WA drum lines catch first shark.

[Nikey]

I remember seeing a shark net on tv and being amazed because it is really narrow and just goes along the bottom of the sea bed. The idea is that it deters the sharks anyway. As this is clearly no longer happening and their behaviour is changing perhaps a new system should be investigated?

[Paul1Perth]

I remember seeing a shark net on tv and being amazed because it is really narrow and just goes along the bottom of the sea bed. The idea is that it deters the sharks anyway. As this is clearly no longer happening and their behaviour is changing perhaps a new system should be investigated?

 

They've not tried it in WA before Nikey and I don't know that sharks behaviour is changing tbh, just think there are more of them. There used to be a whaling station in Albany and there were sharks all over the place then. Obviously wouldn't have been a good place to go for a swim.

 

Shark nets are used less and less as they also catch and kill other things (whales, dolphins, turtles etc). The authorities have gone more and more for drum lines.

[gee13]

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"

 

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.

 

Unfortunately this expert doesnt base their views on common sense. As evidenced by what they have said in 'the deal'

, simply bordering on laughable

 

Sharks are not bulies of the seas just because they live to hunt to survive..its the irrational man thats the bully of the entire planet

 

They dont seek to have a reputation to ensure something on tv is made about their eating habits, just because they need to survive

 

Man doesnt own the ocean, we dont even live in it..

[Paul1Perth]

Unfortunately this expert doesnt base their views on common sense. As evidenced by what they have said in 'the deal'

, simply bordering on laughable

 

Sharks are not bulies of the seas just because they live to hunt to survive..its the irrational man thats the bully of the entire planet

 

They dont seek to have a reputation to ensure something on tv is made about their eating habits, just because they need to survive

 

Man doesnt own the ocean, we dont even live in it..

 

We're not trying to "own the ocean". There isn't a chance of us doing that. Just try and protect a measly bit of water compared to where sharks can go and have absolutely no problem at all. Unless there's shark fishermen of course.

 

TV and the media love a shark attack and just about anything to do with sharks. You can guarantee loads of shark programs on TV just as summer is about to start. Foxtel had shark week this year. Just created hysteria and crazy comments like "killing all the sharks". There isn't a chance of doing that and no-one wants to.

[gee13]

Thats the point , even with trying to protect the 'measly' amount of ocean in these catch and kill zones. Theres 500km from Margaret River to Jurien Bay alone, and total WA coastline is about 21,000km. Great Whites and other large sharks migrate within this zone. What 'measly' amount of ocean will selcted cull zones near Dunsborough do to protect current surfers in Wedge Island?

 

The government would have to generate quite an amount of income to employ fishermen to do this. They barely got through organisationally with the first allocation in the first place!

 

Therfore the other argument is despite such a policy to rid a small area of sharks the sheer reality of space to cover is enormous, and can only result in this policy rendered ineffective.

 

There will still be random attacks from time to time, approximately in line with whats happening now Regardless of current shark culls.

 

Lets get some more facts in place. There have been 10 shark deaths in WA in the last 10 years. Thats an average of 1 per year. Yes this is slightly higher than previous decade averages. This may be due to human population expansion and increase in activity in waters, decline of available fish stocks, increase in seal populations near surf zones, increase in whale migrations on the coast. Or All of the above.

 

But it still remains an average of 1 per year during this 'escalated' period.

 

Another interesting trend... there were 3 fatalities in 2011, yes a bad year, but in 2012 there were 2, in 2013 only 1 fatality. The trend is a decline not increase.

[starlight7]

What a bunch of rednecks those people are. It truly is another country.

[Jacaranda]

paul1perth:Your post is actually quite offensive.Firstly if you take the risk of swimming in the ocean,unfortunately there are creatures living there that might harm you.Thats the risk you take.Sharks are living in their natural habitat.So lets say for example,you are walking across the countryside.You want to cross a field,but there's a sign on the gate saying "Beware of Bull"You see the bull in the distance,but decide to take the risk to cross its field anyway.Half way across,said bull charges you,you end up in hospital badly injured.Is the farmer going to shoot the bull?Cause if it were my bull,I definately would'nt.Whats so senseless actually about this shark cull is the fact there are no fences in the ocean,so consequently sharks will come closer to shore.Thats really just bad luck for the swimmers,surfers and anyone else who happens to be in the ocean at the same time.You obviously have your own agenda.You said yourself you swim everyday so for you,the less sharks the better right?I did go to the beach when I lived in Sth Oz,not that regularly I admit but I did go.I accepted the fact that I knew what the risk were,whether that be jellyfish,stingrays or sharks.I once had a close (ish)encounter with a shark once and figured that had I of not spotted it?And lost a leg or my life or whatever,then its my own fault.Another scenario:You decide to go to Africa,and go for a trek in the jungle where Tigers have been sighted(and that might be a rare thing soon too!).Tiger finds you and mauls you to death.Should that tiger be shot?Just because you stupidly took the risk,and said tiger figured you'd make a nice dinner?

