Shark cull to go ahead.
Submitted by grayzeee on Thu, 2012-09-27 10:05
Government have just put up 2 million for fisheries to catch and kill any shark caught too close to shore .
____________________________________________________________________________
If I spent half as long fishing , as I do reading this bloody forum , I'd be twice the fisherman I am.
scubafish
Posts: 962
Date Joined: 15/08/12
YIPPY !
A 5 mtr Great White and a 5 mtr scubafish ,dont like the odds was getting to the stage where i thought "I need a bigger boat ".Did a night dive in the river once Buddy felt something brush up against him (Blackwall reach ), came out of the water walking on the top and as white as a sheet .Had a bit of a break from night dives.
http://img.gg/BQ91Sys
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
Don't Agree.
I don't agree with a cull so everytime I see a shark from now on I'll keep it as my little secret.
hooty
Posts: 198
Date Joined: 25/05/10
Good for you Howard, Ill be
Good for you Howard, Ill be having a beer for everyone they nail, and I wont be keping it a secret.
rocket73
Posts: 37
Date Joined: 07/09/11
Agreed Hooty
Its ok Howard.....I will have a beer for every tear you shed as well!
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
Just The Logistics of getting a Kill.
I've done a lot of shooting in my life time, some professionally and most of it against ferral animals and to set the records straight I'm not the type of person that sheds a tear to easily so Hooty and rocket ,if you're relying on my tears for a drink you're in for dry old time but I know damn well as a lot of other people will know that if you can get close enough to get a kill you're probably close enough to get a tracking device attached to the shark and I thought that was the idea behind this whole shark response unit that was setup. To me it's a good opportunity lost. It seems to me a lot of decisions are now being made on the run that could have dire consquences in the future.
Gaffatron
Posts: 355
Date Joined: 07/07/11
no one likes a smart ass
no one likes a smart ass rocket73
tim-o
Posts: 4657
Date Joined: 24/05/11
Haha thatl stir up some shit,
Haha thatl stir up some shit, would that mean gw are no longer protected?
I am, as I've said, merely competent. But in an age of incompetence, that makes me extraordinary.
grayzeee
Posts: 2283
Date Joined: 09/07/09
I guess the ones near the
I guess the ones near the beach aren't.
If I spent half as long fishing , as I do reading this bloody forum , I'd be twice the fisherman I am.
scubafish
Posts: 962
Date Joined: 15/08/12
ONLY KIDDING !
Gov quick to drop speed limits and put in speed cameras when death on road but slow to tag a shark for killing somone.Radio tag all large sharks so we know where they are .
http://img.gg/BQ91Sys
southcity104
Posts: 1659
Date Joined: 27/01/09
2 mill
Easy money!!!
"Its a life style job"
Jim
Posts: 1336
Date Joined: 05/05/06
Cool. I always thought they
Cool. I always thought they didnt want to tag the sharks because the real evidence would scare the shit out of the public and be bad for tourism. Now they can still study the shark and form a good base to start from (as well as easin the tension out there). So should we hear about one being taken out in the next few days?
Gonna search the net now to check it out
Bend over
grayzeee
Posts: 2283
Date Joined: 09/07/09
http://www.perthnow.com.au/ne
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/shark-menace-licence-to-kill-sharks-close-to-swim-beaches/story-e6frg13u-1226482550787
If I spent half as long fishing , as I do reading this bloody forum , I'd be twice the fisherman I am.
Jim
Posts: 1336
Date Joined: 05/05/06
Cheers for that grayzee
Cheers for that grayzee
Bend over
dale 308
Posts: 156
Date Joined: 06/04/12
2 mill to go shark fishing
2 mill to go shark fishing where do I sign but that's cull is not the answer
Mick
Posts: 501
Date Joined: 28/08/06
I can just see it. GW attack
I can just see it. GW attack drones. Air to surface missiles. Yeeewwwww. What a fucking crock!!!!
If the lord did not mean for us to eat fish and game, he wouldn't have made them outta meat
The speed of light is faster than the speed of sound. That's why so many people appear bright...until they speak.
rocket73
Posts: 37
Date Joined: 07/09/11
www.perthnow.com.au/news/wes
www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/shark-menace-licence-to-kill-sharks-close-to-swim-beaches/story-e6frg13u-1226482550787
Its a start!
Would like to know if GW's are really endangered here? If not, why should they be protected?
I reckon the tags should be armed with something that can make them piss - they come in to close it is activated! Bit like an electric fence. If it is Satelite based then people could have panic buttons like an Epirb that could make anything within 500m piss if activated.
Buz
Posts: 1555
Date Joined: 28/08/07
I wonder if that would
I wonder if that would include the GW's munching on Snapper in the sound at the moment as "being to close to shore"?
rockoe_
Posts: 140
Date Joined: 02/09/10
What a load of shit that is.
What a load of shit that is. I'm no tree hugger but this is a fucking joke. Shooting sharks that come To close to shore. What's next you will all want live export banned as well?this state is a joke the way it goes around trying to fix our problems. How about grow a pair and if your to much of a softy don't go in the ocean here plenty of dams around perth with no sharks in them
championruby
Posts: 459
Date Joined: 20/01/11
The pre-emptive kill is a
The pre-emptive kill is a load of bollocks IMO, they will end up having to lie to the public or shoot most of the sharks they tag as many seem to swim by metro beaches every now and then.
