WA entitled to cull sharks
Submitted by WSHN4FSHN on Thu, 2014-01-30 10:57
I know this topic has been done to death but this is a very good article in the Australian so I thought I'd share it. I'm pro shark "management strategies" not a cull, and this article highlights some very valid points in support of the governments policy. The governments action shouldn't have even made front page news as this method has been used on the east coast for decades. I'm open to correction but as far as I can tell the ecosystem on the east coast is doing just fine...and so is everyone else!! Hope the link works ok.
____________________________________________________________________________
Burley it and they will come.
rigpig
Posts: 507
Date Joined: 21/11/12
good to see a well put
good to see a well put together alternative arguement.
catch.fish
Posts: 150
Date Joined: 12/10/11
Great article, glad its
Great article, glad its getting shared around hope everyone out there reads it!
Another interesting read ive seen shared lately from a rec fishers point of view is:
danielstanilovic.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/was-great-white-shark-cull.html
He gives a good break down of facts & figures in regards to shark management on the east coast, drum lines vs nets and also takes a look at the motivation behind certain activists who benefit from controversy.
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
The Value of a human Life
Bunbury City Council rejected the baited drum Lines from being deployed off Bunbury beaches so would you say they don't value the lives of swimmers in Bunbury as much as say Busselton City council who lobbied hard to put the baited drum lines offshore on their beaches. The answer is Of course not and to me that statement from Troy Buswell is nothing more than a cheap shot at the protesters who object to the policy. This whole strategy is another Liberal Party stuff up in my opinion.
Swompa
Posts: 3786
Date Joined: 14/10/12
Tried putting up that link
Tried putting up that link yesterday but for some reason, copy and paste into these forums via iPad doensnt really work.
Great to see a well written piece showing facts and not made up crap which seems to be what the anti catch movement is sprouting, ie "we have released many stingrays which were caught, but we didn't film it so you just need to believe us" ect
I am against catch to kill to dump at sea. I think it is a waste when products could be used (pet food, jaws for sale, fins, oil ect) but I understand that it is exactaly the 'research' that the Japanese whalers do so understand that it cannot be done.
I hate that it has been called a cull. Really, this is merely fishing with big arsed hooks. I would gladly go out to trawl around a Few big baits to be honest.
Howard - what have Labor come up with? They have been very quiet on the actual fishing, but complain (as expected, and the reason they didn't get voted in) about how it was planned. Can't help the Libs for ensuring everything was done properly.
in reality, all this has done for me is reduced the amount of respect I have for green groups and ensure I never support most of them
thefishwrangler
Posts: 83
Date Joined: 28/01/14
I'm with you
i think this "cull" is crap 20-100 million sharks are killed each year world wide and for a top predator that's not sustainable. so what the heck we have caught so many a few more won't hurt....sarcasm there are better ways to manage this problem like sat tagging. 1700 people die on our roads each year. so if you want less deaths ban cars, but that won't happen so 7 death from sharks in 3 years is nothing. we are killing this beautiful world..... very sad. there are estimated to be 3,500 pointers left making them more endangered than tigers what are we going to tell our grand kids and great grand kids when we wipe out yet another animal. once its gone we can't bring it back. its things like shark find soup that relay irritates me is they dump the still alive sharks back to drown when there are people starving out there and they don't even take the fillets. instead they are wasted and it makes me feel ashamed to be human and that is a sad thing and for goodness sake there is a shark on the fish wrecked logo and if drumlines must be done it needs to be controled
interesting link http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2005/06/0613_050613_sharkfacts.html
WSHN4FSHN
Posts: 224
Date Joined: 19/09/12
You've missed the point
Howard the article was not referring to the position held by local councils and if they are in favour of the drum lines or not. A councils decision for or against is based on many factors most of which are commercial/tourism based and I dare say the value of the swimmers is irrelevant!! The point was in reference to the protesters who have been crying to stop the cull seem to be ignoring the fact that this has been going on for so long elsewhere (and is very successful) so why the sudden uproar? Why haven't they been protesting on the east coast on mass to get the drum lines shut down over there? Makes no sense. As for the liberals handling of the policy, it seems you are anti just for the sake of it because it's a liberal government or do you support the abolition of the concept over east as well? The only negative I see with the management is why it wasn't implemented years ago!!
