should sharks be culled follow the link

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/cloud/polls/popup/b246a7b3-e385-398f-99bc-99b45580e2a8/

Ohh a shark thread.
We haven't had one of those for a while.
Well,.. not this week anyway.

Sharks no.
Humans, hmmm probably.

Select to expand quote

GazMan said...
Maybe they need to get rid of the sheep-ships to solve the problem of too many sharks:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/15119017/sheep-ship-shark-probe-sinks/

A quote from that link -

"This is an intriguing theory," one unnamed bureaucrat said in an email to his superiors in July. "Great whites 'traditionally' follow whale pods and hang around seal colonies."

I know for a fact that local seal numbers have increased by an enormous amount over the past few decades since the 'culling' of seals stopped, and the local fish stocks have depleted due to this increase in seal numbers IMO. I'm not sure that shark sightings in Vic have increased?

That link to shark sightings is either WA only...or you guys over there need to adopt a NT & Northern QLD solution & import some salties (crocs) to take care of them! Then you wouldn't have to worry about sharks.

I feel for those who have lost loved ones to shark attacks, and I also feel for those who have lost loved ones to bushfires or motorbike accidents. (Stay with me here as it is relevant) - swim/surf where there is a high risk of shark attacks & your risk increases - as it does if you build your home in a dense bush-surrounding where there is a high-risk of bushfires or ride a road-bike as your main form of transport in built-up areas (where you rely on the other road users' driving skills).

Now...where's that flame-suit?

Select to expand quote

I feel for those who have lost loved ones to shark attacks, and I also feel for those who have lost loved ones to bushfires or motorbike accidents. (Stay with me here as it is relevant) - swim/surf where there is a high risk of shark attacks & your risk increases - as it does if you build your home in a dense bush-surrounding where there is a high-risk of bushfires or ride a road-bike as your main form of transport in built-up areas (where you rely on the other road users' driving skills).

Now...where's that flame-suit?

Couldn't agree more, swim, surf, ski, sail where there is sharks & you risk getting attacked. To add to that above, our soldiers overseas are taking the same risks, we are in their territory we risk getting attacked (and for those that think I am heartless to compare sharks to soldiers, my whole family have been in the military).

If we start culling Great Whites then we should start looking at every internet/ phone scam artist. We can use them on drumlines in QLD.

Select to expand quote

Stuthepirate said...
Sharks no.
Humans, hmmm probably.

Bogans in an other hand!..............

Select to expand quote

Stuthepirate said...
Sharks no.
Humans, hmmm probably.

What about bogan sharks?

Spot on Sailhack....

Mate is a professional Abalone diver, who uses a hydraulic cage to work when diving.
He had to do some work up here near Gage Roads, without his cage. Was the worst experience of his life, not knowing and being aware of the numbers about.
He reckons there is now way in hell he ever considers swimming nowadays, because he knows what's out there. Numbers over the last 10 years have increased well above what anybody will admit.

Select to expand quote

deejay8204 said...

I feel for those who have lost loved ones to shark attacks, and I also feel for those who have lost loved ones to bushfires or motorbike accidents. (Stay with me here as it is relevant) - swim/surf where there is a high risk of shark attacks & your risk increases - as it does if you build your home in a dense bush-surrounding where there is a high-risk of bushfires or ride a road-bike as your main form of transport in built-up areas (where you rely on the other road users' driving skills).

Now...where's that flame-suit?

Couldn't agree more, swim, surf, ski, sail where there is sharks & you risk getting attacked. To add to that above, our soldiers overseas are taking the same risks, we are in their territory we risk getting attacked (and for those that think I am heartless to compare sharks to soldiers, my whole family have been in the military).

A friend of mine was surfing middle of the day , not a cloud in the sky , beautiful clear water, and nearly lost his leg to a bullshark , there goes the theories of dawn or dusk , murky water , surfing an inlet out the window !!!!!! All the right conditions and still atacked !!!!!!!

yes, sharks should be culled, all of em right down to the last one

Another reason sharks shouldn't be culled because over the past few years they have improve my gybes & waterstarts...(I said I respect them, didn't say that I wasn't sh!t scared of the 'men in the grey suits'!)

Select to expand quote

Sailhack said...

GazMan said...
Maybe they need to get rid of the sheep-ships to solve the problem of too many sharks:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/15119017/sheep-ship-shark-probe-sinks/

A quote from that link -

"This is an intriguing theory," one unnamed bureaucrat said in an email to his superiors in July. "Great whites 'traditionally' follow whale pods and hang around seal colonies."

I know for a fact that local seal numbers have increased by an enormous amount over the past few decades since the 'culling' of seals stopped, and the local fish stocks have depleted due to this increase in seal numbers IMO. I'm not sure that shark sightings in Vic have increased?

That link to shark sightings is either WA only...or you guys over there need to adopt a NT & Northern QLD solution & import some salties (crocs) to take care of them! Then you wouldn't have to worry about sharks.