Fair enough if it has killed someone and they can ID it, but just politics in play for me.
sea-kem
Posts: 15031
Date Joined: 30/11/09
Not exactly a cull. I
Not exactly a cull. I thought a cull was when there was a quota allocated to be destroyed? This a safety measure and will do sod all as a safety aspect.
Love the West!
Snags
Posts: 558
Date Joined: 07/05/09
I dont agree with culling
I dont agree with culling sharks because we dont go and kill motorists (and murderers for that matter) who kill people.
Until we are prepared to kill all living animals which take human life, what gives us any right to kill sharks? Furthermore, they are acting on instinct/human nature and dont know any better.
Hell, if we're gonna cull sharks, lets block out the sun while we're at it... the sun kills people too!
buschy
Posts: 626
Date Joined: 27/11/09
Culling
I'm all for humane disposal of sharks that are known man-eaters. But this is jumping the gun.
How about tracking them and actually knowing something about the extent of the problem first. For all we know there could be 150 of these fella's swimming around within 5k of shore right now....but only one of them has preyed on human flesh....get some data before you make decisions Government!
Now there is a license to kill any GW that strays within a certain boundary....but we have no idea if that particular shark is a threat. It's really quite pathetic.
scotto
Posts: 2472
Date Joined: 21/04/08
so,
would you like a small child having a casual swim at CY Oconnor beach to get smashed in half by ol whitey, whilst waiting for the government to "get some data"?
are you also saying a 5m white isnt a man eater, or a threat?
Buz
Posts: 1555
Date Joined: 28/08/07
Love the whole "somebody
Love the whole "somebody think of the children' attitude that people try to use to evoke more emotion/response. What difference does it make if its an Adult, a Child, a Senior, a Local, a Tourist etc.
If someone is killed by a shark, they are killed, which to me is a cause for great concern regardless of age, race, nationality or whatever else people are catagorised as.
BTW not saying i am against this pre-emptive shooting at all, but then again i not saying i am for it either.
buschy
Posts: 626
Date Joined: 27/11/09
5m white
The easy answer - a 5m white MAY be a threat and MAY be a maneater. I don't know. I wouldn't kill it as a risk mitigation exercise, just for the sake of it's size and 'perceived' risk. I'm not saying we shouldn't cull such a beast, but the decision to do so needs to be made under very controlled guidelines.
The small child having a swim at CY O'Connor (quite possibly my little one, with me and the dog) is at virtually no risk of getting smashed in half by ol whitey. That's just a misconception that's been bred by media sensationalism and our individual natural response to sharks.....Jaws has a lot to answer for.
Since 1971, there have been 216 fatal shark attacks in Australia. That's a little over 5 fatalies a year, nationwide, on average. Around double this die from Bee Stings in Australia....maybe we should start culling bees too....
Of note, over the last 15 years or so, the average has been around 2 fatal attacks per year. That's why the 5 WA fatalities this year seems so alarming....but it is still on par with history. Would it perhaps be more prudent to actually ask why we are seeing more attacks, analyse where they are happening and make decisions based on this data?
Looking at the 5 attacks in WA -
Wedge Island - surfer, 200m offshore
Busselton - diver
Cottesloe - swimmer, last seen 400m from shore!
Rottnest - diver
Dunsborough - surfer
All of these attacks occurred offshore, and while I don't have time to go digging I think more data will empirically prove that the risk of a GW attack is minimal or non-existent for most swimmers (most of us remain close to shore). If you are dumb enough to swim out 400m, then surely you have to accept the risk that comes with that.
The media has a lot to answer for. They have a large chunk of the population believing that jaws is going to jump out of knee deep water and drag you back out to the depths.....
spanishmackeral
Posts: 940
Date Joined: 05/01/11
Firstly i disagree to culling
Firstly i disagree to culling sharks 100%
Was the death at cottesloe ever proved to be a shark attack? To me it would sound more likely that the swimmer got a cramp and couldn't keep themselves afloat.
scotto
Posts: 2472
Date Joined: 21/04/08
Nope it was a shark
They found his budgie smugglers with bite marks "that was consistant to that of a gw about 3.5m"
spanishmackeral
Posts: 940
Date Joined: 05/01/11
oops guess i missed that bit
oops guess i missed that bit
Rob H
Posts: 5808
Date Joined: 18/01/12
not since 1971, since 1791
not since 1971, since 1791 records began. around 1 per year not 5
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.
scotto
Posts: 2472
Date Joined: 21/04/08
**facepalm**
Buschy,
Cy oconnor beach is within Cockburn sound boundary, where there is a reported 8-12 or more large sharks (whites) congregating and eating schooling snapper. The same place where fishing fanatic and joe petrovich got bailed up by a white last year. Attacks happen in the last place you think they'd happen...
You also can't tell me, that a 5m white cruising the shore line of any beach, is not a threat.
