shark cull- A breakdown

 I know its been done to death, and apologies if you've seen it already, but came across a good article that breaks down some of the facts about shark attacks and culling etc. 

http://qz.com/166072/western-australias-drumline-war-on-sharks-probably-wont-make-swimmers-any-safer/

No I haven't double checked all the facts or figures, or the background of the author. And yes it is anti-culling in general. But have a read, it is pretty balanced and fair. For me, it supports a few theories I (and probably many others) had, namely that the increase in shark attacks might be contributed to by a bunch of "one percenter" factors. E.g. increasing population, increased use of the water etc. Surfers are far and away the most likely bunch to be attacked. Bees and lightning kill more people each year. The ratio of drownings to shark attacks is about 306:1. 

Anyway have a read.


Posts: 2925

Date Joined: 27/12/06

not bad

Thu, 2014-01-16 15:46

not a bad article.  One thing that seems to be the downfall of most research is nobody has an accurate population number of large sharks to measre off for any research.  This is mostly due to the difficulty in tracking them.  A few years ago when I was more into my landbased fishing we all of a sudden started catching alot more sharks than we did previously especially but only observed this at metropolitan beaches including Wilbinga (close enough).  This possibly could have been due to demersal gillnetting being stopped between lancelin and mandurah but either way If sharks are in decline they certainly dont seem to be in Perth

wainy's picture

Posts: 21

Date Joined: 24/07/09

shark cull- A breakdown

Thu, 2014-01-16 15:55

Yep done to death

Forget the drum lines and nets

If there is one in close to follow it and kill it with whatever means available.

Give the SAS a mission,

 

____________________________________________________________________________

Cheers

Glen

timboon's picture

Posts: 2924

Date Joined: 14/11/10

Done to death but its been

Thu, 2014-01-16 18:19

Done to death but its been boring on here lately.... Where are you Scotto and co

Posts: 1522

Date Joined: 09/03/13

yeah were's Wal

Thu, 2014-01-16 19:07

yeah where's Wal

Posts: 2925

Date Joined: 27/12/06

Tender

Thu, 2014-01-16 20:45

 The Boys are rigging the drum lines getting ready for kick off lol

Saulty2's picture

Posts: 643

Date Joined: 28/05/10

done to death but i see ur still at it

Fri, 2014-01-17 07:08

they have the research but still refuse to let the general public know when and how often the receiver is activated by sharks ,because if they did then there would be a massive shift towards  culling , why is it do you think that everything is in the public interest except how many and how often  sharks activate the receiver & why is it that drum lines will not be deployed in wanbro , me thinks too controversial in greens heartland , either that or wanbro beach goers is not as valued as our northern and southern counterparts

 

wainy's picture

Posts: 21

Date Joined: 24/07/09

tagged sharks

Fri, 2014-01-17 08:03

I have heard there is a twitter account with the surf life saving which gets a message when a tagged shark is near the recievers,

i believe you can log on or do something to recieve these messages but i havn't tried to get on,

____________________________________________________________________________

Cheers

Glen

Mike17's picture

Posts: 323

Date Joined: 30/06/13

Here Too

Fri, 2014-01-24 14:20

www.facebook.com/pages/Perth-Metro-Shark-Alerts/1502866626604490

____________________________________________________________________________

 Use The Force

flexn's picture

Posts: 232

Date Joined: 19/03/12

All research seems to be

Fri, 2014-01-17 08:03

All research seems to be pretty general and broad with quite a lot of assumptions being made. 

When you look at the results shown on that page though it does seem like shark attack numbers increased after the protection of great whites in the 1990s.

Don't no why people are kicking up such a stink about killing some sharks, people kill animals and people all the time. Just all media hype.

axey45's picture

Posts: 1758

Date Joined: 26/11/13

 Just to get there ugly mug

Fri, 2014-01-17 09:24

 Just to get there ugly mug on tv n tryn to look like there doing something good when they probably dont know anything about whats going on, as someone said on ere sheep following sheep.

catch.fish's picture

Posts: 150

Date Joined: 12/10/11

Gwynn

Fri, 2014-01-17 09:20

Written by Gwynn Guilford, a journo from NYC who has lived in China the past 6 years writing articles on chinese economics and banking. While she did a decent job at showing general shark Stats and Odds that fit with her argument and provided some insight into nets vs drum lines she has absolutely no idea about whats actually happening in our local waters nor has she ever stepped foot in them. Her only experience with sharks comes from that big list of stats handed to her in order to write that article. She says the odds of being eaten by a shark are tiny but I'm willing to bet the odds of me as a keen surfer + diver living in the SW being eaten by a white shark and the odds of her as a journo in china being eaten by a white shark are fairly contrasting.