[Guest Guest66881]

Thats the point , even with trying to protect the 'measly' amount of ocean in these catch and kill zones. Theres 500km from Margaret River to Jurien Bay alone, and total WA coastline is about 21,000km. Great Whites and other large sharks migrate within this zone. What 'measly' amount of ocean will selcted cull zones near Dunsborough do to protect current surfers in Wedge Island?

 

The government would have to generate quite an amount of income to employ fishermen to do this. They barely got through organisationally with the first allocation in the first place!

 

Therfore the other argument is despite such a policy to rid a small area of sharks the sheer reality of space to cover is enormous, and can only result in this policy rendered ineffective.

 

There will still be random attacks from time to time, approximately in line with whats happening now Regardless of current shark culls.

 

Lets get some more facts in place. There have been 10 shark deaths in WA in the last 10 years. Thats an average of 1 per year. Yes this is slightly higher than previous decade averages. This may be due to human population expansion and increase in activity in waters, decline of available fish stocks, increase in seal populations near surf zones, increase in whale migrations on the coast. Or All of the above.

 

But it still remains an average of 1 per year during this 'escalated' period.

 

Another interesting trend... there were 3 fatalities in 2011, yes a bad year, but in 2012 there were 2, in 2013 only 1 fatality. The trend is a decline not increase.

 

And NOW they implement the death hooks, yet another money well spent episode in the life and times of this WA government.

[Lambethlad]

And what about those idiots yesterday in the NT? A guy jumped in a billabong and was taken by a croc. So they shot two crocs and when they opened them up they found they weren't the ones responsible. If you venture into croc or shark infested water you know the risk and have to be willing to take the consequences. Leave the wildlife alone. I don't go into their environment and they don't come into my pub.

[Guest Guest66881]

Yeah i have never understood the whole lets go catch kill a killer croc, like it tells other crocs to not eat humans as they will shoot you, if we don't read the signs and do as asked then expect to be bitten or worse.

[Paul1Perth]

What a bunch of rednecks those people are. It truly is another country.

 

What people and what country are you referring to starlight? It's been this way over East since the 60's.

[jen85]

Neanderthal male again, "Me kill shark, me eat" That Barnett is a complete idiot but to be honest the people have themselves to blame they bloody voted for him! Here's a tip, vote for someone else or better yet don't vote (if you put in a "dummy" vote you can avoid the fine).

[Paul1Perth]

paul1perth:Your post is actually quite offensive.Firstly if you take the risk of swimming in the ocean,unfortunately there are creatures living there that might harm you.Thats the risk you take.Sharks are living in their natural habitat.So lets say for example,you are walking across the countryside.You want to cross a field,but there's a sign on the gate saying "Beware of Bull"You see the bull in the distance,but decide to take the risk to cross its field anyway.Half way across,said bull charges you,you end up in hospital badly injured.Is the farmer going to shoot the bull?Cause if it were my bull,I definately would'nt.Whats so senseless actually about this shark cull is the fact there are no fences in the ocean,so consequently sharks will come closer to shore.Thats really just bad luck for the swimmers,surfers and anyone else who happens to be in the ocean at the same time.You obviously have your own agenda.You said yourself you swim everyday so for you,the less sharks the better right?I did go to the beach when I lived in Sth Oz,not that regularly I admit but I did go.I accepted the fact that I knew what the risk were,whether that be jellyfish,stingrays or sharks.I once had a close (ish)encounter with a shark once and figured that had I of not spotted it?And lost a leg or my life or whatever,then its my own fault.Another scenario:You decide to go to Africa,and go for a trek in the jungle where Tigers have been sighted(and that might be a rare thing soon too!).Tiger finds you and mauls you to death.Should that tiger be shot?Just because you stupidly took the risk,and said tiger figured you'd make a nice dinner?

 

Don't know why you find it offensive. It's just a difference of opinion. If your stories played out and I went through a field with a bull in it and I ended up dead I'm pretty sure the bull would end up dead too. The tigers are getting killed already, you quite rightly say it might be a rare thing to see one soon. The are killing tigers just because they want the land, not because they are killing people.

