Paul1Perth Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 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! As long as it's not you eh. I saw the headline in the paper about shark ID problems. They love a headline don't they. The argument being that the fishermen thought it was a bull shark and some "expert" said it was a tiger shark. What's it matter? They are both on the dangerous species list and it was definitley dangerous. There is not a chance they are going to "catch them all". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Here's a good article from the other side for a change. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/wa-entitled-to-cull-sharks/story-e6frg71x-1226812522427 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gee13 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 The QLD program is fairly indiscriminate in its killing program - it doesnt choose exactly what shark to kill - or any other marine animal for that matter. And I bring up just on a hypothetical notion of 'If we kill all the sharks in the ocean' because this is the intent of those in favour of to rid sharks in the ocean so they dont pose a threat right? Dont tell me its a case of "We'll just kill some and keep others in reserve for another time" The facts are surmountable against the effectiveness of culling. Media articles are going to present false information again and again. Articles in favour of culling are not going to mention that since drum lines have been introduced there have been more shark fatalities and incidents in QLD than WA. And WA has never had a cull policy. So on this note theres no leg to stand on. The other argument is the moral obligation we have - yes theres always two sides to morality its all subjective. Everyone has their own belief systems to suit their own. Some dont feel remorse to kill other people in the name of their beliefs in fact they think this is moral, others think its wrong. Some dont feel remorse to kill other sharks in the name of feeling more secure. Others think this is wrong. In the case of to cull or not to cull I believe its beyond whats wrong and right, whats moral or not. There is a line where once we go past it theres no turning back.. its called extinction. And the path to that line is sadly happening now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 The QLD program is fairly indiscriminate in its killing program - it doesnt choose exactly what shark to kill - or any other marine animal for that matter. And I bring up just on a hypothetical notion of 'If we kill all the sharks in the ocean' because this is the intent of those in favour of to rid sharks in the ocean so they dont pose a threat right? Dont tell me its a case of "We'll just kill some and keep others in reserve for another time" The facts are surmountable against the effectiveness of culling. Media articles are going to present false information again and again. Articles in favour of culling are not going to mention that since drum lines have been introduced there have been more shark fatalities and incidents in QLD than WA. And WA has never had a cull policy. So on this note theres no leg to stand on. The other argument is the moral obligation we have - yes theres always two sides to morality its all subjective. Everyone has their own belief systems to suit their own. Some dont feel remorse to kill other people in the name of their beliefs in fact they think this is moral, others think its wrong. Some dont feel remorse to kill other sharks in the name of feeling more secure. Others think this is wrong. In the case of to cull or not to cull I believe its beyond whats wrong and right, whats moral or not. There is a line where once we go past it theres no turning back.. its called extinction. And the path to that line is sadly happening now... On the markup above the measures were brought in, in Queensland because of fatal attacks prior to 1965. Since then one fatal. I heard the guy from Queensland on the news. 3 fatals last year in WA. And I bring up just on a hypothetical notion of 'If we kill all the sharks in the ocean' because this is the intent of those in favour of to rid sharks in the ocean so they dont pose a threat right? Dont tell me its a case of "We'll just kill some and keep others in reserve for another time" You're wrong. It's not the intent of the government, people who support the measures and anyone else I know to rid the ocean of sharks. The intent is to try and protect a few beaches. Don't want to kill some and keep others in reserve. That's just talking rubbish and the people who are against doing anything love to push this fallacy. I think you are being way over dramatic to be talking about extinction and shark management (not cull) in the same sentence. Global warming will get us way before we manage to wipe all the sharks out.:wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gee13 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 On the markup above the measures were brought in, in Queensland because of fatal attacks prior to 1965. Since then one fatal. I heard the guy from Queensland on the news. 3 fatals last year in WA. SO you just believe the hearsay of some 'guy' from Queenland right? He's in the News..even better. Wrong again... Since then 17 Fatal in QLD . Check the Shark Files And Fatals in WA 2013? Wrong again...Just the single ONE - last November. Prior to that in July 2012. Again check the Shark Files. I'll post again the trend for WA shark fatalities which I already have posted. 2011 - 3 2012 - 2 2013 - 1 Thats a declining trend I'll post the site again for your information: Here http://sharkattackfile.info/sitemap.