The major stat she was missing while writing the article (other than real life experience) are some stats on "near misses". Might be 7 fatalities in 3 years but I would bet my ass in that time theres likely been a huge increase in people who had very near misses that could have ended in fatility - circled and bumped off surfboards, kayaks bitten, people chased back onto the beach, about to dive off a boat and a great white turns up, already diving and getting circled and chased into the boat etc.

I think "Close Encounters" are the most important stat of all when looking at what the white shark populations doing in terms of safety for the general population and nobody has any real info on it. Over the past 10 years I would bet this figure has continued to climb steadily and really sky rocketed in the past 5 years or so. I think if we had actual figures to compare on close encounters back in the late 90's early 2k's vs recently it would be mind blowing. The debate over whether there are more white pointers today than 10+ years ago is no longer a debate, it's very clear that since protecting seals, whales and white sharks around the same time all 3 populations have recovered and are starting to boom again which is great (that was the goal, yeah?). 

So now what? Whats the end goal here with protection?  Do we continue to protect great whites while fishing for everything else in the ocean? Do we really want as many of them as we can get?

Great Whites are an apex predator - meaning outside of us the only thing really regulating population is the ability to breed along with having a big enough food source to support that population and with whales & seals protected and flourishing theres plenty of food around...

I think if you're going to muck with literally everything else in the food chain you should probably look at the apex predators as well or you're going to cause an imbalance and that is our greatest problem. We've gone from one extreme to the other... from the days of whaling and slaying them left right and center to a complete 180 and full protection for 15+ years.

So whats the answer? Another 15 years of protection while fishing for everything else in the ocean and see where that gets us? Or do we start killing them off randomly with drum lines having no real idea of exactly how many are out there? Both seem like bad ideas to me but the problem is there is no absolute correct answer or easy solution. We need to find a balance somehow and the only way that's ever going to happen is if we can find a reliable method for tracking / counting the population so that culling is methodical and science based not just random! 

My 2c.

Posts: 146

Date Joined: 25/09/08

catch.fish

Fri, 2014-01-17 11:44

This is about the most thought through entry I have read so far in this to( Cull or Not)debate.

I put my hand up,I am unreservidly for the control of any shark over the 3.5 mtr.be it a Tiger,Bull or worse of all Great White,as the damage they can do,by just mouthing a person can result in terrible injuries or death thhrough blood loss.I have seen just what occurs to a body after a big shark attacks.

I have been lucky to have dived in a few areas of the world.& I have been diving around WA since 1967.With exception to Mr B Bartlet in 1968 at GreenHead,sharks were not the formost of my or my friends thoughts.Cetainly,if we were down Albany/Augusta/Cape Naturalist,it was considerd a amall chaance of an encounter,but around Perth,with the exception of the Rotto west end.No,certainly not Tigers or GWs,& < I must admit,I had never heard of Bull sharks off the Perth Waters,certainly in Queeensland and Mozabiqe but alll we had were Bronzies,the odd Hammer head,very rarly a Tiger ,But all this has changed.now when I go for a dive,(not as offten as I did) I and my friends are very awere that we could encounter a GW,I have been 4.5 kilometers off Scarbough and been circled by a 4.00 mtr GW,I have dive friends that have also had near encounters with them off Perth.

We see the tragic listings of people that have been attacked,but what of those who have just disappeard.I remember an old chap whos small ali boat was found drifting off Burns/Mindarrie about 6/7 years ago,no sing of him was ever found.more recently the young manb who went swimming at Yanchep Lagoon.his body has never been found.and that was close to shore and a human body will float once the gasses inside expand.there are others that maybe some can explain but I know the tackec of GWs and big Tigers is to bang into the bottom of objects they come accross.If you happen to be standing ,it is quite possible to fall in .and drown?

