurting sharks you don't show any for the rest of society

So you don't have any shark attacks on the Eastern seaboard

I agree about paying compensation. Compensation for what Everyone who enters the water, does so at their own risk..

The point is there could of been more, the sad thing is we will never know. Its likely there are people walking around today who wouldn't be here if it wasn't for those control program's and they'll never know.

Think of the attack at Kelp beds, there was a perceived threat in that area leading up to the incident, he was attacked by 2 GWS and within 12 hours of the attack drum lines had been put out and 2 GWS caught. What would of happened if those drum lines were out a day or 2 earlier? I think there's a good chance those sharks could of been taken before the attack but no one would have been any wiser to what it prevented. Similar situation to the Wedge attack, a GWS was know to be hanging around the area.

I personally think in WA we should give more powers to fisheries to be pro active in removing sharks in any given area that are deemed to pose a threat to the public. If there's a large shark known to be hanging around a given location drop the drum lines in, I''m sure there would still be a lot less sharks taken overall and less by catch than what happens on the east coast. Fisheries and government will still probably cop the usual threats of violence but really that sh!t is just not on..

Ok ill bit. Nothing would have happened if those drums had been put out and those two sharks had been caught. Because those two sharks have since been vindicated by the attack by Rory from Fisheries Neither shark's bite marks matched the board damage. But what might of happened if Fisheries had put up warning signs on the beach before the attack

You are wrong JB.

I spoke directly to a relative of the victim within days of the attack and they have told me otherwise.

I'm not going to go into detail but I'm sure you can figure out how they knew that one of the GW sharks was responsible...

^^^
All I can say if they caught 2 whites within a day of the attack and neither of them were the culprits then there must be a **** load of whites out there. Oh I forgot they are endangered. Sorry.

Select to expand quote

Ctngoodvibes said..
^^^
All I can say if they caught 2 whites within a day of the attack and neither of them were the culprits then there must be a **** load of whites out there. Oh I forgot they are endangered. Sorry.

Spot on. Back in "my day", there seemed to be very few GWS. Yet last time I was out at Cott I saw one no more than 4 meters away, with its gaping-wide mouth, chasing a large fish (deserves a medal for high-jump) . Made me realise that the more juvenile GWS probably don't view/sense humans (seals in wetsuits) as food. More importantly, conservation should be logical and measured, not some sort of religious dogma. Many things are worth conserving, but change is the driving force of evolution and progress. Lets not try to turn the World into a museum.

Select to expand quote

Woodo said..
You are wrong JB.

I spoke directly to a relative of the victim within days of the attack and they have told me otherwise.

I'm not going to go into detail but I'm sure you can figure out how they knew that one of the GW sharks was responsible...

That is very interesting and if you wanted to share a PM would be fine, especially As Rory from fisheries has stated that the shark jaws from both sharks caught, did not match the bite patten on the surf board. The board "apparently" has been returned to the family but both sets of jaws were retained by fisheries, once the bodies were passed onto UWA..

So if your saying they have evidence that proves one of those sharks responsible (Is that what your saying) i can't see why fisheries would say otherwise

Select to expand quote

goofy said..

lotofwind said..
As long as they head to WA, I dont see the problem?. They love them over there, they are now baiting them even closer to shore with drum baits.

Easy to say when you''re on the east coast benefitting from a shark culling drum line and netting program that's been running there for last 60 odd years and going strong.

If it's good enough for people on the east coast it should be good enough for everyone else, what's the difference that's makes it ok to cull sharks on the east coast but not in WA? << genuine question..

Higher class of society over here bud, and the politicians know we are more worth protecting.
Kinda funny you guys over there seem to think there is a net from the tip of Qld down to Tassie making us all so safe??? lol
Plenty of attacks around here too, all part of the tiny tiny risk when you enter the water,,,meh, if it happens, it happens, so be it. If scared of big fish dont go in.

really sp,you got nothing better to say moron. come up with a better solution cause you got nothing. do you really think the disabled victim or the dependants left behind feel the way you do ,at the current rate the government is likely to save 16 mil and the outraged public get there way.problem solved,enter at your own risk.

Oh waiter , this conversation is getting us nowhere

Just like all the other shark posts. Have a rant boys get it off your chests. You might have to stop beating them first.

^^^^

Select to expand quote

Woodo said..
You are wrong JB.

I spoke directly to a relative of the victim within days of the attack and they have told me otherwise.

I'm not going to go into detail but I'm sure you can figure out how they knew that one of the GW sharks was responsible...

Well this is directly from Fisheries website.. Their official statement. So someone is telling porkie pies

http://www.fisheries.wa.gov.au/About-Us/Media-releases/Pages/Examinations-of-white-sharks-complete-.aspx

I guess when the official story is told by Mr Pollard, we will get some more info..

Select to expand quote

ex said..

Woodo said..
http://www.surfinglife.com.au/news/sl-news/12439-great-white-in-esperance

Full sequence.
Blood would be pumping hard

Maybe you could "Share a PM with JBshack" or ask "Rory from fisheries" what this great white is "apparently" up to, maybe this is not called "evidence".

I would have thought it obvious what the shark is up too. Its checking the surfer out to see what he is.. Look at the water and how clear it is. The shark is interested to see just what the one big dark object is floating on the surface so he swims over to have a look. But the fact that he didn't attack the surfer would indicate (To me) that he didn't want to eat, or wasn't interested in eating the surfer. I know their are loads of comments he was lucky to get away, but the truth is if that shark WANTED to attack it would have and the surfer would have had no were to run too..

