Shark cull in Austrailia

krudler · 29-01-2014 12:27PM

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

MadsL · 29-01-2014 06:22PM

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 · 29-01-2014 08:04PM

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 · 29-01-2014 08:05PM

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 · 29-01-2014 08:06PM

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 · 29-01-2014 08:11PM

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 · 29-01-2014 08:56PM

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 · 29-01-2014 09:00PM

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

Artful_Badger · 29-01-2014 09:12PM

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 · 29-01-2014 09:14PM

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 · 29-01-2014 09:18PM

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 · 29-01-2014 09:21PM

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! · 29-01-2014 09:21PM

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

MadsL · 29-01-2014 09:22PM

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 · 29-01-2014 09:23PM

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 · 29-01-2014 09:25PM

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

Artful_Badger · 29-01-2014 09:31PM

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 · 29-01-2014 09:33PM

MadsL wrote: »

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

Fishes is valid when talking about different species of fish

MadsL · 29-01-2014 09:34PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

Fishes is valid when talking about different species of fish

Glad I resisted so.

jimboblep · 29-01-2014 09:36PM

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

El Guapo! · 29-01-2014 09:50PM

jimboblep wrote: »

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

I think a lot of shark attacks are down to curiosity. The shark takes a bite out of a surfer to see what it is. This is why the majority of shark attacks are non fatal. They take a bite, realise they are not interested and move on.

jimboblep · 29-01-2014 09:52PM

El Guapo! wrote: »

I think a lot of shark attacks are down to curiosity. The shark takes a bite out of a surfer to see what it is. This is why the majority of shark attacks are non fatal. They take a bite, realise they are not interested and move on.

thats what i had heard too, guess we dont taste as good as seal

El Guapo! · 29-01-2014 10:08PM

jimboblep wrote: »

thats what i had heard too, guess we dont taste as good as seal

I don't sing as well as him either.

jank · 29-01-2014 10:27PM

MadsL wrote: »

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/

Oh, your one of those people….
Anyway, I fail to see any peer reviewed research where there is a direct correlation between increased attacks and cage diving. Also, where did I say I approve of this culling? I didn't, so don't say that I do.

EPointer=Birdss · 29-01-2014 11:14PM

Mint Aero wrote: »

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Revenge is a fish best served cold

Sundy · 30-01-2014 12:59AM

MadsL wrote: »

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.

Source below.

Well yes any argument that is based on facts and research will have more weight than your made up argument about cage diving and shark deaths.

and now your posting links to articles you had never even looked at before because if you had read them you would have know that:

In Australia, white shark cage diving occurs only at the Neptune Islands Group Marine Park (60–70 km south of Port Lincoln, South Australia) comprising the North and South Neptune Islands.These islands host Australia’s largest pinniped aggregation

Shark cage diving has been happening for a lot longer than the two years that WA is experiencing the increase in shark attacks.
You also need to stop focussing on great white's many of the shark attacks in WA are bull, tiger and other species.

Its people like you take credibility away from the anti shark cull because to be honest there needs to be proper research done on sharks.
Find out where the move, how many there are and yes of course if there is a link between cage diving and shark deaths then ban it.

Dyr · 30-01-2014 01:07AM

MadsL wrote: »

Sharks are not technically fish.

Australians are not technically people

Not even Nick Cave

Stavros Murphy · 30-01-2014 01:18AM

El Guapo! wrote: »

I don't sing as well as him either.

slap head like him though.

stefan idiot jones · 30-01-2014 01:47AM

El Guapo! wrote: »

I think a lot of shark attacks are down to curiosity. The shark takes a bite out of a surfer to see what it is. This is why the majority of shark attacks are non fatal. They take a bite, realise they are not interested and move on.

I watched a programme last week on this subject.

They have proved that it is not the same shark in the attacks. The attacks are not just surfers/seals, one guy was attacked when he was in his long slender canoe. He was smashed out of his canoe but luckily he was with a few others who all grouped together and paddled like mad to safety.

Another theory is that there is a large good looking female locally and the large males are attracted to the area. Or its just on of those marvelous cycles of life that we arrogant humans who have only documented things like this for such a short time.

I'm going to the beach on Saturday down Burleigh Heads so if you don't hear from me again just spare a thought for the idiot.

AngryHippie · 30-01-2014 02:17AM

It depends on the species of shark too,

Bull Sharks are apparently quite territorial, the problem is, that they can be found up to 75km up rivers and waterways, as they have a gland to permit them to survive in freshwater.

Murky rivers are probably more dangerous than the sea

Shark cull in Austrailia

Comments