Shark cull in Austrailia

steddyeddy

The shark cull in western Australia has brought in it's first victim. The cull is pointless IMO. If anything it could make sharks predate on humans more just like elephants are attacking people more because of poaching. Based on the low number of shark attacks compared to dog attacks why not cull dogs? (I dont want to cull dogs just pointing out the lunacy) I strikes me as revenge more than a necessity. Views?

A controversial shark cull claimed its first casualty this weekend in Western Australia, when a commercial fisherman shot and killed a tiger shark off of Old Dunsborough (map) in the southwest region of Western Australia.
In a move late last year that has since sparked protests, Western Australia premier Colin Bennett announced a shark cull to control populations of great white sharks off of popular beaches in the region.
This was in response to the fatal attack on surfer Chris Boyd last November.
The cull—which will run from January to April of this year—includes deploying as many as 72 baited lines attached to drums and anchored to the seafloor to catch sharks over 9.8 feet (3 meters) long. Sharks smaller than 9.8 feet (3 meters) will be released.
The lines will be anchored 0.6 miles (a kilometer) from shore in a number of heavily trafficked areas.
A spokesman for the Western Australia government confirmed that the first fatality was a 9.8-foot (3-meter) long tiger shark, according to news reports. The fisher—contracted with the government to monitor the baited lines—shot the animal in the head and took the body out to sea.
Reactions to the start of the shark cull on social media range from anger to sadness.

Heart = broken MT @WhySharksMatter First #shark killed by the cull… shot 4 times in the head and dumped offshore…
— Friends of Hector (@HectorBlueShark) January 27, 2014

Government’s Shark Cull delivers first cruel & barbaric fatality http://t.co/CA8umm3dW2 @perthnow @WAtoday @thewest_com_au #noWAsharkcull
— pgnprincess (@amandalisa_45) January 27, 2014

Researchers have also expressed concern about the strategy of culling sharks to control populations.

More than 100 shark scientists, including me, oppose the cull in Western Australia : http://t.co/nlQsJMbRzb
— David Shiffman (@WhySharksMatter) January 27, 2014

Past Attempts
Shark culls performed in Hawaii in the 1950s showed “no measurable effect on the rate of shark attacks on people,” said Chris Lowe, professor of marine biology at California State University, Long Beach, who analyzed the data taken during those culls.
“The bottom line is that the practice didn’t seem to work, at least not in the state of Hawaii.”
“You would have to really knock down shark populations considerably before you could influence the rate of shark attacks,” he explained. (See “Maui Death Raises Questions About Spike in Hawaiian Shark Attacks.”)
There are so many unknowns when it comes to shark populations, Lowe said. “We have no idea how many sharks are out there, and we don’t know how many we have to kill to reduce the instances of shark attacks.”
“The fact that you can start a culling program with so much unknown is worrisome and disheartening,” said Amanada Keledjian, a marine scientist with Oceana.
Unforeseen Consequences?
Both Lowe and Keledjian worry over the unforeseen and unintended consequences of removing large predators like sharks from the environment.
Keledjian noted there was no way of knowing what other animals like dolphins would end up dead—either caught in a shark barrier or hooked on a baited line.
Lowe added that telling the public an area has been culled could result in people thinking all is well and that they can engage in risky behavior when they go back into the ocean. (See also “How Should We Respond When Humans and Sharks Collide?”)
“People start going further offshore, they might start going to more remote places,” he said. “They start doing things we tell people they shouldn’t do.”
Keledjian and Lowe stress that it’s important that people know the ocean can be dangerous. “It’s a wild place, it’s not Disnelyand,” said Lowe.

Mint Aero

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

urabell

Literally can't imagine anything I care about less than fish on the other side of the globe

gctest50

.

Man fights off shark, stitches up own leg, goes to the pub


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/28/doctor-fights-shark-stitches-up-leg

NZ - stitches himself up; goes to pub.
AUS - shark cull instigated. Anything over 3 meters shot

Stained Class

We need a bigger boat.

BillyMitchel

Good point about giving swimmers a false sense of security and how it might in crease attacks.

Dumb ass humans making dumb ass decisions again. The water is shark territory. Swim were sharks live and you get bitten. Tough shît, you know the risks.

Morons. They shot the shark at close range 3 times in the head or something. Real humane.

Hope one of the fockers falls off the boat and gets his cock bitten off.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

BillyMitchel wrote: »

Good point about giving swimmers a false sense of security and how it might in crease attacks.

Dumb ass humans making dumb ass decisions again. The water is shark territory. Swim were sharks live and you get bitten. Tough shît, you know the risks.

Morons. They shot the shark at close range 3 times in the head or something. Real humane.