Whether a white has taken a human or not, if it is of size, it is a man eater.
buschy
Posts: 626
Date Joined: 27/11/09
"Scotto"Excuse the pun, but
"Scotto"
Excuse the pun, but I'm just not gonna bite mate.
The only thing I want to say is....clarify what the shore line of a beach is.
Buschy
sarcasm0
Posts: 1396
Date Joined: 25/06/09
How are they going to implement it?
At the moment, if someone gets taken they get a chopper or vessel out there trying to track it asap but they often cannot even find the animal. Now they think they are going to have a shark sighting or attack, have a rapid response team to go out and deploy drum line equipment or traps for great whites in time to be able to get the animal?
I think the funding is great and they sound like they will now start a semi serious tagging program, but as to how many sharks they will actually kill, based on the term 'imminent danger' im not so sure.
http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/WACabinetMinistersSearch.aspx?ItemId=151064&minister=Moore&admin=Barnett
Thu 27 September, 2012
Shark mitigation to protect beachgoersPortfolio: Premier, Fisheries
Mr Barnett said the new measures were the result of extensive consultation and research and followed an unprecedented five fatal shark attacks within 12 months.
The measures include:
“These new measures will not only help us to understand the behaviour of sharks but also offer beachgoers greater protection and confidence as we head into summer,” the Premier said.
Mr Moore said the State Government had reviewed the circumstances under which an order may be given to take a white shark posing an imminent threat.
“Previously the orders were used in response to an attack, but now proactive action will be taken if a large white shark presents imminent threat to people,” Mr Moore said.
The announcement comes as Surf Lifesaving WA’s upgraded helicopter returns to the skies for weekend beach patrols. It will fly daily from September 29 until April 30 next year.
The State Government has committed $2.4million a year over the next four years towards Surf Lifesaving WA’s helicopter and beach patrols program. There will be patrols over metropolitan beaches for 221 days of the year, and daily flights by the South-West beach safety helicopter from November 19 to February 3.
West Coast
Posts: 332
Date Joined: 10/12/07
Bang Bang
About time. We catch everything else in the ocean I don't see the big deal. Protected for 20 years. They need a good thinning out!! They seem to be getting too familar with boaties...particularly in Cockburn at the moment. Catch a dhuie, a tiger shark etc, but a shark starts eating people (5 last year) lets put them on a bloody pedestal!!
catch.fish
Posts: 150
Date Joined: 12/10/11
GWS
So does anyone not think the GWS population has recovered and increased over the last 15 years of protection? Do you feel like you're more likely to have an encounter now than you would have 10-15 years ago?
I know I personally have been diving, surfing and fishing around the south west for around 15 years now with mates almost every possible weekend and have noticed a definite increase particularly in the last 5 years of sightings and encounters. It's reached the stage now where I really struggle to find a dive buddy cause they're all worried about Mr White after having several close calls in recent times.
I've always fairly regularly run into all sorts of sharks while diving in the SW - whalers, tigers, hammerheads, wobbegongs and nurses - most of them are more scared of us than anything (except the odd overly curious whaler / tiger) and to be honest are always amazing to see. Mr White on the other hand has a completely differant demeanor if you've ever come face to face.
It barely used to even cross my mind other than while diving places like Albany or the islands at Augusta where theres always been a bit of a history of them hanging around due to whale and seal populations, but even diving those areas regularly I never ran into one or knew anyone who did. Honestly 10+ years ago I can't recall meeting hardly anyone who had a close encounter or even a sighting they seemed almost mythical and yet these days it seems like most people I talk to that spend weekends surfing, fishing or diving have had a close call or at least a sighting and are giving up the past times they love.
Seems like we've gone from one extreme to the other. We hunted them down to an endangered level then did a complete 180 and have protected an apex predator that's preyed on by nothing to naturally regulate its population for a good 15 years now while fishing it's food source harder than ever.
In saying that I am against a cull right now but I am all for some serious funding for research cause it seems like nobody really has any solid data about GWS breeding, population and movement. It's all absolute guess work and it worries me a little thinking about where we are gonna be in another 15 years time. If we are going to share the ocean with this amazing beast we really need to find some middle ground somewhere and the only way thats ever going to happen is with solid accurate data to base decisions on.
I know my entire life has always revolved around enjoying the ocean and I'd rather die than give up surfing and diving, I just wish that wasn't actually the serious reality it is right now. Cray seasons just around the corner now, things are going to get interesting. Might be the first season I stay out of the water I think!
fisharoo
Posts: 297
Date Joined: 02/07/11
Have a short game fishing season IMO
If they are going to cull the sharks, why not have a short season for the big boys of fishing.
It would generate heaps of income for the economy. People flying in from all over the world to chase these fish. The hospitality industry would benefit also local tackle shops. Chasing these fish require big dollars, big boats.
I still remember I bought my first fishing mag because I saw a huge crane with a monster gw with Greg Norman.
Not an advocate for this culling but since the government is spending big dollars. Why not generate some income for the economy
My two cents
Happy fishing
opsrey
Posts: 1200
Date Joined: 05/10/07
Free ........ I will do one for free ....