 

I'm not all for less sharks the better, there are thousands of them out there and I don't think for one second what the government is proposing, trying to make a few beaches safer, about 1km out, along the whole coast is going to affect numbers and breeding stocks. It's not going to make a significant change in the number of sharks and I don't want to see them wiped out. It would be impossible to do that.

[Paul1Perth]

Neanderthal male again, "Me kill shark, me eat" That Barnett is a complete idiot but to be honest the people have themselves to blame they bloody voted for him! Here's a tip, vote for someone else or better yet don't vote (if you put in a "dummy" vote you can avoid the fine).

 

I also know a few females who are right behind the government. Just about anyone who's involved with surf lifesaving. It's not just a male thing so maybe a few Neanderthal females about too.

[Guest Guest66881]

So why have them then?

All this is is a publicity stunt to show that the 'government' cares for people, yeah right.

[Guest Ptp113]

WA is getting as bad as Qld and that's saying something.

[starlight7]

Worse than Queensland. More Queensland in the 1980s.

[Paul1Perth]

Worse than Queensland. More Queensland in the 1980s.

 

They're copying Queensland's policy so I can't see how it can be worse. The nets and hooks have been in Queensland and NSW since the 60's, so your estimation of 1980's is way out.

 

If it works in Queensland where they have more beaches and a lot more people in the water and surfing then it's good enough for WA to give it a try. Still carry on with the jibes if it makes you feel better.

 

Aren't you from Canberra Coventry? No need to worry yourself about sharks in that neck of the woods. Thought you would be more concerned about shooting horses from planes or something.

[Guest Ptp113]

They're copying Queensland's policy so I can't see how it can be worse. The nets and hooks have been in Queensland and NSW since the 60's, so your estimation of 1980's is way out.

 

If it works in Queensland where they have more beaches and a lot more people in the water and surfing then it's good enough for WA to give it a try. Still carry on with the jibes if it makes you feel better.

 

Aren't you from Canberra Coventry? No need to worry yourself about sharks in that neck of the woods. Thought you would be more concerned about shooting horses from planes or something.

A lot more sharks here than WA or Qld!

[gee13]

The cost to the QLD marine environment has been immense over the decades. Because Qld employs netting practices as well as drum lines, in just the first 15 years alone there have been over 14,000 marine bycatch animals who have died. Annually over 500 sharks are killed indiscriminately, less than half of which areless than 2m and not considered harmful sharks. The proof is in a very rotten pudding. The domino effect ends with plagues of crown of thorns now consuming reef systems. Remove the apex predator and you shift the balance of the ecosystem in a drastic fashion. You get side effects which decimate reef and fish stocks. It doesnt help when bycatch involves whales, dolphins, dugongs, turtles, rays..all neccesary links in the food chain. Whats the $$ cost for this? Yes up to A$1.7 million per year.

 

I have witnessed first hand when I dived a few years back on the Great Barrier Reef. It was like a barren desert and one felt it dying in the process. Yes it also doesnt help when fertilisers are seeping into the ocean which is warming up. But The decimation of sharks in Queensland is just a small wave that tips the dominoes over. One by one the environmental chain collapses.

 

Yes we can remove all the sharks in the ocean and we wont be hearing of shark attacks. But you will still hear of drowning deaths. There 46 drowning deaths in WA in 2013. Only 1 from shark attack.

 

I have a viable solution that wont cost us our precious marine environment , the sharks that need it to survive or much taxpayer money - put a ban on surfing activity in high risk areas with waves. 5 out of the last 10 fatalities were either surfers or boogie boarders. 3 incidents were in Gracetown/Margaret River.

[gee13]

By the way here is another incident which happened in QLD not long ago..

 

The incident was 2006 where Sarah Wiley went swimming at Amity Beach near where drum lines were deployed, she was killed by bull sharks attracted to bait and in subsequent hunting mode. The mechanism designed to protect her from sharks in the first place worked in reverse in this case.

 

The bigger picture that incorrectly champions QLD cull program as effective is far from the real truth, since 1962 when drum lining was introduced on top of netting there have been 17 fatalities attributed to shark attacks in QLD, plus countless reported near fatal attacks (much more than WA in the same time period)

 

Source

http://sharkattackfile.info

[gee13]

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?

 

Incorrect..Its not working in QLD if there have been more attacks and fatalities combined than WA since the introduction of netting and drum lining.

 

What you have been fed is another line of propaganda, taken hook line and sinker like a culled shark.

[jen85]

Just don't swim when sharks are feeding, we were always told as young ones not to swim and dawn and dusk so why can't people just stick to that and leave the sharks alone. If they see you bobbing around on a board with your arms out that shadow actually mirrors a seal, the shark isn't attacking humans it is undertaking normal shark feeding patterns. In a way I hope someone does get mauled because that will show the government that it isn't working, especially when the fisherman catching them can't even distinguish what shark it is they are meant to be hunting instead of catching them all!