But he did everything he should have. The surfer kept an eye on the shark, turning to look directly at it, he didn't panic and just flea turning his back on the animal. Amazing photos and the surfer now has one hell of a story to tell, which he does beautifully

Select to expand quote

jbshack said..

Woodo said..
You are wrong JB.

I spoke directly to a relative of the victim within days of the attack and they have told me otherwise.

I'm not going to go into detail but I'm sure you can figure out how they knew that one of the GW sharks was responsible...

That is very interesting and if you wanted to share a PM would be fine, especially As Rory from fisheries has stated that the shark jaws from both sharks caught, did not match the bite patten on the surf board. The board "apparently" has been returned to the family but both sets of jaws were retained by fisheries, once the bodies were passed onto UWA..

So if your saying they have evidence that proves one of those sharks responsible (Is that what your saying) i can't see why fisheries would say otherwise

Where in that report does it say that neither shark matched the bite pattern on the board Rodney?
All it says is that the result was inconclusive. Do you know what that means? Here let me google that for you www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=inconclusive
Wouldn't want you to have to waste valuable time on actually collecting facts when you could be crusading.

Select to expand quote

smicko said..

jbshack said..

Woodo said..
You are wrong JB.

I spoke directly to a relative of the victim within days of the attack and they have told me otherwise.

I'm not going to go into detail but I'm sure you can figure out how they knew that one of the GW sharks was responsible...

That is very interesting and if you wanted to share a PM would be fine, especially As Rory from fisheries has stated that the shark jaws from both sharks caught, did not match the bite patten on the surf board. The board "apparently" has been returned to the family but both sets of jaws were retained by fisheries, once the bodies were passed onto UWA..

So if your saying they have evidence that proves one of those sharks responsible (Is that what your saying) i can't see why fisheries would say otherwise

Where in that report does it say that neither shark matched the bite pattern on the board Rodney?
All it says is that the result was inconclusive. Do you know what that means? Here let me google that for you www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=inconclusive
Wouldn't want you to have to waste valuable time on actually collecting facts when you could be crusading.

Thats just my point.. They had both board and jaw, so why didn't they match them for the sack of safety and reporting? Why leave it hanging

A sharks bite imprint is almost like finger prints, especially in size, depth of bite and you would suggest from the article that fisheries are saying they cannot confirm if the sharks were responsible for the attack. However they had their jaws, they had the board, you would suggest a match would have made a direct link an easy conformation

Select to expand quote

jbshack said..

smicko said..

jbshack said..

Woodo said..
You are wrong JB.

I spoke directly to a relative of the victim within days of the attack and they have told me otherwise.

I'm not going to go into detail but I'm sure you can figure out how they knew that one of the GW sharks was responsible...

That is very interesting and if you wanted to share a PM would be fine, especially As Rory from fisheries has stated that the shark jaws from both sharks caught, did not match the bite patten on the surf board. The board "apparently" has been returned to the family but both sets of jaws were retained by fisheries, once the bodies were passed onto UWA..

So if your saying they have evidence that proves one of those sharks responsible (Is that what your saying) i can't see why fisheries would say otherwise

Where in that report does it say that neither shark matched the bite pattern on the board Rodney?
All it says is that the result was inconclusive. Do you know what that means? Here let me google that for you www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=inconclusive
Wouldn't want you to have to waste valuable time on actually collecting facts when you could be crusading.

Thats just my point.. They had both board and jaw, so why didn't they match them for the sack of safety and reporting? Why leave it hanging

A sharks bite imprint is almost like finger prints, especially in size, depth of bite and you would suggest from the article that fisheries are saying they cannot confirm if the sharks were responsible for the attack. However they had their jaws, they had the board, you would suggest a match would have made a direct link an easy conformation

“Based on the examinations, we are unable to confirm whether either shark was involved in the incident,” Department of Fisheries’ principal shark scientist Dr Rory McAuley said.

Next sentence.....inconclusive..... See above for definition.

Select to expand quote

smicko said..
Next sentence.....inconclusive..... See above for definition.

Dr McAuley said while the results were inconclusive, it was not uncommon for sharks to disgorge their stomach contents when they were caught.
In this they are referring to the stomach contents.. IE they had no body parts of the victim in their stomachs at time of capture..

But when it came to the jaws that had everything they needed to make a match..

BUT Smicko if you had two sharks, and both sets of jaws and the surfboard with bite marks, would you think, You could make a educated call as to wether or not you had caught the right shark

[/URL]

Ohhh I see what you're getting at it's another conspiracy.

Danananananananana Shackman is here to save to World from imminent destruction due to the death of two of the last remaining White Sharks on Earth. "Quick to the fapmobile Boy Blunder there's an international conspiracy eruption that we must tackle head on!"

"But Shackman wouldn't our efforts be better spent trying to stop commercial shark fishing on the South Coast if we want to save the sharks? After all we have concrete third hand information that that fishery is responsible for the death of thousands of sharks each year along with an undisclosed number of White Shark by catch. Surely that would save more Sharks than us fapping about in politics and drumlines?"

"Don't be a fool Blunder! The media isn't interested in that malarkey, they want sharks eating people. Without the media coverage there's no fundraising for our Christmas junket with Greenpeace. Now follow my lead and start fapping!!"