Shark Cull

[bullus_hit]

They don't have the aesthetic virtues of some other species, and that's what many people base their opinions on. Indiscriminate dun-coloured beady-eyed buggers that they are...

Not sure whether you read the article I linked to earlier. Well written, albeit with a "green" bias. It quotes a local surfer on bull sharks (uttered no doubt with a French accent): "The sharks, they taste the men, and they learn to eat them." Such behaviour is not tolerated in any other species. Dogs that kill are put down; likewise lions, tigers, bears and others. The problem with sharks is that killers are difficult to trace. I don't have a problem with a few prospective maneaters being taken out of circulation to make the beaches safer, as long as the species' survival isn't being threatened.

Killing lions & tigers has also driven them to near extinction, there's about 3000 tigers left in the wild. Great Whites are also endangered, so why are they also on the hit list? As for taking out man-eaters, should we also rid ourselves of killer jellyfish, the blue ringed octopus, stone fish, manta rays and any other dangerous species that may cross our path? Should we ban swimming at beaches just because people frequently drown? A bit of perspective is needed here, 5 deaths a year is minute in the scheme of things.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Killing lions & tigers has also driven them to near extinction, there's about 3000 tigers left in the wild. Great Whites are also endangered, so why are they also on the hit list? As for taking out man-eaters, should we also rid ourselves of killer jellyfish, the blue ringed octopus, stone fish, manta rays and any other dangerous species that may cross our path? Should we ban swimming at beaches just because people frequently drown? A bit of perspective is needed here, 5 deaths a year is minute in the scheme of things.

Technically they're classed as "vulnerable", which is a step below endangered. Not sure they've trapped any whites in WA yet?

This is where it gets emotive. Few things stoke one's primitive fears like the violent imagery conjured by a shark attack. A spate of these highly traumatic events in one region causes panic. (Don't think manta rays are dangerous.)

 

[Rosy]

"All species have a survival technique, whether it's speed or size or coloration. Ours is intelligence. What's incredible in this story is that we're using intelligence to protect a species that is killing us."

I'd say there's a lack of intelligence in that quote. A big lack of common sense. We don't need to protect the sharks. What does he mean by protecting anyway? There's nothing to suggest those sharks being lured and culled would have killed people. There aren't that many shark attacks. There's not a lot of intelligence in knee jerk reactions. My "survival technique" would be to not swim in shark infested waters. Same as I wouldn't hike along our tiger snake infested creek in warmer months. Same as I wouldn't enter a known lion or tiger domain. Same as I wouldn't venture into lagoons renowned for crocodiles. I see no intelligence in luring and culling threatened and endangered, or any other kind, of species for just being in their own habitat. If they venture into our habitat and kill people it might be a different story. The next white pointer that enters my house can risk being shot. The next time I swim in the shark's territory I risk being it's dinner.

 

[tigergollywog]

Killing lions & tigers has also driven them to near extinction, there's about 3000 tigers left in the wild. Great Whites are also endangered, so why are they also on the hit list? As for taking out man-eaters, should we also rid ourselves of killer jellyfish, the blue ringed octopus, stone fish, manta rays and any other dangerous species that may cross our path? Should we ban swimming at beaches just because people frequently drown? A bit of perspective is needed here, 5 deaths a year is minute in the scheme of things.

interesting point .... they didnt have a stingray muster when stevey irwin copped a barb to the heart (and your to blame, you give stingrays, a bad name [echo] bad name).

I think its the act of being eaten, as opposed to killed, which tweeks something out in men (ever heard of a woman-eating shark/tiger?)

FWIW, I wouldnt mind being eaten by a shark. better than worms.

 

[tigergollywog]

The next white pointer that enters my house can risk being shot.

I reckon thats fair enough too

 

[AngryAnt]

"All species have a survival technique, whether it's speed or size or coloration. Ours is intelligence. What's incredible in this story is that we're using intelligence to protect a species that is killing us."

- Guy Gazzo

Heart of sharkness

Thanks Guy Gazzo, I didn't realise we are at risk of extinction due to shark attack. Tony should deploy the navy immediately to return all sharks back into international waters.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Thanks Guy Gazzo, I didn't realise we are at risk of extinction due to shark attack. Tony should deploy the navy immediately to return all sharks back into international waters.