Years ago divers used to Illeagly carry smokies.and never used them,unlike in the East were some morones used them to kill Grey Nurse sharks who are not a real thret in my view.so if the fringe shark huggers win and the Goverment stops the Control mearsurs can we then as for a licence to purchase smokies for our personal protection.But the the surfers are at just as big a risk,they must also be considerd in this.Personaly I believe one human life is far more valuably than that of a creature,(shark) diver

 

Paul H's picture

Posts: 2104

Date Joined: 18/01/07

I don't know there is too

Sat, 2014-01-18 07:09

I don't know there is too much real evidence that GW numbers have skyrocketed - as far as we know they do not breed/grow that fast. I also don't know a cull is the solution - don't get me wrong I'm all for any shark posing a real threat being taken out but if you look at the whole picture a few things don't add up with the 'GW number's increasing being the problem. Increase in encounters (reported) could also be due to increase in water users combined with an increase in reporting of encounters in the media from the fact everyman and dog seems to have some type of camera (smartphones etc) at hand nowadays

We know GW travel great distances - so why is the problem seemingly localised in the general Perth area and not occurring (as an increased number of attacks) in óther areas such as SA (we certainly have our fair share of GW's).

The only comment on here that I have read that seems to be a explanation has been from Cransy who suggested a single or possibly two sharks being responsible for the attacks through learnt behaviour. If this is so you can cull as many as you like but unless you get the right one/two the cull is not going to achieve anything as far as increasing safety for water users.

my two cents anyway

____________________________________________________________________________

Youtube Channel  -  FishOnLine Productions

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbUVNa-ViyGm_FTDSv4Nqzg/videos

Posts: 198

Date Joined: 08/09/11

defnetly see more sharks now

Sat, 2014-01-18 08:18

Been diving since the 70's, until the mid to late nineties, never saw or thought of a shark, so rare to even hear of a sighting. Since then I had 4 close calls, and several scares on legs and one hand. I have done myself, and know of numerous times when dives were aborted due to large sharks turning up. The Bremer swimming lessons had to be cancelled from john cove, and swapped to fisheries beach due to sharks last year. Talking to the professional fishermen, they used to catch and keep/kill many sharks each month during the fishing season, but now have to release most of them, so that would mean more sharks left in the sea for the last 18 years.
just my observation. Marrisy.

Paul H's picture

Posts: 2104

Date Joined: 18/01/07

I hear you but even if there

Sat, 2014-01-18 08:33

I hear you but even if there was a spike in numbers why is the spike/increase in attacks localised to Perth. If numbers was the sole cause surely we'd be having the same problem in metro Adelaide but were not.

Whilst they travel long distances I'd suspect it possible the responsible shark/s may be travelling across the bight into SA (say to Pt Lincoln) but not coming up the gulf to metro Adelaide and encountering large numbers of water users. We have at least 5 regular GW off metro Adelaide but little change to the number of attacks - why

Another factor could be whilst we also have a seal number spike in SA its not really around Adelaide itself (apart from the odd one here and there). Most of our increase in seal numbers are in more country areas so we don't have numbers of water users mixing in the same areas as the seals. Not sure but have heard some comments in relation to seals so is seals numbers around Perth being nearby swimmers etc a factor???

____________________________________________________________________________

Youtube Channel  -  FishOnLine Productions

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbUVNa-ViyGm_FTDSv4Nqzg/videos

Posts: 2946

Date Joined: 03/03/10

not just in the sw

Fri, 2014-01-24 19:17

the noahs big tigers and big reefys that look like they have been on steroids are in plague proportions in the north west

Posts: 1084

Date Joined: 21/05/12

Diver-- smokies can be

Sat, 2014-01-18 17:53

Diver-- smokies can be licensed as a firearm by coppers

i think its a cat E (could be f) licence

there is a design requirement that they must be able to only be fired while in the water

 

Posts: 5738

Date Joined: 18/01/12

Im not sure if that's

Sun, 2014-01-19 09:40

Im not sure if that's correct, as far as Im aware the minimum barrel length for any firearm in Australia is 100mm, and a 100mm barrel would cause the barrel to split/explode due to the water in it?
Then you also need either a property or club endorsement to licence a firearm unless your a collector?