Hope one of the fockers falls off the boat and gets his cock bitten off.

Why do you want this man's chicken to die too, will the shark slaughter not be enough for you?

It's really rare to get attacked by a shark when dry. With Australia's great weather one wonders how it happens so often.

Putin

I'm sure drink drivers kill more Aussies than sharks. They're culling the wrong animal imo.

MadsL

Here's a thought, maybe if you didn't dangle tourists in cages and then chum the water, Great Whites would not consider humans as food.

Sundy

MadsL wrote: »

Here's a thought, maybe if you didn't dangle tourists in cages and then chum the water, Great Whites would not consider humans as food.

There is no shark cage diving in Western Australia

MadsL

Sundy wrote: »

There is no shark cage diving in Western Australia

Since?

Plenty going on in Southern Australia...I guess sharks have to stay in one place,oh wait...

Sundy

MadsL wrote: »

Since?

Plenty going on in Southern Australia...I guess sharks have to stay in one place,oh wait...

I've no idea, you will need to find that one out for yourself.

MadsL

Sundy wrote: »

I've no idea, you will need to find that one out for yourself.

So Australians DO dangle tourists in cages and ring the dinner bell, then wonder why surfers look like a tasty morsel.

Thanks for confirming.

MadsL

urabell wrote: »

Literally can't imagine anything I care about less than fish on the other side of the globe

Sharks are not technically fish.

Sundy

MadsL wrote: »

So Australians DO dangle tourists in cages and ring the dinner bell, then wonder why surfers look like a tasty morsel.

Thanks for confirming.

There is no shark cage diving in Western Australia. What part of that do you not get?

I have no idea when it stopped or if it ever was here so if you want to know that go find out for yourself.

So what did I confirm?

MadsL

Sundy wrote: »

There is no shark cage diving in Western Australia. What part of that do you not get?

The part where you think sharks stay in Southern Australia.

I have no idea when it stopped or if it ever was here so if you want to know that go find out for yourself.

Banned in 2012

So what did I confirm?

That you think Western Australia = Australia as a whole. I never once mentioned WA.

pickarooney

MadsL wrote: »

Sharks are not technically fish.

What are they?

Sundy

MadsL wrote: »

The part where you think sharks stay in Southern Australia.

Port Lincoln is over 2500km away from where they are culling. The article relates to WA.
While sharks can travel that far its a bit wild to think that cage diving in SA is directly related to an increase in shark related deaths in the last couple of years. Distance wise think canary islands to Ireland

Banned in 2012

Banned in 2012 but WA has no locations where sharks congregate in sufficient numbers to do cage diving anyway.
Nobody in my office can remember there being any.

That you think Western Australia = Australia as a whole. I never once mentioned WA.

The article is only about WA, the cull is in WA, number of people killed by sharks has increased greatly in WA.
You didnt mention WA but I was pointing out how your

Here's a thought, maybe if you didn't dangle tourists in cages and then chum the water, Great Whites would not consider humans as food.

comment doesn't really make sense for WA

MadsL

Great White Sharks travel great distances, even being spotted off the coasts of Ireland. If a trip up the Atlantic 9800 km to Ireland from South Africa is a possibility, a mere 2500 km is just an outing.

Shark cage diving ANYWHERE is just fucking dumb, as is banning it in one part of Oz and then expecting sharks to stay in the one place.

MadsL

pickarooney wrote: »

What are they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasmobranchii

Whilst they could be called fish, they have no bones nor swim bladders. Ray, Skates and Sharks are more properly Elasmobranchs.

Sundy

MadsL wrote: »

Great White Sharks travel great distances, even being spotted off the coasts of Ireland. If a trip up the Atlantic 9800 km to Ireland from South Africa is a possibility, a mere 2500 km is just an outing.

Shark cage diving ANYWHERE is just fucking dumb, as is banning it in one part of Oz and then expecting sharks to stay in the one place.

You argument is just getting stupid, because tagging sharks is really the only way to track their movements and even when they do their movements can be very erratic. 1 shark off Ireland proves nothing I'm afraid.
Ironically not enough research goes into sharks because they are protected.
Nobody expects sharks to stay in one place but also there is no link to suggest that the increase in shark related deaths in WA is caused by shark caging. Death rate has increased dramatically in the last few years at a rate that I doubt is proportional to the increase is shark caging.
To be honest suggesting that the sharks were targeting humans would give our good ol premier the ammunition he needs to have them hunted. But again no evidence of that either.

