Guest Guest66881 Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 The first shark has been caught and killed under the State Government's drum-line policy. The shark, which appeared to be a 3m tiger shark, was pulled from the water shortly after 7am on a drum-line off Meelup Beach near Dunsborough. It was shot in the head up to four times at close range. [ATTACH=CONFIG]22882[/ATTACH] http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/21036468/first-drum-lines-set-off-wa-coast/ I have to say, i do not agree with this one bit - and then the stupid laws states that the body as to be dumped out at sea, surely that just encourages more shark activity within the area eventually?:arghh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy1 Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 That makes me feel sick. Ashamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gee13 Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Yes.. indeed a Waste of resources, time, taxpayer money...and more senseless decimation of precious marine ecology... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacaranda Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Why stop at sharks?Why not just shoot every single creature on the planet thats a danger to man?:arghh:Makes my blood boil!Where's Greenpeace?http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LKC Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 It is a disgusting policy which makes absolutely no sense. By this reasoning, cars, cows and people should also be banned, since they cause more deaths than sharks, although I suppose if you ban people you won't have to ban anything else because there won't be any people for the sharks, cows and cars to kill...! This infographic highlights the shark thing very well, I thought http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/sharks-killed-per-hour-infographic_n_2965775.html. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pob Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Sharks only cause five deaths a year. Kangaroos hit 6000 cars a year and cause 22 deaths a year. why not kill all the roos? 291 people drowned in Australia in 2013. maybe the water is the problem and not the sharks! Why not ban swimming? I think they should leave the sharks alone. They were there first. If you kill it, you should eat it, not just dump it's body at sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I was looking at the roo/car impact figures and yeah they do have a cull policy, but not highlighted like the shark infested waters one we have at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daveakaginge Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Why stop at sharks?Why not just shoot every single creature on the planet thats a danger to man?:arghh:Makes my blood boil!Where's Greenpeace?http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/ Man is the most danger to man, so let's have a cull, I have a few names for the list! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gee13 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 ... yeah they do have a cull policy, but not highlighted like the shark infested waters one we have at the moment. I wouldnt quite call it shark infested waters if there was only 1 fatality in 2013? And only 2 in 2012. 3 fatalities in 2 years and we are the shark capital of the world. Go figure. And in the last 100 years theres only been less than 20 fatalities in w.a Yes they are out there but other factors such as more people engaging in ocean activities. This results in chance encounters and the odd exploratory bite is enough to kill someone,usually surfers catching waves near seal colonies. We are not on their menu but if we venture into areas they target for foodthen there will be the odd incident. Ive dived many times of Perth waters, near reefs with fish and never saw one. Not even from boats. I regularly chat with local divers as well and theres been a couple of reported sightings over the last decade but the sharks went away on their merry way, perhaps they dont quite like bubbles. So far surfers and those spearfishing are most likely to get taken. Surfers mimick seal behaviour on waves at surface and spearfishermen carry freshly speared fish on them. We dont tend to hear of beachgoers being killed by sharks. Yet the media has suceeded in convincing many that our waters are so infested we need to actively go out bait hunt and kill them to protect beachgoers. Go figure.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I was being sarcastic mate, the shark cull debacle is one of my biggest pet hates at the minute.:wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Why stop at sharks?Why not just shoot every single creature on the planet thats a danger to man?:arghh:Makes my blood boil!Where's Greenpeace?http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/ Greenpeace were on the radio this morning with their typical over the top "we are going to ruin the planet" argument. We are talking about protecting about 500m out to sea, at a very few beaches in WA. As long as sharks don't come into that environment they will be safe. There are millions of them out there and I think the fact that they caught one the first day the lines were out there demonstrates that there is a constant danger. I'm fully behind the governments moves and the only person I've heard interviewed on the media with a for opinion is a guy who runs the shark management measures in Queensland. He was on Geoff Hutchison's show and every other presenter, paper, media outlet has had only people against the shark control measures. I think even Geoff's views might have changed a bit after this guy was interviewed. He asked when the Queensland measures had been put in place and why. Answer was because of fatal attacks and they had started in abut 1962 (I think). He then asked how many fatals since then Answer 1. How many