Cynicism won't sway me if you can't see the problem.

 

[WesternTiger]

They don't have the aesthetic virtues of some other species, and that's what many people base their opinions on. Indiscriminate dun-coloured beady-eyed buggers that they are...

Not sure whether you read the article I linked to earlier. Well written, albeit with a "green" bias. It quotes a local surfer on bull sharks (uttered no doubt with a French accent): "The sharks, they taste the men, and they learn to eat them." Such behaviour is not tolerated in any other species. Dogs that kill are put down; likewise lions, tigers, bears and others. The problem with sharks is that killers are difficult to trace. I don't have a problem with a few prospective maneaters being taken out of circulation to make the beaches safer, as long as the species' survival isn't being threatened.

I suspect there is little evidence of repeated attacks on humans from great whites that have as the quote puts it acquired a "taste" for humans.

Great whites are also migratory unlike the species you have listed above and hence are not an ongoing issue at any one location for long or as dogs, large cats and bears do not kill because they are protecting their territory.

The other problem with "killing a few man eaters" is that the largest great whites are usually the fittest and hence are integral to the species recovery.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

I suspect there is little evidence of repeated attacks on humans from great whites that have as the quote puts it acquired a "taste" for humans.

Great whites are also migratory unlike the species you have listed above and hence are not an ongoing issue at any one location for long or as dogs, large cats and bears do not kill because they are protecting their territory.

The other problem with "killing a few man eaters" is that the largest great whites are usually the fittest and hence are integral to the species recovery.

Sharks can be territorial as well as migratory; it's the premise behind the nets protecting NSW beaches. If it was possible to net the WA coastline, I'm sure they'd do it.

Where are the protesters looking out for this lot?

 

[Tigers of Old]

It's an emotive subject. Jaws did sharks no favours.

Sure didn't.

 

[bullus_hit]

Technically they're classed as "vulnerable", which is a step below endangered. Not sure they've trapped any whites in WA yet?

This is where it gets emotive. Few things stoke one's primitive fears like the violent imagery conjured by a shark attack. A spate of these highly traumatic events in one region causes panic. (Don't think manta rays are dangerous.)

"A February 2010 study by Barbara Block of Stanford University estimated the world population of great white sharks to be lower than 3,500 individuals, making the species more vulnerable to extinction than the tiger, whose population is in the same range."

Vulnerable or endangered is hair splitting, numbers are dangerously low, allowing the culling of such animals is completely irrational.

Instead of baited drums maybe we could use the SA governments method and have a mid ocean concert away from populated beaches. :hihi

'In South Australia, playing rock music recordings underwater, including the AC/DC album Back in Black has also been used experimentally to attract sharks."

And yes, Manta Rays don't have a poisoned barb, unlike stingrays. Learn something new everyday.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Vulnerable or endangered is hair splitting, numbers are dangerously low, allowing the culling of such animals is completely irrational.

It's not exactly a plot to cleanse the oceans of vermin. It's a targeted cull, to protect the beaches from the handful of large problem sharks which venture close to shore. Imperfect, but I don't hear too many other solutions forthcoming. Perhaps some of you would like to visit an SA school tomorrow morning and explain to the kids why their teacher won't be back, but it's OK because nature's beautiful, he knew the risks and they'll have a nice new teacher by tomorrow.

Sharks are attracted to any commotion in the water, e.g. shipwrecks. Low frequency noise such as electric motors and AC/DC's rhythm section (apparently) will also do the job.

 

[bullus_hit]

It's not exactly a plot to cleanse the oceans of vermin. It's a targeted cull, to protect the beaches from the handful of large problem sharks which venture close to shore.

This isn't a case of targeting 'problem' sharks and taking them out, such a task is impossible unless they are tagged. Which leads me to my next point, wouldn't it be better to track these animals as opposed to randomly slaughtering those who are unlucky enough to get hooked? Your anecdote about the dead teacher is all good and well but as long as people are swimming in the ocean (and sharks remain in existence) there will be attacks. That is just the risk we take, just like the risks we take when we cross the road or drive a car. Decisions like this have all the hallmarks of a nanny state taking things one step too far. Perhaps the most infuriating thing is the government has refused to consult marine experts, none of whom believe this will prevent future attacks.