____________________________________________________________________________

 Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...

 

 

The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.

Everyone's just winging it.

 

Posts: 2946

Date Joined: 03/03/10

rob

Fri, 2014-01-24 19:21

your right mate I got pinched years back when I had a commercially made smokie onboard

Lastchance's picture

Posts: 1272

Date Joined: 02/02/09

Blah Blah Blah. Allow IGFA

Sat, 2014-01-18 18:30

Blah Blah Blah. Allow IGFA fisherfolk to tag and release them and they will associate water craft, bait and berley with pain and trauma. If you aren't a member of an IGFA affiliated club, then join. Buy the gear and quit bitching. Stop fuelling the green fire. Get over the fact that these things eat humans.
That's what I reckon anyway.

Posts: 42

Date Joined: 02/09/12

Some facts

Sat, 2014-01-18 23:04

 In regards to close encounters there are some stats. Professional abalone divers recorded 31 significant encounters with great whites last year in wa waters. Way higher than any other year. As for growth rates, a white shark pup was tagged off Japan last decade  and recaptured 8 years later. In the 8 years it had grown to 4.5 m in length. Great hites reach sexual maturity prior to 4m in length so do the math on all the years of protection thy have had and figure out how many more there are. Ab divers spend more time in the water than anyone else on our coast so their figures should be statistically sound. 

Posts: 42

Date Joined: 02/09/12

Some facts

Sat, 2014-01-18 23:05

 In regards to close encounters there are some stats. Professional abalone divers recorded 31 significant encounters with great whites last year in wa waters. Way higher than any other year. As for growth rates, a white shark pup was tagged off Japan last decade  and recaptured 8 years later. In the 8 years it had grown to 4.5 m in length. Great hites reach sexual maturity prior to 4m in length so do the math on all the years of protection thy have had and figure out how many more there are. Ab divers spend more time in the water than anyone else on our coast so their figures should be statistically sound. 

Posts: 106

Date Joined: 15/01/12

Any chance you could provide

Sun, 2014-01-19 00:34

Any chance you could provide some sources for these stats? They sound quite interesting and would be a good read for those interested in the topic

Thanks

____________________________________________________________________________

- Brett

Posts: 42

Date Joined: 02/09/12

Sources

Sun, 2014-01-19 16:31

 Mike roenfeld wrote an article on the growth rates of white sharks and cited scientific sources. Unfortunately I can't remember the article off the top of my head but it wouldn't be too difficult to track down. 

The wa abalone industry association have tracked 'significant encounters' by professional abalone divers aand in a submission to the Barnett government on the issue of white sharks cited the number for the past season as 33 not 31 as I previously stated. 

Hope that helps. 

Posts: 13

Date Joined: 02/12/13

This the problem, so little

Sun, 2014-01-19 19:57

This the problem, so little is known about the life cycle of Great Whites. Facts seem to be a rare commodity in this debate. "Just kill 'em all", may not be an appropriate reaction to what is such an awesome creature.

Life Cycle

At birth, Great White Sharks are 120–150 cm total length (TL). Lengths and estimated ages at maturity are 4.5–5.0 m and 12–17 years for females and 3.6–3.8 m and 7–9 years for males. Females reach larger sizes than males. The maximum length for females is estimated to be at least 6.0 m and longevity estimates range up to 60 years, although the latter is unverified and estimates of 40–50 years may be more reasonable (Bruce 2008).
Reproduction in Great White Sharks is poorly documented, largely because there have been few opportunities to study pregnant females (Francis 1996). In one of the more systematic examinations made, Francis (1996) undertook a detailed examination of a female shark and her aborted embryos caught at North Cape, New Zealand in the early 1990s. Francis (1996) confirmed that the reproductive mode is aplacental viviparity with embryos being nourished by oophagy - that is, embryos grow within the mother, feeding on unfertilised eggs, growing to perhaps lengths of 120–150 cm and weights of between 12 and 32 kg (Francis 1996). The gestation period may be up to 18 months with a three year reproductive cycle. Reported litter sizes range from 2 to 17 (Bruce 1992; Francis 1996; Uchida et al. 1996) with an embryonic sex ratio of 1:1 (Bruce 2008). Parturition is believed to occur in spring through to summer, based on the capture of neonates and postpartum adults (Francis 1996; Uchida et al.1996), and parturition probably occurs in many, mostly temperate, locations worldwide (Francis 1996).