I have a 5m GW who visits the beach out the front of my house on a very regular basis all year around. This shark has already eaten one WA person who was 50 meters from shore, and I am certin someone else will be eaten before I retire from paid employment.
I pledge to catch this GW, on the beach in front of my house, for FREE ....... Keep your 2 million ponies, I'll do it for free.
When someone's lovely young child gets eaten in front of a crowd of people who loved the kid, then we will get action. The bleeding hearts will have to remain quiet while the job gets done. Hope it's not my kid being eaten - they won't swim at the beach much any more so I guess they not too likely to become a meal.
Each to their own, this is my view.
championruby
Posts: 459
Date Joined: 20/01/11
This is exactly why its a
This is exactly why its a silly idea. How do you know that exact shark has killed before? Did he still have the wetsuit stuck between his teeth
rockoe_
Posts: 140
Date Joined: 02/09/10
ahahaha and where is this
ahahaha and where is this beach opsrey ?
hooty
Posts: 198
Date Joined: 25/05/10
Exactly why its all so silly.
Exactly why its all so silly. There protected because there rare almost exstinct, but if you nail the 5m one within a few km of the incident, you might get the wrong one. Your joking right, cant have your cake and eat it to. Which beach, well I would say the D9 is within a couple k,s of point peron, rockingham, kwinnana, garden island, coogee take your pick. Large whites and metro beaches dont mix.
Buz
Posts: 1555
Date Joined: 28/08/07
No they were protected
No they were protected because there were seen to be endangered of becoming extinct, not because they WERE almost extinct.
But in saying that world scientists on the matter didnt really know how many were around then, just they assumed that as sightings and captures had dramatically decreased that they were declining and even now they still dont really know how many are around. One would 'think' they have increased. But as has been said thousands of times before there are so many other reasons also that this increase of sightings, attacks and fatalities might have come about. The fact is they just dont really know.
On another subject of protected Apex predators being killed, seen that Trophy Hunting for Crocs may now on the cards with the Federal Government considering a proposal by the N.T Gov to conduct Trophy Croc hunts.
If you would Kill a GW would you also have a go at a Trophy Croc??? Just wondering.
JohnF
Posts: 2839
Date Joined: 07/07/10
REDNECK ALERT................
REDNECK ALERT....................................
Boston Whaler 235 Conquest......getting the flogging it was built for.
Moking
Posts: 1252
Date Joined: 30/05/12
$500,000 for Surf Lifesaving
$500,000 for Surf Lifesaving WA to purchase jet skis to bolster beach safety
That's a lot of jetskis! Someones Jetski business in Perth is going to be happy with that!
I only fish from one,and as yet haven't had the experience of meeting with gw,but I'm thinking what difference would 30 odd jet skis make?
My Dad taught me how to Fish-Thanks Dad.(RIP)
thesupervisor
Posts: 1136
Date Joined: 10/06/09
that figure will shrink
that figure will shrink once all the top feeders get there share of the cash be more like 50 k one the ceos and presidends all have a feed of the cash hqppens all the time
getting the bottom line final answer from a bunch of blokes that use false names and put smiley faces at the end of paragraphs is not the best place in the world to get the information you seek.
Cardinal
Posts: 364
Date Joined: 28/05/12
I wonder how many hits this
I wonder how many hits this thread is gonna have
I'll keep my opinion to myself on this one..........
Sponsored by Atomic HardZ Lures
opsrey
Posts: 1200
Date Joined: 05/10/07
The beach....
The beach I mention is Port Kennedy, Warnbro sound. Between the tyre wrecks and the sunken illegal fishin boat, Penguin Is and the seals on Seal Is there is good reason for this GW to drop bye every month or so. It's no secret or fantasy , and no one cares how hard you hug a 5m GW if it can be hooked close to a beach then hook it and cull it. Easy.
If I had a 140 meter long fishing boat then perhaps I should go fish out wide, but catching a GW beside a beach is fair enough.
squidder
Posts: 457
Date Joined: 03/09/10
At least
the FD had the common sense not to allow the Demersal Gill Nets back into the metro area, not forgetting they were paid out.
Fossil
Posts: 215
Date Joined: 10/06/12
Some years we have lots of
Some years we have lots of salmon other years we have none. Same applies to most species, seems logical that the same runs happen with sharks of all species this year there's lots, next year maybe there's not. People getting all worked up about nothing. Don't like the sharks stay out of the water. Simple advice that most people seem too stupid to follow.
Ben85
Posts: 442
Date Joined: 20/11/11
I suppose this means the
I suppose this means the value of my white jaws are going to be on the decline?
out wide
Posts: 1535
Date Joined: 30/12/08
They seem to be getting too familar with boaties
You bet they are. I would be a wee bit worried diving under a boat this summer season as boats are becoming a GW magnet .
Whats the bet one of our divers will become a GW's meal this season.
I am all for any GW snooping around in close looking for a cheap feed to be destroyed. How about within 3ks from shore.
kelsea
Posts: 134
Date Joined: 14/02/12
Money
Money that could be spent better else where.