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gee13 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 You're wrong. It's not the intent of the government, people who support the measures and anyone else I know to rid the ocean of sharks. The intent is to try and protect a few beaches. Don't want to kill some and keep others in reserve. That's just talking rubbish and the people who are against doing anything love to push this fallacy. I think you are being way over dramatic to be talking about extinction and shark management (not cull) in the same sentence. Global warming will get us way before we manage to wipe all the sharks out If the agenda is to protect some beaches, then just killing the odd shark here and there is not going to solve the problem - because it hasnt in QLD as evidenced by the effects of indiscriminate killing. It may not be the direct intent of Govt to kill all sharks but the immediate intent is to kill all sharks in the vicinity of beaches they want to protect because if you dont kill all within the vicinity - then they will keep coming back - especially to the baitlines. Fact remains - Increased fatalities and incidents in the state who has designed a shark protection program to supposedly protect 'a few beaches'? :no: Well anyone can choose believe the 'Queensland guy' on the news... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Throwaway Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I’m really on the fence with this issue. I see a little of both sides that I can relate to. Some points below I’d like to highlight that really don’t help the ‘against’ side of things with such pathetic and weak arguments: /full sarcasm mode activated Melza – “Why stop at sharks? Why not just shoot every single creature on the planet thats a danger to man?” – I find this a ridiculous thing to say. pob – “Sharks only cause five deaths a year” – Maybe we could reduce this number? But as you say, only 5 a year so that’s pretty acceptable and probably shouldn’t try and find a solution to it. pob & gee13 make interesting points below about drowning. Not sure how this is related in any way to shark related deaths? pob – “291 people drowned in Australia in 2013. maybe the water is the problem and not the sharks! Why not ban swimming?” gee13 – “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.” Yes there was 1 shark attack in 2013 but 87 people died trying to put on their socks while coming down the stairs*. By removing all the sharks you will stop that 1 shark attack but you will still have 87 people dying by falling down the stairs while trying to put on their socks. I believe my argument is as solid as yours. (*Stats may be made up) pob – “They were there first.” – What’s your point? pob – “If you kill it, you should eat it, not just dump it's body at sea.” – If we eat animals it’s ok to kill them, but if we aren’t going to eat them it’s not. Point taken. Paul1Perth – “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.” – Queensland doesn’t have all these protests but WA does. Is Queensland just barbaric in their ways? PaulandDeb – “What next buckets to catch the jellies in, lower the sea level to prevent drownings?” – I think Paul1Perth below answers this well as your point is a weak one at best. Paul1Perth – “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.” Nikey – “perhaps a new system should be investigated?” – I like this comment. Thinking. gee13 – “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.” – By this reasoning there will be 0 deaths in 2014? Or if there are 2 deaths in 2014 we can accurately predict there will be 3 in 2015? Not sure the data backs up any argument on this ‘interesting trend’. Melza – “You want to cross a field,but there's a sign on the gate saying "Beware of Bull"” – Who put the bull in this field and what are we doing with it? Ah yes, we have enslaved it to do with it what we want; mate with cows so we can produce more cows and eat them. gee13 – “put a ban on surfing activity in high risk areas with waves” – This is actually a good point. People could reduce the risk by trying to be more careful. Surfers will probably ignore and hit the good spots anyway but still. In conclusion. People who are against this need to come up with some better arguments than: ‘If we kill all the sharks why not kill everything else’ it’s far too flippant and makes you seem dumb. We already kill everything else and it seems a little hypocritical that people get so wound up over 1 shark when we eat all kinds of meat. Most animals probably don’t have that good living condition before we eat them. STOP IT with the drowned references. I find it interesting that Queensland has had a similar policy in place for a while and appears to be working (or is it?) but we aren’t willing to give it a go. Do they have protests in Queensland over the hundreds of sharks that are killed? I see a need for people to be protected while in the sea but I also wonder if this method is the right one. It’s probably heartless of me to say I wasn’t affected by 1 shark dying the other day but I’m trying to be realistic that when I have my BBQ this weekend I similarly won’t be grieving for the animals that had to die to get me such a good feed. Different thing completely? Perhaps. I wonder that when they have these protests at the beach against the shark cull, is there a similar amount of people that want the cull but they don’t turn up to the beach? Therefore we can’t see numbers of for and against? Just because 5 thousand people don’t want something to happen and they protest doesn’t mean there aren’t more people out there who are for the cull. Who is in a majority here? It seems a bit like the ‘against’ group shout a little louder but that doesn’t mean it is the right thing. I’ve directly attacked people in this post, I’m sorry. Your posts infuriated me. I’m sure a lot of what I’ve said it just as ridiculous to you. I’ve probably got some weak augments too. Let my demise begin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 SO you just believe the hearsay of some 'guy' from Queenland right? He's in the News..even better. Wrong again... Since then 17 Fatal in QLD . Check the Shark Files And Fatals in WA 2013? Just one - last November. Again check the Shark Files. I'll post the site again Here http://sharkattackfile.info/sitemap.html Then Search Date, Country, Area Just type in Queensland in 'Area field' and hit Enter... The "guy" from Queensland I'm talking about was the person in charge of Queensland's shark control measures. He was on Geoff Hutchinson ABC mornings program and I think he was talking about shark attacks and deaths previously at beaches that they try and protect, not the whole of the coast. That would be impossible. Geoff asked him how many fatals since they had put the measures in place and the guy said one, since 1965. The 3 fatals in WA I heard from the premier this morning. I did your search on fatals btw and it showed in 2013 as you say 1 in Western Australia. In fact first page it came up with showed 2 fatals in WA, one was from 2012 though. Strangely enough though NONE from Queensland, one from Victoria and one from NSW. Didn't bother looking at the other 57 pages of fatals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gee13 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Fair enough, for a first poster.. some of the points you raise are relevant and realistic. Its your world view. And yes this is an argument that can go on forever - It would be interesting to have a T.A.R.D.I.S to fast forward say 20 years in to the future and see whats happened as a result of the destructive decisions that have been made. Or maybe NOT. But Yes I would love to see the end of culling anywhere on earth. I love the marine environment. I chalk up up to 100 dives locally and around the world to photograph corals and fish in their natural environment. Ive been within 10m of a Great White the size of a London Bus in SA...and looked at it eye to eye. I experienced a connection to something that was a lot more intelligent and perhaps evolutionary superior to humans. Im devastated to realise that my grandchildren may not be able to experience such an interaction (albiet in a cage of course). How many people on here who are for the culling can say to have experienced this and still feel the same way. I challenge you. Ive said my piece. You cant ignore the facts and trends. They speak for themselves. Just dont go on and make up stories based on hearsay ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gee13 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 The "guy" from Queensland I'm talking about was the person in charge of Queensland's shark control measures. He was on Geoff Hutchinson ABC mornings program and I think he was talking about shark attacks and deaths previously at beaches that they try and protect, not the whole of the coast. That would be impossible. Geoff asked him how many fatals since they had put the measures in place and the guy said one, since 1965. The 3 fatals in WA I heard from the premier this morning. I did your search on fatals btw and it showed in 2013 as you say 1 in Western Australia. In fact first page it came up with showed 2 fatals in WA, one was from 2012 though. Strangely enough though NONE from Queensland, one from Victoria and one from NSW. Didn't bother looking at the other 57 pages of fatals. That would be right...the person in charge of QLD Shark Control measures and the Premier of WA who was responsible for calling the cull dont even know the real facts and numbers!! :no:Thats purely laughable if that was the case. I dont claim to have heard the interview but Im going to have to now! There was only 1 fatality in WA and the last one was Chris Boyd, Margaret River in November 2013 The previous was Ben Linden at Wedge Island July 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 That would be right...the person in charge of QLD Shark Control measures and the Premier of WA who was responsible for calling the cull dont even know the real facts and numbers!! :no:Thats purely laughable if that was the case. I dont claim to have heard the interview but Im going to have to now! There was only 1 fatality in WA and the last one was Chris Boyd, Margaret River in November 2013 The previous was Ben Linden at Wedge Island July 2012 Spot on, that's what I saw on the site link you sent but like I said in my earlier post NONE in Queensland. Do you think the person in charge of the shark control measures in Queensland would be telling lies? He would soon be found out if he was and that would make him look a real fool. lot more intelligent and perhaps evolutionary superior to humans. I really can't see this being true. If everything I read about sharks not really attacking humans and they don't like the taste if they were so intelligent they wouldn't attack and be in any danger. I'm glad you got away with bumping into the great white and living to tell the tale btw. Must have been some experience. Scary for a little while though.:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gee13 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Spot on, that's what I saw on the site link you sent but like I said in my earlier post NONE in Queensland. No fatality in 2013 yes, last one August 2011 and 16 before that dating back to 1962 in QLD. Do you think the person in charge of the shark control measures in Queensland would be telling lies? He would soon be found out if he was and that would make him look a real fool. Isnt that what pollies and bureaucrats are good at?:laugh: Over and out for me.