Female length at maturity is about 4.5–5 m while, for males, it is likely to be around 3.5 m (Pratt 1996). Male maturity is best determined by the condition of the claspers, used to transfer sperm to to female (Prat 1996). In Pratt's study of 38 male sharks, the largest immature male was 317.5 cm TL and the smallest mature male was 379 cm TL.

Great White Sharks are naturally low in abundance, have low reproductive potential, and are believed to have low natural mortality (Bruce 2008).

Excerpt from http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=64470#life_cycle

 

Reproduction  

Almost nothing is known about reproduction in great whites. Some evidence points to the near-soporific effect of a large feast (such as a whale carcass) possibly inducing mating.[50] Great white sharks also reach sexual maturity at around 15 years of age.[51] Maximum life span was originally believed to be more than 30 years, but in a study by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, the true lifespan of the great white shark was revealed to be up to 70 years or more with examinations of growth ring count in vertebrae including ages of 73 years old in the oldest male and 40 years old in the oldest female in the study, making the species far more vulnerable to pressures such as overfishing and environmental change. [52] (see references).

Little is known about the great white shark's behavior in the way of mating habits. Birth has never been observed, but pregnant females have been examined. Great white sharks are ovoviviparous, which means eggs develop and hatch in the uterus and continue to develop until birth.[53] The great white has an 11-month gestation period. The shark pup's powerful jaws begin to develop in the first month. The unborn sharks participate in oophagy, in which they feed on ova produced by the mother. Delivery is in spring and summer.[54] The Northern Pacific population of great whites is suspected to breed off of the Sea of Cortez (as was revealed in the Shark Week episode "Spawn of Jaws"), as evidenced by local fisherman who have said to have caught them and evidenced by teeth found at dump sites for discarded parts from their catches. If the Sea of Cortez is such a breeding ground, it is imperative that the area's laws be better enforced to ensure the survival of the breeding population.

Excerpt from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_white_shark

 

Very little is known about the reproductive cycle of the great white shark. Development is ovoviviparous. The smallest known free swimming white shark measured 1.1 m and weighed about 16 kg.

Conservation Status & Comments

Although great whites, Carcharodon carcharias, have little commercial value, fishing for these sharks became a popular sport with big game fish anglers. The fearsome reputation of the great white has given it almost legendary status as an apex predator and they are often killed by humans for sport and for their jaws, teeth and fins.

Great whites are very curious and most so-called “attacks” appear to be motivated by curiosity rather than a desire to feed and most attacks on humans are not fatal. Ironically, the great white is far more threatened by humans than we are of them.

Great white sharks, Carcharodon carcharias, are now listed as Vulnerable (VU A2cd+3cd) on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species due to:

"Despite the high profile media attention the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) receives, relatively little is known about its biology. It appears to be fairly uncommon compared to other widely distributed species, being most frequently reported from South Africa, Australia, California and the northeast United States. World catches of Great White Sharks from all causes are difficult to estimate, though it is known to have a relatively low intrinsic rebound potential (Smith et al. 1998). Threats to the species include targeted commercial and sports fisheries for jaws, fins, game records and for aquarium display; protective beach meshing; media-fanned campaigns to kill Great White Sharks after a biting incident occurs; and degradation of inshore habitats used as pupping and nursery grounds."

VULNERABLE (VU)
A taxon is Vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Vulnerable (see Section V), and it is therefore considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild. 

Because of the importance of this species as a key predator in marine ecosystems, the great white was granted protected status in 1991 in South Africa and in 1994 in California and Australia and is listed on CITES Appendix II. Great white sharks are also an important species for marine ecotourism, observed by divers from the safety of cages in South Africa, southern Australia and Isla Guadalupe, Mexico.