Ocean bound is where I'll be found
Adam Gallash
Posts: 15652
Date Joined: 29/11/05
Opinions
General warning: I'm sure this one is going to evoke a lot of emotive opinions, please keep the thread about the subject matter. Please respect others opinions or your post will be removed.
Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance
crasny1
Posts: 7003
Date Joined: 16/10/08
Wow
A bit surprised I have to say. Preemptive strike on GW. As soon as they are close to shore??
This is going to be one very hot topic, and as Adam said above lets not revert to personal attacks. I think we are all entitled to our own opinion without bashing anyone else.
I have had the shiiite scared out of me by a GW, and I dont want to go through that EVER again. But I am a stong Rogue believer, so maybe this might test my theory well and truely. If I am wrong, I will eat humble pie.
Something has to be done one way or another, right or wrong. Lets just see what happens.
Neels
"I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact!!" _ Elon Musk
sea-kem
Posts: 15031
Date Joined: 30/11/09
This is just another hopeless
This is just another hopeless and spineless response from governement as the summmer season rapidly approches to apease the public. They either organise a proper cull or don't. Have some balls and make a descision either way. We all know it's a serious problem that needs to be addressed SERIOUSLY. 2 mill what's that gonna do? We all know how these agencies run, that money will be gone in two days. I personally don't support a proper cull but if the decision was made to do so then so be it. If they don't cull then net, tag whatever but spend some proper dough on something that affects just about all of us.
Love the West!
rockoe_
Posts: 140
Date Joined: 02/09/10
I've lived and fished in
I've lived and fished in rockingham my whole life and I've never seen a big shark in either of the sounds out side of snapper season.i still feel 120% safe in the water inshore and offshore.on the other hand I don't just jump in anywhere and I defiently don't go where I no where big sharks are going to be. Personally I think they should of spent the 6 million On those enclosed swimming areas .Then everyone's happy the swimmers and the sharks
Faulkner Family
Posts: 18064
Date Joined: 11/03/08
the way i look at it is if
the way i look at it is if you enter the water your in their domaine. if the sharks were to come up onto the beach they would be killed in seconds as they are then in our domaine.
shark kull. yes but not just because the come close to land. there are areas that the sharks are in huge numbers and could pose more of a threat and these kulled sharks should be used in some way weather it be food or furtiliser not just dumped
RUSS and SANDY. A family that fishes together stays together
Buz
Posts: 1555
Date Joined: 28/08/07
Just one think i have been
Just one think i have been wondering, if they say they will kill a shark that poses an iminent threat to swimmers/beach goers being close to shore, how do the plan to kill it.
Shooting it would be my guess.
So this is where i am wondering a bit, say said shark pops up close to Cottesloe, comes close to swimmers, swimmers get out of water, no one attacked, but is seen as an iminent threat and order to kill is given.
So at this point there has already been time used up to get the report to the relevant authorities and make the decision. Then i am guessing a designated fisheries officer/s, who have been trainned and qualified in the use of firearms to destory sharks is brought in, or he may already be out at sea on a patrol and is given the task to do the job.
Now if said Officer is on the land, they have to get the firearm from wherever it would be securely stored, get in the boat(Hillarys, Freo, etc) then drive to the sharks location.
If they are at sea, i would imagine they wouldnt do patrols around Perth with a firearm onboard, so they would have to come back to shore to get the firearm and/or the person who is designated/qualified to use the firearm and destroy the shark. Even if they are at sea, most Fisheries patrols dont seem to hug the shore so would take time to travel to the location.
All this time there may or may not be a Helicopter already following the shark from above.
I would highly doubt they would shoot a shark from a helicopter.
So after all this time they arrive at the location and the shark may still be there and the shoot it OR most likely as it seems in most cases would have already disappeared.
There are other things i think that would have to be considered too, eg use of a firearm within a Marine Park(Marmion), would they have to get permission from DEC Marine Division first??? Considerations on discharging a firearm at sea in regards to trajectory traces(you couldnt believe the amount of paperwork that is put through to use the Swanbourne Firing Range everytime they want too use it).
To me it just seems that this is the Governments response to try and calm public hysteria and fears coming into summer, as to me realitsically it seems that by the time a shark that poses and iminent threat to beach users is identified and given approval to be destoryed, it will be long gone by the time the relevant destruction authority arrives to do the job.
Just a theory though. Will be intersting to see the real response time if it does all go ahead.
little johnny
Posts: 5362
Date Joined: 04/12/11
i wont happen
goverment playing games..rogues unsure ,,endangered i dont think so ..kill them isnt the answer .1 off them things, no one right no one wrong...all the best on this thread. me personally no keen on meeting one underwater ....
..i would like to see them thinned out a little...(bang)
rockoe_
Posts: 140
Date Joined: 02/09/10
hey buz check this link out.
hey buz check this link out. it tells you how there planning to use drum lines to drown the shark.i think its how the old schoolers use to catch them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNxt4Rji1CM&feature=share
Buz
Posts: 1555
Date Joined: 28/08/07
But again i wonder how they
But again i wonder how they are going to get all this kit(drumline fishing rig) deployed out so quickly to meet the 'iminent threat'?
Or do they plan to just have these big baits set out there? Seems it could get any species of shark then.