I feel for those who have lost loved ones to shark attacks, and I also feel for those who have lost loved ones to bushfires or motorbike accidents. (Stay with me here as it is relevant) - swim/surf where there is a high risk of shark attacks & your risk increases - as it does if you build your home in a dense bush-surrounding where there is a high-risk of bushfires or ride a road-bike as your main form of transport in built-up areas (where you rely on the other road users' driving skills).

Now...where's that flame-suit?

Maybe the government would be better targeting seals again instead of sharks, particularly if the seals are taking the lions share of fish stocks!

Also, what about the fish stocks depleted by human overfishing, what effect does this have on the ocean food chain?

Some chilling facts here:
ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-overfishing/
ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/global-fish-crisis-article/

I personally think we should leave the creatures of the sea alone, though I do think that us humans (mostly the ignorant and greedy ones) have a lot to answer for in the way we (collectively) have screwed up much of the planet and its resources!

^^^ You're spot-on GazMan. Maybe we should be able to shoot the seals & feed them to the sharks to make sure their bellies are full.

Less seals = more fish.
Full-bellied sharks = no more num-num on humans.
win/win.

The 'shark cull' argument is flawed because it's based on simply preserving humans by killing off another species and not looking at the main reason why there seem to be an increase in attacks - which is solely due to human activity, not the activity of the targeted species.

Select to expand quote

Sailhack said...
,.....
The 'shark cull' argument is flawed because it's based on simply preserving humans by killing off another species and not looking at the main reason why there seem to be an increase in attacks - which is solely due to human activity, not the activity of the targeted species.

Easy to say ,.. but hard to prove.
In fact at this point it is just one of a number of possibilties.
An equally likely explanation is that there are now a small number of sharks that for some reason have taken a liking to attacking people.
Get rid of them and the problem is solved.

Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said...

Stuthepirate said...
Sharks no.
Humans, hmmm probably.

What about bogan sharks?

You mean Mullets?

Select to expand quote

GazMan said...
Maybe they need to get rid of the sheep-ships to solve the problem of too many sharks:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/15119017/sheep-ship-shark-probe-sinks/

This may add weight to the possibility that sheep transport ships may be dumping sheep carcasses overboard in WA waters:

"David Jacoby, a specialist at the Marine Biological Association (MBA) in Plymouth, England, says shark attacks are events that have local causes and are often poorly investigated, if at all.

One case that stands out occurred in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, where sharks made five attacks in a week in November-December last year, one of which was fatal. The finger of blame was pointed at a passing livestock transport ship that had dumped sheep carcasses overboard and at operators who illegally fed sharks to thrill the tourists."

Source - Are humans to blame for shark attacks?
www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/are-humans-to-blame-for-shark-attacks.htm

Reading this article would imply that the increasing number of shark attacks is a world-wide problem, not just in OZ.

there are guys stocking up the ocean with Great Whites in Vic

There are a few reasons that sharks are more prevalent around WA these days and a lack of food isn't one of them.

I think the first thing to look at is whales and their migration past Perth from the north west to the south west. Back in the day when we used to hunt whales, the whales would stay miles off the coast to try and get past the whalers with out getting hunted.
As of 1978 we stopped hunting whales and their numbers grew and they started to get closer and closer to the coast. To the point that I have seen them 100m off shore last year, something that I have never seen before at local beaches (Perth).

The second thing is that we haven't hunted Great White Sharks for the last ten years adding to their numbers by more than we know. With more whales means more sharks as the sharks hang with whale pods for an easy feed, so with whales coming closer so are the sharks.

I may be wrong but this winter has been the coldest as far as water temp in a while and we all know that GWS like colder water, and yes they are found in warmer waters but they prefer colder water.

Also seal populations have gotten larger so food for the GWS isn't a problem, and over fishing imo isn't the problem at all.

The rogue shark theory is not really an option as the sheer number of sharks spotted tells us this cant be fact. If you don't hunt them they will come and in numbers. The tagged sharks prove this beyond all doubt so this theory can be put to bed.

The answer? Well tbh there isn't one that we can throw out there and fix the problem tomorrow, and I don't think that there will be one in the near future that is sustainable.
Part of the solution is to try and stop it before it happens and more tech thrown at shark shield type devices the better and these are not a solution but a piece of mind but they will have to work much better than they do now.

As far as culling them goes killing ten even twenty of them might help for a while but for how long? A month, maybe two? Some of these sharks come from as far away as South Africa so culling unless you were to kill twenty a month isn't going to work and is not sustainable.

Select to expand quote

doggie said...
..woof wof woof,.. then,.
The rogue shark theory is not really an option as the sheer number of sharks spotted tells us this cant be fact. If you don't hunt them they will come and in numbers. The tagged sharks prove this beyond all doubt so this theory can be put to bed.