Excerpt From: www.marinbio.org

 

 

 

 

 

Posts: 918

Date Joined: 06/03/09

kudos to those that read the

Sun, 2014-01-19 22:42

kudos to those that read the article. If anyone didn't and commented anyway, then they are a twat.

The government has to 'do something', so here we are. I wouldn't want to be in their position to be honest. Some good points raised though, like why does it seem to be only WA that has seen such an apparent increase in attacks? Mostly it seems like we know F*** all about them. I hope any that are caught are atleast kept for science.

I don't think it's really been thought through enough. If saving lives is the target, there are more things that could be done. The majority of attacks seem to be surfers, and I'm sure most of them know the risks, but some kind of educational campaign would be good to see, the same way we teach kids about rips etc. Avoiding high risk times e.g. early morning and late afternoon (if that is the case) should be taught. I also think it has the potential to give people a false sense of security and therefore expose themselves to greater risk, if thats possible. And what if we deploy them, and someone still gets attacked? Do we put more out? What if we catch hardly any for a long time, at what point does the government decide to stop funding it? What if we catch way more than expected, do we just keep killing them?

I haven't looked further than Google but if anyone has seen some kind of official policy that answers any of these questions then let us know.

 

carnarvonite's picture

Posts: 8622

Date Joined: 24/07/07

One or two

Mon, 2014-01-20 07:18

As I've said before, I believe its one or maybe two sharks that are responsible, they have found an easy way to get a quick feed and being nomadic are always on the move so nearly impossible to track or catch.

Unless they get the right one then a whole lot of other big sharks, not just white pointers are going to be killed because the Ëmperor" says he must do something to be seen to be protecting the plebs in the street. A big knee jerk reaction.

Another question, why is it only metro and Geographe bay to Margaret river areas going to be baited with set lines? Just maybe the Premier lives in Cottesloe and his treasurer lives in Busso. Don't worry about those beach goers in Mandurah, Bunbury, Gero or even Red Bluff and Wedge Island where attacks have taken place.

Lastchance's picture

Posts: 1272

Date Joined: 02/02/09

Excellent statement. Spot on

Fri, 2014-01-24 14:09

Excellent statement. Spot on I Reckon.

Posts: 135

Date Joined: 11/04/10

 Was down south for a few

Mon, 2014-01-20 07:37

 Was down south for a few days last week, aside from the twitter sightings slswa.

Thursday arvo a 3.5m white buzzed the line up at Rocky Point.

Saturday a seal was taken meters away from surfers in the water at Windmills.

Sunday I saw a 3-4m White in shallow water at the mouth of Toby's.

I've been surfing and fishing down there for thirty years and this shit never used to happen with such regularity. There are more of them and there will be more deaths. Time to thin them out.

wainy's picture

Posts: 21

Date Joined: 24/07/09

Just do it

Mon, 2014-01-20 09:07

Dont care

how long it takes to grow,

how long to breed,

where they breed, 

how they breed, 

how far they travel,

how fast they travel,

how many travel,

how many seals,

how many whales,

how many fish,

how many divers

how many surfers

how many swimmers

They are eating us, one death is too much, if they are around any beaches where people are they need to be removed, that means killed, not just ushered away to the next beach.

____________________________________________________________________________

Cheers

Glen

catch.fish's picture

Posts: 150

Date Joined: 12/10/11

LOL

Fri, 2014-01-24 15:39

Just LOL @ this:

"We, the undersigned, urge you to use your legislative power to ensure ongoing protection of white sharks in both Commonwealth and state waters, including Western Australia, so that no sharks can be killed proactively. We are asking for this based on the following facts
 
The increase of shark attacks (including those by white sharks) over the last century, are related to human behaviour and not an increase in shark numbers."
 
 
Seriously, since when is that a "fact"? What a joke!
 
The general population who have never seen a shark, spend no time in the water offshore and who's only shark experience comes from having watched shark week one time on foxtel are really not the best equiped people to be deciding whether or not culling is required. I mean seriously how much research has average joe done before coming to such a strong conclusion one way or the other? My guess is very little to none. 
 