Or do they plan to have a fisheries boat dedicated to setting a drumline and watching all day just off a popular beach?
Can already tell you that to use a drumline to drown a shark will take a LONG LONG time. Regardless how big or small. Plus they wouldnt be allowed to knowingly let a hooked shark 'drown' over a long period due to animal laws when it come to the destruction of animals.
Hell even at my work we couldnt kill rats or mice caught in a pit trap unless we had a designated killing stick/baton. Forgot the 'God' stick one day and the person in charge of us said no to any other method of dispatching, so we had to let them go. Common sense...........no where to be seen in this instance.
rockoe_
Posts: 140
Date Joined: 02/09/10
there some good points you
there some good points you make there buz i guess we have to see how they handle it.it may be a success or it might end up a big waste of money like the insulation rebate a few year back lol
Buz
Posts: 1555
Date Joined: 28/08/07
Its
Its Government......................of course its a waste hahahahaha :P
sea-kem
Posts: 15031
Date Joined: 30/11/09
Like I said Buz that 2 mill
Like I said Buz that 2 mill will last 5 mins and they won't even have killed a shark.
Love the West!
Buz
Posts: 1555
Date Joined: 28/08/07
But they might get some nice
But they might get some nice shiny new equipment, that looks good in a shed :-D
Simo_
Posts: 1843
Date Joined: 13/11/06
Kill all the sharks up
Kill all the sharks up Exmouth way I reckon
Bring on April
tim-o
Posts: 4657
Date Joined: 24/05/11
Wont happen, commonwealth
Wont happen, commonwealth laws vs state proposition, wank.
I am, as I've said, merely competent. But in an age of incompetence, that makes me extraordinary.
chris raff
Posts: 3257
Date Joined: 09/02/10
Thinking outside the square
how hard would it be to build a huge enclosed limestone marina , relocate these big bad boys in there ...intensive study ...heaps of tourists...a plus for everyone I would've thought...Shit ,we could even have special events once a month akin to the running of the bulls using repeat juvenile offenders...
“Intelligence is like a four-wheel drive. It only allows you to get stuck in more remote places.”
Lamby
Posts: 3145
Date Joined: 04/08/09
Govy spin doctors at work; in
Govy spin doctors at work; in reality some cash will line a few pockets, Barnett will get his mileage & no GW will be harmed. This will all go pear shaped with another fatality, which is sadly on the cards
Reefmonkey
Posts: 711
Date Joined: 22/09/08
spot on!
hit the nail on the head
Dave J.
meglodon
Posts: 5981
Date Joined: 17/06/10
shoot at something in the water now thats smart
one of the first things learnt when i was going for a gun licence way back when was don't shoot at things in the water it's dangerous,27 years with the defence (navy) i have seen a hell of a lot of shooting at on over and under the water believe me some of the unitended result are nothing less than unpredictable and amazing now look at this scenario shark in water 500 yds from shore lifesaver fisheries whoever stands in the front of a chase boat gets the all clear to shoot the shark he fires at the shark immediatly after the sound of the shot little freddie keels over on the beach with a bullet hole in his head who's to blame for that,those who have advicated shooting the sharks the gov department who gave approval to shoot the shark the person who pulled the trigger and in todays society which is law suit happy you can bet your bottom dollar that the old lady having her cup of tea and was alarmed at the sound of the gun shot spilled her tea on her lap and got burnt is going to make someone pay.
If you are aiming to destroy something under water you use an explosive charge instant effective no danger of uncontrolled objects flying all over the place but don't try to catch fish in the immediate arae after you have used explosive charges and what about the unintended by kill the greens would have a field day.my views are lets do some tagging and serious reseach not knee jerk reactions and easy vote catching antics
buschy
Posts: 626
Date Joined: 27/11/09
Far out meglodon. Made the
Far out meglodon. Made the most sense of anyone in this thread without even using a full stop!
Ash88
Posts: 103
Date Joined: 17/04/12
So would this mean if you
So would this mean if you managed to catch and land a GW would you have to kill it ? Another food for thought
buschy
Posts: 626
Date Joined: 27/11/09
Seriously...
If you actually landed a GW....wouldn't the aussie way be to BBQ it and invite your mates around? How many of us have ever had the chance to taste apex?
tim-o
Posts: 4657
Date Joined: 24/05/11
The govt should put the
The govt should put the couple of mill to a 3 day GW tagging comp, thered be plenty of nutters with tinnies and tiagras on here that would be in, and it would give us an idea how many, how big and how close they are
I am, as I've said, merely competent. But in an age of incompetence, that makes me extraordinary.
beachsoul
Posts: 215
Date Joined: 14/06/12
surf, dive, swim and fish
This is my opinion. I have no scientific data nor done research.
I have been doing all of the above for 37ish years in this state. So im guessing I was around before GWs were protected and until recent times ive never worried that much about the threat of myself or a loved one being attacked. At the moment i am wondering when the next attck will be.......im thinking pretty soon....summer is coming with more sightings than ever .....
The options.
Toughen up and accept the risk. We are in their domain..............No I cannot accept that. We would shoot a bear if it came into a populated area.