I'm not so sure about that.
It is quite possible it is just one or two sharks doing multiple flybys of the receiving buoy. That would be highly probable if a particular shark was patrolling the area.
Do you know if the tags can be identified when they trip the receiver?
With some RFD tags, such as the NLIS tags on cattle, each tag is specific to that animal but you need a special reader to read them and they have to be very close.
I don't know if that is the case with the shark tags. I would expect not.
My guess is it is just one or two sharks that frequent this area.

The alternative is that something major has changed in the last year to account for 5 or six attcks in this period. There is no evidence that this is the case.
On the East coast of USA which had the same problem it turned out that removing just one shark solved the problem. It was the most logical and cheapest option and it worked,..immediately.

Select to expand quote

As far as culling them goes killing ten even twenty of them might help for a while but for how long? A month, maybe two? Some of these sharks come from as far away as South Africa so culling unless you were to kill twenty a month isn't going to work and is not sustainable.

That's exactly what the shark nets do on the east coast and it mostly works.
The nets constantly cull any shark which is patrolling the shallow waters around swimming areas. The negative side effect is they also remove a lot of other species.
They don't publicise this but that's how they work.
It might be necesary that if we continue to do nothing effective we will eventually have to do this but in the first instance it would be far better to specifically target any shark which comes in close to popular swimming beaches.

If we do nothing different to what we have been doing there will be no change and the attacks will continue.
Eventually some small kid on a boogieboard wil get eaten. It will be splashed all over the tv and other media with graphic pictures a descriptions. There will be a huge negative reaction, and it wil be all out war on sharks of all sorts and sizes.

We need to start somewhere.
If, as you say, there are so manymore sharks now, then targeting the few which come in close will make no difference to the survival of the species.

Select to expand quote

choco said...
there are guys stocking up the ocean with Great Whites in Vic

That vid clearly shows that sharks can't surf. Also shows how non-menacing they are out of the water.

Select to expand quote

pweedas said...

doggie said...

We need to start somewhere.
If, as you say, there are so manymore sharks now, then targeting the few which come in close will make no difference to the survival of the species.

That will do nothing, because another will come along to take its place, and then another, and then another. You dont get it, there are alot of them not just one or two.

We should only cull the ones we can find

Hope that last comment doesn't give me bad karma

Select to expand quote

cammd said...
We should only cull the ones we can find

Not hard to find.

Cull them else put in place an total Australia fishing ban. You can fish out all its food and expect it not to attack humans?

Select to expand quote

doggie said...

pweedas said...

doggie said...

We need to start somewhere.
If, as you say, there are so manymore sharks now, then targeting the few which come in close will make no difference to the survival of the species.

That will do nothing, because another will come along to take its place, and then another, and then another. You dont get it, there are alot of them not just one or two.

It will do nothing if and only if lots of sharks like eating people.
The general opinion of the 'experts' is that most sharks do not like eating people.
However, it is clear that at least one shark in this area likes eating people.
Take out that one or two sharks and there is a reasonable probability and expectation that if other sharks take over the beat, they wont have the same penchant for eating people.
If they do, then the cull should continue until the feasting stops.
It's as simple as that.

At this point, to continue on with more studies and more money wasted on shark detection and warnings is nothing more than using a dangerous situation as a tool to bloat the budget allocations of the managing authorities.

Select to expand quote

pweedas said...

doggie said...

pweedas said...

doggie said...

We need to start somewhere.
If, as you say, there are so manymore sharks now, then targeting the few which come in close will make no difference to the survival of the species.

That will do nothing, because another will come along to take its place, and then another, and then another. You dont get it, there are alot of them not just one or two.

It will do nothing if and only if lots of sharks like eating people.
The general opinion of the 'experts' is that most sharks do not like eating people.
However, it is clear that at least one shark in this area likes eating people.
Take out that one or two sharks and there is a reasonable probability and expectation that if other sharks take over the beat, they wont have the same penchant for eating people.
If they do, then the cull should continue until the feasting stops.
It's as simple as that.

At this point, to continue on with more studies and more money wasted on shark detection and warnings is nothing more than using a dangerous situation as a tool to bloat the budget allocations of the managing authorities.

So you are sayin the all the fatal attacks are by the same shark? C,mon there is massive amount of cost line between all of the attacks, it just isnt fesable. Plus the size of the shark is always different, the bunker bay shark was 6m+ the wedge shark was 3.5m.

I think we should cull all the crocodiles in the top end because it's become too dangerous to swim..

We should kill all the Lions because I would like to run around the African Scrub naked with a steak on my head playing dubstep...

I'm a farking dumb arse human..

Select to expand quote

barn said...
I think we should cull all the crocodiles in the top end because it's become too dangerous to swim..

We should kill all the Lions because I would like to run around the African Scrub naked with a steak on my head playing dubstep...

I'm a farking dumb arse human..

Hi barn

They already cull crocks in the NW and NT.

And dont talk about yourself like that