The decision needs to be discussed and made by fisheries scientists and marine biologists as it has been. The guys who have been on ground zero the last 15 years studying closely and keeping an eye on our coastlines health - not joe public making the call from his arm chair after doing zero research. If marine biologists / fisheries truely believed this organized cull was going to endanger the white shark population they would not be allowing the govt to do it - moreso they would not be carrying out the contract themselves!
 
We've had to cull Koalas in certain areas to stop imbalances and keep the population in check - if that was cast out to a public vote what do you think the vote would be in favour of? Go ask joe public in the street if we should Save or kill the koalas? People would immediately make an emotional call to heavily jump on the Save the Koalas bandwagon regardless of whether or not its a real issue that needs to be dealt with.
 
carnarvonite's picture

Posts: 8622

Date Joined: 24/07/07

Fisheries

Fri, 2014-01-24 16:06

Dept of Fisheries didn't have anything to do with the cull decision, it came from Barnett and cronies. they are stuck with agreeing to it or find another job.

Word has it the fisheries boat crews are not at all happy about having to do his dirty work now that pro fishermen have pulled out

Lastchance's picture

Posts: 1272

Date Joined: 02/02/09

And they wouldn't be happy.

Fri, 2014-01-24 16:15

And they wouldn't be happy. Not a Fisheries bashing, but I doubt any of them could handle a large shark. Actually, I doubt most fishermen could handle a large shark on the wire. Its all technique or goodbye hands.

catch.fish's picture

Posts: 150

Date Joined: 12/10/11

Fair point

Fri, 2014-01-24 19:43

That is a good point Carnarvonite and if true I'm dissapointed but not overly surprised he didnt consult marine professionals - you would think that would be step #1! 

My basic point still stands though and that is a decision like this really should not be decided by the general public and the general opinion of bleeding hearts / arm chair warriors with no experience or research in the field at all. It needs to be undertaken and monitored closely from a scientific stand point not an emotional one and while fisheries / marine biologists did not make the call to cull you can bet they will be closely watching and keeping an eye on the effects of the drum lines. If people don't believe the white shark population has rebounded with 15 years of protection including protecting seals and whales which have rebounded in the same time frame then they need to talk to some ab divers down south cause those are the guys in the water day in day out. They have a better idea than anyone imo of the increase / decrease in white shark activity and from what I hear its a substantial increase in encounters. The idea is to thin the numbers not to wipe them off the planet and as long as thats what they are doing under the eye of fisheries I can live with that. 

I just don't think its smart to muck with almost the entire food chain yet exempt certain animals because the general public finds them majestic, cute or interesting. Black Bream live as long or even longer than White Sharks and are a very important part of the food chain yet they are taken illegally regularly - just this week I saw a report of someone caught with 30 odd of them ranging from 30-40+cm. Thats hundreds and hundreds of years of life wiped out for a measly feed and while it makes you or me sick to our stomachs it barely makes news and theres no protests or people tying themselves to jettys screaming save the bream! Why? Probably cause they don't have Bream Week on TV and your average joe doesn't have the same emotional attachment to bream that they do to white sharks because of TV & media.

I'm torn on this debate and find myself with a foot in both camps cause I don't like the idea of culling without full knowledge of breeding grounds / population numbers / migration patterns etc but as someone who spends a lot of time IN the water around the capes I also dont like the idea of complete protection of an Apex predator for another 15 years with nothing to regulate population while we smash everything else in the ocean... do we really want as many big white sharks as we can possibly breed off our coast? How do we find a balance and where do we draw the line? I just think its something best left to people who study and specialize in that field and it really grinds on my nerves that often the loudest opinions on this topic are coming from the most uneducated & least effected (referring to the media & joe public in general not FW members - most people here seem pretty level headed on the topic!).

 

Posts: 1755

Date Joined: 02/01/10

Also, in one paragraph they

Fri, 2014-01-24 16:08

Also, in one paragraph they say "White sharks migrate across oceans blah blah blah"

Next paragraph says "WA's White sharks are unique and dont genetically mix blah blah?"

 

southcity104's picture

Posts: 1659

Date Joined: 27/01/09

Boat was loaded today

Fri, 2014-01-24 14:47

 looked like they even had a esscort. 