Stay out of the water or accept the risk.....................................For us who were brought up loving all water based activities we may as just curl up and die........So again unacceptable.
Swimming in enclosures..........................................................Our coast is a little LARGE for that.
What do I think the answer is....
- Research shark protection devices. Government funding for development, and testing of shark sheild type devices. (the ones with
a long tail are pretty average for surfing and swimming. We need a compact wearable device, they are available but are
to my knowledge unproven)
- Research on electronic location tags so we can know where these amazing creatures are. Then one could make an informed choice
as to whether to dive. swim or surf.( this would be great for their protection and ours)
Culling - Ok the emotive elephant in the room....
I am all for an open season on GWs while the above options are pondered. Professional fishers could be allocated quotas for their
area's. 5 lives lost is just too many for me to accept. I know the road toll is far worse but we are doing our best to contol that.
( In my veiw we are just over populated. I love empty places!) I think too that we currently have an overpopulation of sharks
visiting or residing near our shorelines and the best way to control this would be a closely monitored cull. Other species may be
killed, that is called bycatch and is accepted in most forms of fishing both recreational and professional. Their is no reason why most
of this bycatch could not be utilised in some form.
My opinion only - Im sure some people have differing views to mine and im am open to being persuaded that mine are incorrect.
Spence
Posts: 302
Date Joined: 09/08/10
Good analytical POV there
Good analytical POV there beachsoul
I agree that the GWS that are at our coastline need to be thinned out. They migrate here to FEED and will return each year, and each year there will be problems.
A few problematic ones won't be missed and more will move to replace them in the future years.
It's a numbers game people! more sharks, more people, more interactions, more fatalities. If we can decrease any of those, it will reduce the risks. Unfortunately for the sharks, we can't kill people or prevent interactions....therefore the sharks need to go.
We are on top of the food chain on this earth, its natural for us to kill to survive. (sorry hippies and vegetarians out there - but its a fact!). Take life only where its needed to survive. I think its great that the government finally has the balls to realise this. Just wish everyone could be supportive.
People are not stupid and will conserve sharks if they were under threat and even fund a program to improve their populations if there was a problem like any other animal. Look at tigers, bears etc. Unfortunately, they were eradicated without thought due to the thinking in those days and we have learnt from our mistakes.
Also these sharks aren't doing any favours for our tourism industry....think about potential downstream effects of this.
-Spence
Insta: @wafishingofficial
Fossil
Posts: 215
Date Joined: 10/06/12
Beach Soul, there's some
Beach Soul, there's some stuff you say that makes sense, like the research into electronic deterents & tagging/tracking but there is also a couple of points I can never agree with.
"Toughen up and accept the risk. We are in thier domain................. No I cannot accept that. We would shoot a bear if it came into a populated area."
The ocean isn't out area & we don't populate it, if it was/we did, we would come fitted with gills & fins as standard. That's where the shark population lives, we are invading thier home, not the other way around. Our population borders thiers, we cross that border knowing the risks & decide to go into the water, they don't cross it by wandering up onto the land. The day a shark wanders up onto shore let me know & I'll be the first in line to bump it off, until then though there can be no mistake, you are the one crossing the border, not them.
The other part I cannot agree with is the "open season on GW while the above options are pondered". That may just be poor word selection but if I take it the way it reads, it seems to advocate for anyone & everyone to be allowed to go out after GW's. That's something I can never agree to if that is what you mean. The biggest probelm I see is that most people wouldn't have a clue how to deal with a big angry shark & are simply going to get themselves killed trying to catch something they have no business being anywhere near. The second big problem is that once open season is declared, those same knuckleheads that are trying to get themselves killed are going to pour untold amounts of berley & blood into the water, which is just going to attract even more sharks to the area & make the problem even worse than it was to start off with. I can understand a few select pros being given licence to kill off a certain number of GW & that might be a good idea ........... but I could never agree to allowing any idiot with a rod, a boat & a desire to be an entree being allowed to hunt these magnificent animals.
Old School
Posts: 4
Date Joined: 29/08/09
Why is their more sharks
Why is their more sharks around?
For how many years now have pro cray fisherman been dumping hundreds of big burley cages along our coastline?
The pro crabber drops a hundred or so pots EVERY day in Warnbro Sound full of nice smelly fish.
Sharks have just adapted as a result of our behaviour. It didn't take too many years of Samson fishing off the Hillaries before the sharks cottoned on to that easy feed - now you can hardly get a fish to the boat.
In a episode of 'River Monsters' they proved quite clearly by tagging sharks with tracking devices that the Bull sharks now hang around fishing boats waiting for an easy feed.
Diving with the Great Whites in South Australia is only possible by chummimg them up.
Last Sunday at the D9 - how many boats were there? 50. 75. Too mant too count. All dropping burley over the side in the hope of snaggin' a Pinky.
It's no mystery to me.
Humans around the world kill 75 - 100 MILLION sharks a year. And you trolls want to kill more?
So if they culled 1000 sharks tomorrow are you still gonna feel safe surfin' at the South Passage at Lancelin? 'Cause there's a great White heading over here right now from South Africa they missed.