Your arguments seem rely more on hysteria and emotion rather than the facts that are needed to make proper decisions on resolving the increase in shark deaths that WA is experiencing.

jank

MadsL wrote: »

Great White Sharks travel great distances, even being spotted off the coasts of Ireland. If a trip up the Atlantic 9800 km to Ireland from South Africa is a possibility, a mere 2500 km is just an outing.

Shark cage diving ANYWHERE is just fucking dumb, as is banning it in one part of Oz and then expecting sharks to stay in the one place.

Have you ever been cage diving? I did it in South Africa with the great whites and it was quite the experience. It actually teaches you about the sharks, educates you about them, how they are endangered, misunderstood and so on. All the profits go to further studying of the great whites.

Anyway, your claim that shark cage diving has some correlation to increased attacks is mere speculation and as far as I can see has no basis in research or evidence.

Regarding the cull itself, heart obviously dissaproves but the head has to do more reading up on it to form a solid opinion.

gobnaitolunacy

MadsL wrote: »

So Australians DO dangle tourists in cages and ring the dinner bell, then wonder why surfers look like a tasty morsel.

Thanks for confirming.

Certainly happens in South Africa and sharks do travel across the Indian Ocean. It's a pretty fcuking dumb thing to do, associating humans with food, but I don't know if anyone has joined the dots conclusively, i.e. an identified shark around a cage diver goes off and goes for a surfer elsewhere.
They are bloody smart though and follow things like cattle boats and go for cattle that get injured and thrown overboard.
Humans aren't their normal food, but we're easy pickings, slow and not likely to fight back much. Most times a shark sees a surfer from below in rough water...looks a bit like a seal and he goes in for a nip to taste, but a 'taste' can be fatal. They have been known to go for spear fishermen, speared, struggling and dying fish tends to attract them.

What to do? Defo the cull should stop, maybe net off the more popular beaches but that won't be cheap. Maybe surfers will have to stay out of the water in the same way you can't p*ss about in many of the water holes in the Top End anymore what with crocs and all.

I did meet someone whose son ran an abalone fishing company and one of their divers got taken and they never found him, he was getting a self-propelled cage thing made to stop it happening again.

Sir Arthur Daley

There would be some eating in a shark, and good eating too it is low in fat and cholesterol.

crockholm

Well something has to be done,in the Movie "Jaws"-they attacked us in the sea.In "Sharknado" they attacked us on land. When they attack the International Space Station where will be safe for us humans to raise our families?

Robbo

The Aussies need to ask themselves, "will there ever be a boy born who can swim faster than a shark?" and get to work on that.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

crockholm wrote: »

Well something has to be done,in the Movie "Jaws"-they attacked us in the sea.In "Sharknado" they attacked us on land. When they attack the International Space Station where will be safe for us humans to raise our families?

Sharks on a space shuttle? I'd watch it. There's an impending sharkalanche movie (think avalanche with sharks). I can't wait.

ZiabR

urabell wrote: »

Literally can't imagine anything I care about less than fish on the other side of the globe

Literally can't think of anything else that proves how uneducated people can be...

Riddle101

I heard Brody, Quint and Hooper in charge of the culling.

foggy_lad

Australia, the most racist country on the planet. They have been exterminating the indigenous population since white people colonised and now they have started on the sea life.

krudler

Stupid thing to do, people going surfing should know the risks, the ocean is their home not ours.

MadsL

Sundy wrote: »

You argument is just getting stupid, because tagging sharks is really the only way to track their movements and even when they do their movements can be very erratic. 1 shark off Ireland proves nothing I'm afraid.
Ironically not enough research goes into sharks because they are protected.
Nobody expects sharks to stay in one place but also there is no link to suggest that the increase in shark related deaths in WA is caused by shark caging. Death rate has increased dramatically in the last few years at a rate that I doubt is proportional to the increase is shark caging.
To be honest suggesting that the sharks were targeting humans would give our good ol premier the ammunition he needs to have them hunted. But again no evidence of that either.

Your arguments seem rely more on hysteria and emotion rather than the facts that are needed to make proper decisions on resolving the increase in shark deaths that WA is experiencing.

So you accept that sharks travel and that death rates are increasing. Hmm. Yet these cannot possibly be linked.

Calling me stupid and hysterical really does add weight to your argument doesn't it.

Sharks tagged with electronic tags (satellite, archival and acoustic) have been tracked from the Neptune Islands to Exmouth in north-western Western Australia and to Rockhampton in central Queensland. Sharks tagged with other (non-electronic) tags at The Neptune Islands have also crossed theTasman Sea to New Zealand.

Source below.

jank wrote: »

Have you ever been cage diving? I did it in South Africa with the great whites and it was quite the experience. It actually teaches you about the sharks, educates you about them, how they are endangered, misunderstood and so on. All the profits go to further studying of the great whites.