____________________________________________________________________________

"Its a life style job"

Posts: 544

Date Joined: 10/03/11

Just Seen a Report.

Fri, 2014-01-24 15:15

in brazil they capture the sharks and transport them well offshore before letting them go. the sharks are tagged and measured and there's been a 97% reduction in attacks. That has got to be better than Barnett and Buswell's solution and something people can live with.

Pitty's picture

Posts: 161

Date Joined: 08/12/12

 I heard the same thing on

Fri, 2014-01-24 16:16

 I heard the same thing on 882 today, when they were interviewing a marine scientist, and generally I have been in favour of thinning there numbers.

that being said if they can catch them, tag them with a GPS tracker, then that would surely keep both sides of the debate happy, whilst continuing to learn more about the species.

____________________________________________________________________________

 UBIQUE

Mike17's picture

Posts: 323

Date Joined: 30/06/13

Yeah Right

Fri, 2014-01-24 16:24

In 2005 a great white was tracked in South Africa and the 90 days later it was picked up in Australia a distance of 6900 miles.

So it averaged 69 miles per day!!!

So i'm curious how far you'd like these gentle creatures taken out before they're released cause inless your prepared to go out around 3000 miles it could be back in bit over a month.

 

Be a shame if it didn't survive the trip out.

____________________________________________________________________________

 Use The Force

Posts: 544

Date Joined: 10/03/11

Unless You Do It maximracer

Fri, 2014-01-24 16:56

Your question maximracer is purely hypothetical because unless you tag them and track them who knows where they'll end up but at least we'll learn something about their habits.

carnarvonite's picture

Posts: 8622

Date Joined: 24/07/07

Offer

Fri, 2014-01-24 22:05

Wasn't that long ago that the mob on Shark Men offered their services [at a price] to come out here and tag white pointer with satellite trackers and was turned down by the powers that be and a few months later the same powers that be announce a cull ----they must have read a book of fairy tales or something to become instant experts overnight.

Now its probably going to cost more than the catch and tag proposal to carry out the cull, something the general public will no doubt never find out.

sarcasm0's picture

Posts: 1396

Date Joined: 25/06/09

Ocearch/shark men

Sat, 2014-01-25 13:48

http://www.whitesharkvideo.com/4/post/2013/08/research-tagging-and-conservation-whats-the-difference.html

This website has some interesting comments about the way Ocearch do research.  I reckon the government has had a look and decided that they didnt want to be associated with them. There is the case of Ocearch being granted access to Kogel Bay in SA and within days of them tagging sharks an attack took place. 

http://sharkyear.com/2012/city-of-cape-town-releases-report-on-fatal-shark-attack-at-kogel-bay.html

 

 

Posts: 213

Date Joined: 23/04/12

100% agree with u

Wed, 2014-01-29 13:25

100% agree with u carnarvonite, the state govt turned down the offer because they said that it put the safety of the shark at risk and now they decide to cull, im so confused. If they let them tag them at least we would know where these sharks are.

Posts: 13

Date Joined: 02/12/13

OK so Colin gets his 72

Sat, 2014-01-25 12:15

OK so Colin gets his 72 freshly replenished burley cages out there every day and we kill 10, 100, 1000 or 10000 GWS.

Then the next day our GW rolls in from his big swim from South Africa and eats someone.

Can someone please tell me how many sharks you believe need to be killed and over what time frame before you're going to feel 'safe' again?

 

 

 

Willlo's picture

Posts: 1490

Date Joined: 07/10/11

Until there is the same

Wed, 2014-01-29 20:25

Until there is the same amount around that there was 20 - 30 yrs ago will do,same with the crocs up north.Wish the tree huggers would get a life and and winge about something else what is done is done get over it,we had to when they put all these so called marine sanctuaries in .Which in my opinion is partly to blame for the large amount of sharks around  at the moment

____________________________________________________________________________

 Call Sign - BZ785

Haynes Hunter Prowler CC

 

Posts: 918

Date Joined: 06/03/09

 Derp

Thu, 2014-01-30 13:50

 Derp

thefishwrangler's picture

Posts: 83

Date Joined: 28/01/14

 staying out of this one:)

Thu, 2014-01-30 17:47

 staying out of this one:)