Burley it and they will come.
sea-kem
Posts: 14857
Date Joined: 30/11/09
They also compliment the
They also compliment the drumlines with nets over east. So agree Howa why the huge uproar here? And it shits me that they call it a cull. It's not it's a safety measure. A cull is when you actively go out and hunt down large numbers of a creature and exterminate them. These are set in a certain position to catch sharks that enter a certain zone., whether they have any effect is another matter, IMO they won't. You would as I said need to actively 'cull' to have any effect on the shark population.
Love the West!
Swompa
Posts: 3786
Date Joined: 14/10/12
^ I really enjoy being
^ I really enjoy being involved in a conversation with smart, like minded people whom look at facts and don't just rely on what the last bloke with Dreddies and a bandanna said.
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
Heres a Question for you guys.
If the baited drum lines are so effective at catching sharks why then are they still using shark nets on popular beaches in the eastern states as well. The nets are responsible for killing a lot of other marine life as the stats. show. I'm all for removing a shark if it's posing a threat but just to kill sharks because some dumb politician wants it done without it being supported by any scientific reasons does not sit comfortably with me and I'm a strong advocate for fish for the future.
carnarvonite
Posts: 8627
Date Joined: 24/07/07
Barriers
Same here and comes the question, why have the shark proof barrier at Dunsborough beach and have them dropping baits a couple of miles away at Meelup, suppose they will do the same at the one off Coogee now that its complete.
At $600 grand for 3 months work dropping the drum lines makes one wonder how much the shark proof barriers cost, after all, once its installed all you have to do is check it every now and then, not keep paying through the nose for ever.
Late news, it seems as though the fisheries has to scrape up their own funding to do the drum lines off the metro beaches because the Gov is screaming poverty after spending on an unwanted Elizabeth Quay and sinking Perth railway station something that won't save a dollar or improve efficiency.
thefishwrangler
Posts: 83
Date Joined: 28/01/14
perfectly explained
exactly my point. very nicely explained +100:)
clogwog
Posts: 265
Date Joined: 01/02/11
Howard, they use nets more
Howard, they use nets more regularly in the Eastern states as the have smaller bays with headlands (points) which make it a more viable option. Agree that nets are indiscriminate and will kill other marine life. WA needs to utilise drum lines, aerial patrols and sat tagging. The drum lines are set to catch larger sharks, rather then all sharks.
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
Aerial Patrols clogwog
If you check the Southwest Shark Alerts facebook page they haven't sighted a shark for 4 days so to save some money they have gone to stand-by status and yet at 6g's a day the baits are still being laid but no sharks are being caught. At the end of the day it will interesting to work out how much each shark has cost us to kill.
clogwog
Posts: 265
Date Joined: 01/02/11
Again agree that the costs
Again agree that the costs are high but how many tourists are choosing not to enjoy & visit our beautiful coast, also how much tourist dollars are small south west towns actually missing out on. There are many different perspectives to the whole debate. To save costs the government could make the public aware that they are only aerial patrolling on Friday, sat, sun. The public can then decide if they want to swim or not whilst the aerial patrols aren't being done. I also reckon that there where limited tenders for the drum lining due to the greenies threats.
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
Down Here clogwog
The tourist towns down in the southwest turned their backs on rec-fishing and promote eco-tourism as the salvation of the ailing tourist industry hence the Marine Parks. If the killing of sharks benefits the brand of eco-tourism that attracts people into the region I'm the Pope and I'm not even catholic. There was 18 tenders for the contract.
carnarvonite
Posts: 8627
Date Joined: 24/07/07
Breeders
All its going to achieve is knocking off a few breeders.
Have caught 1 x metre long tigers with 5-6 pups inside about 6inches long but on the other scale big tigers with the best one having 52 livies inside around 70cm.
They brought in the law a couple of years back prohibiting the pros bringing in big sharks and now they do an about face, the Gov is like a woman with PMS, doesn't know what its doing and where its going next
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
Totally Agree with you Carnarvonite
I couldn't agree more with your last post carnarvonite. what's going on here is pure lunacy and does no-one involved an ounce of credibility.