When we were teenagers we would spearfish along the back of Garden Island dragging our catch bag along behind us full of bleeding kicking fish. At the time we didn't think anything of it - now I think was I friggin' crazy?
If you don't want to get eaten don't go in the water.
Fishing for me has developed more a sense of conservation - not to friggin' kill things 'cause I'm some sort of dominant species. How many more species are we going to decimate? Try and catch a prawn in the Swan today or a Cobbler.
This subject is a trolls paradise so don't get too upset by people trying to get a rise. Jeez it's a sad and lonely life for some.
And the media? There the biggest trolls of all. They love subjects like this where they can pit members of the public against each other. They fuel it. It sells papers.
But that's the 'beauty' of the internet isn't it. Anonymity.
Leave the sharks alone Colin you idiot. Get back to backdoor politics and selling Australia off to overseas interest and pinging hard working good people for going 3 k's over the limit with a camera hidden behind a tree.
Anyway just my 2 cents worth as they say.
F#@k this.
I'm goin' fishin'........
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
All The Media Hype.
It appears to me that the Govt. is responding to all the media hype regarding GW's and there's a hint of Hollywood about this whole decision and even the Minister Norman Moore seems to be having some reservations about the effectiveness of providing a safe marine environment for people to enjoy. As for myself I don't believe for one second that there won't be more attacks on people regardless of what the govt. decides to do and it's up to individuals to take the neccessary precautions to avoid being taken. To use an example some surfers at Yallingup yesterday who are obviously spooked by the sharks are keeping a lookout and have started to leave the water when there's a sighting and that to me makes sense whereby in years gone by they where oblivious to what was going on around them.
opsrey
Posts: 1200
Date Joined: 05/10/07
The Goverment .....
The Goverment are scared silly because if a kid gets eaten this summer they will actually have to do something . I really don't want anyone getting hurt by sharks. Given the shark contact and behavior in Cockburn at present anything might be possible this summer.
And if 100 mill sharks are taken each year what's the problem with ten more?
Paul H
Posts: 2104
Date Joined: 18/01/07
I think you'll find the fact
I think you'll find the fact 100 mil sharks are taken each year is a problem.
Youtube Channel - FishOnLine Productions
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbUVNa-ViyGm_FTDSv4Nqzg/videos
Buz
Posts: 1555
Date Joined: 28/08/07
http://www.youtube.com/watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo
The whole kid arguement....................... again
"And if 100 mill sharks are taken each year what's the problem with ten more"
Those 100 mill are probably mostly not Great Whites, just a guess.
Do you really think taking 10 GW's will make a difference. Learn a little bit about ecology and you'll find as soon as something in nature leaves a niche something else will fill it. If Great Whites are coming here to feed, killing some off would only mean its open for others to come and fill their place.
Again RESEARCH is whats required.
Paul H
Posts: 2104
Date Joined: 18/01/07
"It appears to me that the
"It appears to me that the Govt. is responding to all the media hype"
I like, - wouldn't be the first time!!
Knee jerk reaction to live exports comes to mind......
Don't have the answer to why you have 5 fatalities off perth in the last 10 months which is a lot higher than the normal statistics.
But it strikes me as strange that every year during all of summer there is at least 10 surfers out all day every day off Cactus Beach which is GW central, in SA (west of Ceduna on the edge of the Great Aust "Bite"), They spend all day doing their best imitation of looking like a seal and all in all they seem to make it back to shore!!
This suggests that too many GW's is not the problem because they are certainly there at Cactus (regularly), and it has been years since the last attack there.
I don't beleive in the "rouge shark" theroy but it's possible one or two has learnt to target what is really an easy meal compared to something more mobile and hard to catch such as a seal
Finding which one would be quite a task!! Previous tracking has shown GW's cover quite a distance on their regular "beat".
PS - If bear goes into a town and kills someone they don't go and randomly shoot bears to thin them out.....
Goverment just wants to show it's doing something to cover their arse so people can't say they haven't acted next time something happens. It's unlikley to actually accomplish anything (like shaded blue areas on a map called marine parks).
Cheers
Youtube Channel - FishOnLine Productions
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbUVNa-ViyGm_FTDSv4Nqzg/videos
Sean66
Posts: 149
Date Joined: 18/09/11
Theres a smell in the air...
The govt has been mentioned quite a few times in the responses above. Theres a smell in the air..the smell of an election? Govt looking to be doing the 'right' thing. Public hysteria and media driving that hysteria. We can never accuse the media of sensationalising a story..lol.
There are plenty of sharks up here, not to mention crocs on the odd occasion. We dont have many reports of attacks etc. Perhaps is because we dont go into the water at the 'wrong' time? Or is it there are so few of us in the water that the chances of being attacked is so low?
In the city so many people in the water at so many beaches. Who knows? The sharks are doing what sharks have been doing for tens of thousands of years. Humans going into their domain. You cant say that sharks are becoming dangerous. They have always been dangerous, Its just that humans and spending more time in the water and therefore increasing their chances of being attacked.
Thats my 99c worth of dribble. Leave the sharks alone.
I'm here for a good time, not a long time. Lets go fishing!