[Paul1Perth]

The cost to the QLD marine environment has been immense over the decades. Because Qld employs netting practices as well as drum lines, in just the first 15 years alone there have been over 14,000 marine bycatch animals who have died. Annually over 500 sharks are killed indiscriminately, less than half of which areless than 2m and not considered harmful sharks. The proof is in a very rotten pudding. The domino effect ends with plagues of crown of thorns now consuming reef systems. Remove the apex predator and you shift the balance of the ecosystem in a drastic fashion. You get side effects which decimate reef and fish stocks. It doesnt help when bycatch involves whales, dolphins, dugongs, turtles, rays..all neccesary links in the food chain. Whats the $$ cost for this? Yes up to A$1.7 million per year.

 

I have witnessed first hand when I dived a few years back on the Great Barrier Reef. It was like a barren desert and one felt it dying in the process. Yes it also doesnt help when fertilisers are seeping into the ocean which is warming up. But The decimation of sharks in Queensland is just a small wave that tips the dominoes over. One by one the environmental chain collapses.

 

Yes we can remove all the sharks in the ocean and we wont be hearing of shark attacks. But you will still hear of drowning deaths. There 46 drowning deaths in WA in 2013. Only 1 from shark attack.

 

I have a viable solution that wont cost us our precious marine environment , the sharks that need it to survive or much taxpayer money - put a ban on surfing activity in high risk areas with waves. 5 out of the last 10 fatalities were either surfers or boogie boarders. 3 incidents were in Gracetown/Margaret River.

 

They haven't "removed" the aprex predator though and they don't want to. Far from it, they are still catching the same number of sharks as they did when they kicked off the project in the 60's. There are no less sharks around because of the nets and hooks, just a bit safer at those few beaches where the protection measures are.

 

I heard the guy from Queensland on the radio and he said the release rate for whales is 100% and turtles around 95%.

 

Again you use the argument of "Yes we can remove all the sharks in the ocean". That's not what it's about and never has been. It's about trying to make a very small percentage of beaches, 1km or so out as safe as the government can. Not indiscriminately killing sharks. Sure I agree with you about drowning deaths and it being more dangerous to drive to the beach and back, but all I hear from people down the beach and visitors is they are worried about sharks. We have a girl at work over from Canberra at the moment, she's seconded from France for a while and has never been to Perth. She asked me if there were any beaches close and when I told her about them she was keen to go and have a look but straight away said she wuoldn't be going in the water as she's afraid of sharks. Go figure.

 

The media beat it up beyond belief and this whole episode isn't helping. It's never out of the paper, there's a shark story a day, usually with a photo of a massive shark. It's on the news nightly, the news were complaining that the taxpayer is having to pay $6,000 a day for the guy down South while neglecting to say they are also paying for the ABC and other boats to follow the poor guy around every day, hoping for more photos of shark catching. There's another protest organised this weekend at Cott, just to stir it up a bit more.

 

I could easily get together an opposing view protest with just as many people but what's the point? The government has already decided to do something and it would just make things worse.

 

I hope in a couple of years it all becomes part of the shark management process, there are no attacks, everyone feels safer and stops talking about it and beach life, tourists, surfers can go down the beach and not talk about sharks at all.

[Paul1Perth]

On the argument about when to swim I've seen on here and heard a few people on the radio saying don't swim in the early morning and at dusk and you'll be right. Unfortunately early morning and after work is when me and most people who like the beach are likely to be there.

 

Luckily this link and a copy from it below shows that it's just a fallacy that you are safer at other times.

 

http://sharkattackfile.info/time_of_day_shark_attacks/time_of_day_most_shark_attacks.asp

 

Sharks don't seem to mind what time of day it is if they fancy a bite.

 

[TABLE=width: 95%]

[TR]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center]Dawn[/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] [/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] Morning[/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] [/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] Afternoon[/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] [/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] Evening[/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] [/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] Dusk[/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] [/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] Night[/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] [/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] [TABLE]

[TR]

[TD] 4[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] [/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] [TABLE]

[TR]

[TD] 100[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] [/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] [TABLE]

[TR]

[TD] 150[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] [/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] [TABLE]

[TR]

[TD] 44[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] [/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] [TABLE]

[TR]

[TD] 18[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] [/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center] [TABLE]

[TR]

[TD] 49[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[/TD]

[TD=width: 8%, align: center][/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]