Anyway, your claim that shark cage diving has some correlation to increased attacks is mere speculation and as far as I can see has no basis in research or evidence.

Regarding the cull itself, heart obviously dissaproves but the head has to do more reading up on it to form a solid opinion.

I was the lad sitting on the boat whale watching whilst you were doing your "adventure". I was also the chap diving in South Africa on both ocean sides and diving with sharks without a cage. And I see that despite your 'education' you approve of a mindless 'cull' of these magnificent creatures.

Chumming water for sharks is fucking retarded. Imagine dangling a person into a tiger enclosure in a cage with lumps of meat attached to them.

http://www.stopsharkcagediving.com/south_africa_shark_attack_file.htm

http://stopsharkcagediving.com/blog/the-damning-aussie-govt-study-on-effects-of-chum-great-white-sharks/

urabell

MadsL wrote: »

Sharks are not technically fish.

Sharks are a group of fish characterized by a cartilaginous skeleton, five to seven gill slits on the sides of the head, and pectoral fins that are not fused to the head. Wikipedia

mad muffin

foggy_lad wrote: »

Australia, the most racist country on the planet. They have been exterminating the indigenous population since white people colonised and now they have started on the sea life.

In the late 19th century about a third of the population in Australia was Irish.

The Australian Embassy in Dublin states that up to 30 percent of the population claim some degree of Irish ancestry.

Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke has said: "... apart from Ireland, Australia is more Irish than any other country.

It is true that more people of Irish descent have gone to the United States than to Australia; but, as a proportion of the population, higher in Australia than in the United States.

urabell

logik wrote: »

Literally can't think of anything else that proves how uneducated people can be...

You're saying that there's not one other relevant statement that proves someone is uneducated other than the fact that they don't care about fish on the far side of the globe? Seriously? Not one other thing?

MadsL

urabell wrote: »

Sharks are a group of fish characterized by a cartilaginous skeleton, five to seven gill slits on the sides of the head, and pectoral fins that are not fused to the head. Wikipedia

Hence the word "technically". Sharks, Skates and Rays are very different to plain old bony fish.

They also have three more senses than humans. In the senses arms war, sharks are winning.

Stavros Murphy

pickarooney wrote: »

What are they?

Bitey yokes with sharp teeth. That's a whole different ball-game. Fish is what you get with your chips.

sawdoubters

sharks clean up the ocean,in the next 50 years they will be extinct

Artful_Badger

MadsL wrote: »

Hence the word "technically". Sharks, Skates and Rays are very different to plain old bony fish.

They also have three more senses than humans. In the senses arms war, sharks are winning.

Wouldnt that mean that technically they are fish rather than technically they are not.

MadsL

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Wouldnt that mean that technically they are fish rather than technically they are not.

Much in the same way that humans might incorrectly be called apes?

Artful_Badger

MadsL wrote: »

Much in the same way that humans might incorrectly be called apes?

I'm getting very confused.

I thought you were saying they are not technically fish, that they were something else but just called fish.

But are they not just categorised under a different subgroup (Cartilaginous fishes) of fish ? Making them technically still fish while not sharing the main characteristics of "bony fish" ?

MadsL

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm getting very confused.

I thought you were saying they are not technically fish, that they were something else but just called fish.

But are they not just categorised under a different subgroup (Cartilaginous fishes) of fish ? Making them technically still fish while not sharing the main characteristics of "bony fish" ?

Yes, they are a subgroup of 'fish'. However they are very different to most fish apart from rays or skates and a different subgroup.

Will we move on...

El Guapo!

It never ceases to amaze me what people on the internet will argue about!
:pac:

MadsL

El Guapo! wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me what people on the internet will argue about!
:pac:

No it doesn't. :P

Artful_Badger

El Guapo! wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me what people on the internet will argue about!
:pac:

Who's arguing ? I'm learning about cartilaginous and bony fishes here !

MadsL

Must.resist.urge.to.not.correct.use.of."fishes".

Artful_Badger

MadsL wrote: »

Must.resist.urge.to.not.correct.use.of."fishes".

I'm pretty sure the use is sound but I'll give it to ya as I have an exam tomorrow, havent studied yet and I'm all but certain my new found knowledge of paraphyletic groups of organisms wont help me much :pac:

Skylinehead

MadsL wrote: »

Must.resist.urge.to.not.correct.use.of."fishes".

Fishes is valid when talking about different species of fish

MadsL

Skylinehead wrote: »

Fishes is valid when talking about different species of fish

Glad I resisted so.

jimboblep

i thought one of the reasons surfers were attacked was the profile was similar to a seal from below