 

[Rosy]

.... It's a targeted cull, to protect the beaches from the handful of large problem sharks which venture close to shore. .....

What are you referring to as a cull? The Minister for Fisheries (now ex I think) said they are not culling over there. It's a targeted, localised shark mitigation strategy. :blah

....Sharks are attracted to any commotion in the water, e.g. shipwrecks....

They are also attracted to big chunks of meat on hooks. I wonder if they've done any research in regard to the possibility they might be attracting sharks which may well have not otherwise ventured in close to shore.

 

[WesternTiger]

It's not exactly a plot to cleanse the oceans of vermin. It's a targeted cull, to protect the beaches from the handful of large problem sharks which venture close to shore. Imperfect, but I don't hear too many other solutions forthcoming. Perhaps some of you would like to visit an SA school tomorrow morning and explain to the kids why their teacher won't be back, but it's OK because nature's beautiful, he knew the risks and they'll have a nice new teacher by tomorrow.

Sharks are attracted to any commotion in the water, e.g. shipwrecks. Low frequency noise such as electric motors and AC/DC's rhythm section (apparently) will also do the job.

Silly statement Lee.

Yes some species of shark are territorially but I was talking about great whites. Also netting beaches is to deter sharks from coming in close to shore. It has nothing to do with whether a shark is territorial or not. That also then leads to the issue with netting and the bicatch such as whales and the people who then have to put their lives at risk attempting to disentangle the entangled whales.

Happy to ignore my other points?

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Silly statement Lee.

Yes some species of shark are territorially but I was talking about great whites. Also netting beaches is to deter sharks from coming in close to shore. It has nothing to do with whether a shark is territorial or not. That also then leads to the issue with netting and the bicatch such as whales and the people who then have to put their lives at risk attempting to disentangle the entangled whales.

Happy to ignore my other points?

I read the territoriality stuff on a NSW Fisheries site, it may well have been propaganda. I'm prepared to accept that the primary purpose of netting is to kill large, dangerous sharks.

Do shark nets trap whales? Maybe, but I haven't seen any reports of it.

As for sharks developing a taste for humans - white sharks, probably not. Bull sharks, unsure.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

What are you referring to as a cull? The Minister for Fisheries (now ex I think) said they are not culling over there. It's a targeted, localised shark mitigation strategy. :blah

They are also attracted to big chunks of meat on hooks. I wonder if they've done any research in regard to the possibility they might be attracting sharks which may well have not otherwise ventured in close to shore.

Of course it's a cull. Had to expect the government to sugar-coat it.

Plenty of research contributed to the decision.

http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop108.pdf

 

[AngryAnt]

From that paper:

"Due to the environmental impacts of shark control activities, it is not recommended that either shark
nets of drum-lines be introduced into Western Australia."

Did you even read it L2R2R?

 

[WesternTiger]

I read the territoriality stuff on a NSW Fisheries site, it may well have been propaganda. I'm prepared to accept that the primary purpose of netting is to kill large, dangerous sharks.

Do shark nets trap whales? Maybe, but I haven't seen any reports of it.

As for sharks developing a taste for humans - white sharks, probably not. Bull sharks, unsure.

Just google humpback and shark net. First article http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/22/humpback-whale-calf-dies-in-shark-net-on-sydney-beach

I am also on the national disentangle network so get postings about it regularly.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Just google humpback and shark net. First article http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/22/humpback-whale-calf-dies-in-shark-net-on-sydney-beach

I am also on the national disentangle network so get postings about it regularly.

Fair enough. I've acknowledged that bycatch is a serious drawback to netting. The WA government took this into account when opting for drum lines instead (although one beach near Perth had nets installed in December).

Even so - and I acknowledge there are variables involved, such as improved emergency first aid treatment - the NSW shark attack figures appear to show the most dangerous sharks are being kept out.

Last decade: 82 reported attacks, 2 fatal
Decade before netting (1927-36): 45 attacks, 17 fatal

There's only been one death at Sydney's netted beaches in nearly 80 years. What price do you put on a human life?