sharks had they caught this season. I was expecting the guy to say 40-50 something like that. Answer 650 and half of them classed as dangerous. Geoff then asked the guy about other animals getting stuck in the nets. Guys answer was that's why they'd mostly gone to drum lines from nets because of whales, dolphins, turtles etc getting caught up. Since moving to drum lines they have a 100% success rate with freeing whales that might get caught up and 95% with turtles, the two species they worry about the most, can't get any better than 100%. How many whales beach themselves every year and die? There were loads just recently in New Zealand and a massive pod last year in bunker Bay. Tragic though it is it's also part of nature. If the same numbers are going to be repeated here there will be 2 stories a day with sharks killed, on the news. Doubt there will be that many though because we aren't trying to protect as many beaches. I think you are over reacting Melza. There are plenty of sharks out there and we aren't even going to make a dent in the numbers. Greenpeace to my mind are just another bunch of fanatics that say they are following the law when asked but when I see them trying to climb onto other countries ships, oil rigs, trying to ram boats and just be a general nuisance, then complain when they get jailed then I can't see there argument. Most places they would be regarded as pirates and they are lucky that none of them gets killed. Another argument they use is the money should be spent on research. They have spent millions on research and have been researching how to repel and deter sharks since the world wars, when they lost a lot of people to shark attacks after being torpedoed. I read a book years before we emigrated called "search for a repellent" about what they've tried and tested. The only conclusion I think they can come to is sharks are unpredictable. One could swim right by you tomorrow (if you go in the water that is) and you wouldn't even know it's there. The next day the same shark could kill you for a reason known only to itself. I'm of the opinion that a lot of people who are totally against any form of control/protection don't go near the water and wouldn't dream of going for an ocean swim, so it's not going to affect them one way or the other. For the ones that use it daily, like myself and most of our group of friends I reckon there is 95% support for some action. I know people who have lived here all their lives and changed their habits over the last couple of years because of the shark numbers and attacks. It's like asking someone who doesn't have a car licence if they are in support of speed traps and booze busses. If we are going to get upset about shark kills what happens if they take a camera into a slaughter house and we see pigs, sheep, cattle being killed for our consumption? Does everyone suddenly turn veggie? The press and media are loving it at the moment and I only hope it dies down soon and the guys running the drum lines can get on with business. I for one feel safer all ready seeing as it's one less closer to beaches yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Yes.. indeed a Waste of resources, time, taxpayer money...and more senseless decimation of precious marine ecology... Could easily be paid for by taking money out of the research budget to pay for it. In fact that's what I hope they do. There are enough tagged sharks out there already, scaring people by triggering sensors off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I was being sarcastic mate, the shark cull debacle is one of my biggest pet hates at the minute.:wink: It's a lot of peoples pet hate at the moment mate. I don't know of one positive article in any paper and only one guy on the radio who's had anything positive, with a few facts thrown in. All the others have been negative. Queensland 1 death since they've had the measures in place were enough of a "proof" that I need that the measures could work. They have a lot more people in the water than WA does too. At least give it a chance without all the hysteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 What next buckets to catch the jellies in, lower the sea level to prevent drownings? This is where the creatures live, but sadly money talks and always wins at what ever the cost to animals/forest hey even other humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gee13 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 No worries, its my pet hate too. The problem stems from the lack of and wrong information getting out to the public. Media hysteria has a lot to answer for too. In addition right wing environmental groups who are fundamentalist at their roots dont tend to help the cause of presenting the right facts in thier case - only that which suits their agenda. Yes groups like Greenpeace. Yes Its good to know theres a public backlash against the culling policy but I wonder how many people actually realise the cold hard facts beyind just jumping on the bandwagon. The reality is really so blown out of proportion. When you look at the facts presented you get a different story. The time between the last July 2012 attack and November 2013 fatalities is also of interest. There had been no fatalities in WA waters in just about one and a half years. Yes no culling in that time and not much happening. But Thats quite a long time to regenerate hysteria. Yet the last fatality brought on this culling legislation. Also of note the last 2 isolated incidents involved surfers catching waves near seal colonies that were over 400km apart. WA has a large coastline. Will an allocated catch and kill zone really reduce fatalities from what it is now? What - say that it was in place it would have reduced the 2013 rate from One to Zero?