Hahaha

Don't they cull crocs because they're literally overflowing, not because people want to swim?

I thought I'd just counter the standard arguments with some mindless agro. This thread is so repetitive and Anti Shark people just end up ranting on and on to give the allusion of consensus..

We should feed the sharks prisoners laced with mind altering drugs.. Give the sharks a meal to remember..

doggie said...

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.

Geeeeez,.. I've said it often enough.
YES.
Doesn't anybody listen to a word I say??
(No need to answer that. The question was rhetorical)

Probably one or two sharks, a 5 metre and maybe a 3 metre.
The distance between attacks is well within the usual roaming distance of a GW.
Any report of a shark 'about 5 metres' would cover an average persons perception of a shark from 4 metres to 6 metres. When you see something big thrashing around eating someone they just look big, so they come up with a number,... 5 metres. But it might be a small as 4 to 5 metres tops.
However, I do think the report of an attack by a 3 metre shark would be by a smaller shark than the 5 metre one eating people off Cott. and Lancelin.

I keep referring back to the East coast USA experience where they had exactly the same problem. Multiple attacks over an extended period.
They all stopped with the removal of just 1 (one) GW shark.
It was the basis of the Jaws movie series.

So how stupid does this sound?
In the summer of 1916 around Jersey, East coast USA, there were 5 shark attacks with some fatal.
There were all sorts of theories about what was doing it and why.
And how many must be doing it in light of the fact that the attacks went from zero to 5 in such a short time.

Somebody decided to do something about it. You could do that in those days.

From Wikipedia,..

"On July 14, Harlem taxidermist and Barnum and Bailey lion tamer Michael Schleisser caught a 7.5 foot (2.3 m), 325 pound (147 kg) shark while fishing in Raritan Bay only a few miles from the mouth of Matawan Creek. The shark nearly sank the boat before Schleisser killed it with a broken oar. When he opened the shark's belly, he removed a "suspicious fleshy material and bones" that took up "about two-thirds of a milk crate" and "together weighed fifteen pounds."[32] Scientists identified the shark as a young great white and the ingested remains as human.[33] Schleisser mounted the shark and placed it on display in the window of a Manhattan shop on Broadway but it was later lost. The only surviving photograph appeared in the Bronx Home News.[34]

No further attacks were reported along the Jersey Shore in the summer of 1916 after the capture of Schleisser's shark. Murphy and Lucas declared the great white to be the "Jersey man-eater".[35] Skeptical individuals, however, offered alternate hypotheses. In a letter to The New York Times, Barrett P. Smith of Sound Beach, New York wrote:

“ Having read with much interest the account of the fatality off Spring Lake, N.J., I should like to offer a suggestion somewhat at variance with the shark theory. In my opinion it is most unlikely that a shark was responsible, and I believe it much more likely that the attack was made by a sea turtle. I have spent much time at sea and along shore, and have several times seen turtles large enough to inflict just such wounds. These creatures are of a vicious disposition, and when annoyed are extremely dangerous to approach, and it is my idea that Bruder may have disturbed one while it was asleep on or close to the surface.[36] "

So you see, even after the event and after the attacks stopped, people still held onto their alternate theories because they couldn't accept that in this case just one shark could be responsible for all those attacks.
And that was less than a 3 metre shark.

doggie said...
I accept that this can happen but thats not whats happening along our coast.

And your evidence for this is,...?
Keeping in mind that you are betting peoples life on it.

pweedas said...

doggie said...
I accept that this can happen but thats not whats happening along our coast.

And your evidence for this is,...?
Keeping in mind that you are betting peoples life on it.

Just the shear amount of sightings inbetween the attacks and the fact they havnt been fished for over ten years there must be more than two. Btw Im not betting anything on it.

pweedas said...
So having not been fished for over 20 years they have now hit the critical mass and they have all turned man eaters?
Even though there are truckloads of seals out there just begging to be nibbled on?

If the attacks had built up slowly over this period I would would give this some consideration but they havent.
They went from an average close to zero to five in just one year.
That's far more consistent with one or two sharks turning feral.
It can and does happen with any animal, including man.

Far king hell did you even read my original post? I thought you did as you cut it up to suit ya self! Its not just the fact they have been hunted and the attacks have been happening for longer than 10 months. Plus the whale migration has a massive affect on the number of sharks in our waters.
Sharks also come from South Australia and South Africa, which ones are attacking us?

Sharks ?? Don't you watch the news?

Cull elephants.... that what I say.

I find that Shark on the menu doesn't sell well, even if called 'flake', better of with more politically correct seafood dishes like 'dolphin fish'.......

now before you start...it's another name for Mahi Mahi...yummmmmm

*The Shark nets (even with the odd Whale tangle, that normally get sorted) do a pretty good job here in Qld, we still have them but they dont often come in unless following a bait fish feeding frenzy...but then we dont have seals here either? ...no expert on Marine Science, but unless you want 90% of the Aust Population to become land lubbers and even more obese I dont think we can have great whites or any other species hanging around popular metro beaches....I know its their home/waters but the swimmers only want .00000001% of it protected.... dont think think their is a win/win on this one...someone(or more) is going to die each summer,, Noah or Swimmer/Surfer.
In Qld i know what the answer would be because the state is so much more dependant on toursim than WA...the Tourism dollars would win out everyday witht the argument...its just a bugger full stop..I wouldnt want to kill one, but I also wouldn't want my kids chomped by one either when we come of over for our WA holiday in Jan!....
*My water starts are sooooo much quicker in WA than QLD

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

Shark Shields
Let me work this out....

Sharks use the detection of electrical impulse to locate prey.... yes?
So we put a shark shield on, send out an electrical pulse/wave/whatever for ol mate sharky to come over to take a look, then get deterred by the electrical impulse. Nar that doesn't sound right....
Get him over by alerting him then thinking the same item will get him to bugger off
I don't fink so
PS Abalone diver thinks those who use these things, are not long on this earth

Take out the big ones, time will tell if the real culprit gets removed

I'm in two minds about this one, but to be honest I don't see how the argument "it's their element so we cannot cull them" can be consistent with what happens everywhere else.

Australia is (depending where you are) the natural element for redbacks, cockroaches, funnelwebs, black snakes, tiger snakes, taipans, crocs, disease-carrying bats and mossies, dingoes etc, etc.

If we cannot justify controlling the numbers of one type of animal (shark) in its native element then how can we justify controlling the numbers of other types of animals in their native elements? So doesn't that mean that if we cannot control sharks around city fringes or inside cities (ie up rivers etc), we cannot cull dingoes, snakes etc around city fringes and inside cities (ie in parks etc)?

If we are willing to control taipans in their native element in a seaside park in the city and stop packs of dingoes wandering suburbs, why should we not control sharks in their native element in the sea alongside that park?

I think the oldest site of human settlement is a seaside cave in Africa where people lived by collecting seashells etc and millions of people live in or on the water, so it's not as if we are a completely landbound species.

If that's the case, all councils should have warning signs on all popular swimming beaches across Perth saying "beware of sharks / enter at own risk". Problem solved but that will never happen. Why...because the beach is part of Australian culture.