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Look one death in 40 years is a bad thing, but to kill sharks because we choose to swim there is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Look one death in 40 years is a bad thing, but to kill sharks because we choose to swim there is wrong. I was highlighting the one death in 40 years as a good thing. Seeing as they had put in the shark protection measures because of fatalities in the first place. Just proved to me that it's working and if it works in Queensland then why not here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 A quote from Ricky Gervais's twitter account: British comedian Ricky Gervais is continuing his social media campaign against the program. "You can kill any shark that gets out of the sea and starts killing us in our natural habitat of streets and pubs and internet cafes. Deal?," he tweeted. "I love everything about Australia. The people, the attitude and especially the wildlife. Please protect your sharks. They were there first." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 A quote from Ricky Gervais's twitter account: British comedian Ricky Gervais is continuing his social media campaign against the program. "You can kill any shark that gets out of the sea and starts killing us in our natural habitat of streets and pubs and internet cafes. Deal?," he tweeted. "I love everything about Australia. The people, the attitude and especially the wildlife. Please protect your sharks. They were there first." Yep I reckon that's where a lot of media get their stories from these days, twitter. Never been on the site, I'm absolutely sick of every show on TV, even the cricket, having live feeds to twitter to see what some semi famous numpty thinks about just about any subject. Don't reckon Ricky Gervais would be going in the sea every day and like it says in the quote he's a British Comedian. So unless he lives here and has any risk to put up with he should limit his twitter output to London traffic problems or something he knows a bit about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 What next buckets to catch the jellies in, lower the sea level to prevent drownings?This is where the creatures live, but sadly money talks and always wins at what ever the cost to animals/forest hey even other humans. They already try to control jellies with nets, especially over East. They spray them here and try and kill them off when breeding to reduce numbers. What next? Another few hundred show up at Cottesloe protesting about "save our jellies"? Don't think that's going to happen. You sound a bit like the guy from Greenpeace when you say lower the sea level to stop people drowning. It's just as nonsensicle argument as his was about "wiping out sharks and affecting the oceans and thus the oxygen the oceans produce. Talk about taking things to extremes jeez.:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 The extreme is a government's desire to be seen doing the 'right thing' to gain votes/popularity and money from visitors. A very interesting read to be had http://globalnews.ca/news/1110698/australias-shark-cull-ill-advised-way-of-preventing-attacks-expert/ and he doesn't live here either - go figure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 The extreme is a government's desire to be seen doing the 'right thing' to gain votes/popularity and money from visitors. A very interesting read to be had http://globalnews.ca/news/1110698/australias-shark-cull-ill-advised-way-of-preventing-attacks-expert/ and he doesn't live here either - go figure? Well judging by the response, if they were trying to gain a few votes or popularity they got that one totally wrong. Money from visitors might be an issue but last time I checked the hotels in Perth are very expensive due to being full most of the time. Burswood seems to be making money hand over fist and there seems to be plenty of people still coming. Had the odd comment from visitors about "aren't you frightened of sharks" when we've spoken to people on the beach and I know we don't go swimming out as far as we used to and maybe not stay in so long. Your article quotes a "Canadian shark expert". It's a bit like pick your expert. You can pick one who will say it's not going to make on iota of difference and then you can find another, like the Queensland guy, who can come up with facts and figures that seem to indicate it's working. Over a pretty long period of time. So like most subjects it all depends which "expert" you talk to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I used global news because it is a global site, point taken though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gee13 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Well heres an article by a local shark expert, no more local than from swanbourne. Very hard to argue with what hes saying, which a lot of is plain common sense. http://www.thestarfish.com.au/wa-sharks-dont-cull-says-hugh-edwards/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Doesn't matter where they are from. I know "experts" with differing views both ways and they would argue their case till the cows come home. Here's an opinion from another "expert" Yes, most of them never go surfing. Some of them might go diving (in cage) or spend hours watching the national geographic or the discovery channel. "Kill the people, save the animals" conservation behaviour. I am a scientist myself, I respect their opinion and we can have a long debate about the proper use of statistics , how disruptive are the nets for the environment, how bad are we humans (except those conservationists), but I really enjoy having 2 legs and 2 arms and if a net help me to feel and stay safer, the net should stay. Here is the deal: we will do our best to surf only in few protected beaches. You sharks will have the rest of the coastline to feed yourselves, to be the bullies of the seven seas and continue having your reputation to ensure a movie or a documentary about you continue appearing from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.