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jen85 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 As long as it's not you eh. The argument being that the fishermen thought it was a bull shark and some "expert" said it was a tiger shark. What's it matter? They are both on the dangerous species list and it was definitley dangerous. There is not a chance they are going to "catch them all". I'm not a beach person and I'm not stupid enough to go in at dawn and dusk plus as I've said and stand by its their home so if they took me so be it, I wouldn't want it killed over it. It does matter because different sharks have different eating patterns and behaviours, you can't just whack out baits for them all and catch anything - it was all about Great Whites to start with now its changed to all sharks that come close to shore. I just hope the activists and common sense prevails on this issue eventually, Barnett is not winning any friends that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I'm not a beach person and I'm not stupid enough to go in at dawn and dusk plus as I've said and stand by its their home so if they took me so be it, I wouldn't want it killed over it. It does matter because different sharks have different eating patterns and behaviours, you can't just whack out baits for them all and catch anything - it was all about Great Whites to start with now its changed to all sharks that come close to shore. I just hope the activists and common sense prevails on this issue eventually, Barnett is not winning any friends that's for sure. It was never all about great whites. The policy says any shark over 3 metres is classed as dangerous and both the tiger shark and bull sharks are on the dangerous list, so again, what's it matter whether it was one or the other, it was a none story the press tried to blow up. The dawn or dusk thing is pure fallacy. Look at my previous post from when most attacks are happening. You might have heard, as I have that it's safer if you don't go in at dawn or dusk, statistics prove differently. I think you've said what matters already "I'm not a beach person" so your going to be pretty safe whether the government tries to protect a few beaches or not. So if a dog attacked and mauled your youngster (if you have one) you wouldn't want that killed either then? As for Barnett winning or losing friends he's got plenty of support amongst a lot of people that use the ocean. Just that they aren't going out to shout it out at Cottesloe and protest for the actions doesn't mean he has no support. It's not Barnetts job and shouldn't be hos worry whether he's making frineds or not. He's there to do a job and sometimes that means making hard decisions that a lot of people aren't going to like. The protesters who went into his offices and threatened two ladies who worked in there with a hammer hardly covered themselves in glory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 A natural environment over a man made situation does not really hold any water in this debate does it, dogs bite people for all sorts of reasons - mainly due to interaction and the fact that they share the human domain, bites from dogs are inevitable in these situations, as they are if a lot rarer if you go into the sharks domain out at sea. Culling dogs will not happen, neither should culling of any wild animal because a human thinks they are smarter or is it just arrogance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buttercup Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 As per usual, it's humans that are the problem. It's not rocket science. The mentality of what they are doing here beggers belief really. I suppose with a country that still sells dogs in shops, well says it all really.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindor Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 The State Government's shark-kill program has begun off Perth beaches with Fisheries Department officers setting baited lines along the coast this morning. Equipment was loaded on to a Fisheries Department vessel earlythis morning. Fisheries personnel began loading the boat at the department's base in South Fremantle. http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/latest/a/21188502/drum-lines-set-off-perth-beaches/ :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Perth swimmers have been warned to exercise caution after two sharks caught under the State Government's catch-and-kill policy were reportedly released off the city's beaches. The two sharks were caught on baited drum lines set this morning off metro beaches as part of the controversial policy. Fisheries have declined to give any information on the sharks, including their size, species, or where they were released. However, surf lifesavers say one of them was a 2.6 metre tiger shark, which was released 1 kilometre off Cottesloe Beach. Fisheries officers dropped 36 drum lines in waters at five sites between Port and Leighton beaches, Cottesloe, City Beach, Trigg and Mullaloo. http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/21198780/wa-shark-measures-swimmers-warned-after-tiger-shark-caught-and-released-off-cottesloe-beach/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 The wheels will fall off this roller coaster very soon i hope. http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/latest/a/21207739/protesters-take-on-shark-kill-policy/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 [ATTACH=CONFIG]22999[/ATTACH]:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindor Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 [ATTACH=CONFIG]22999[/ATTACH]:laugh: :laugh: If only...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 I have many more in the making lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindor Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 It was never all about great whites. The policy says any shark over 3 metres is classed as dangerous and both the tiger shark and bull sharks are on the dangerous list, so again, what's it matter whether it was one or the other, it was a none story the press tried to blow up. The dawn or dusk thing is pure fallacy. Look at my previous post from when most attacks are happening. You might have heard, as I have that it's safer if you don't go in at dawn or dusk, statistics prove differently. I think you've said what matters already "I'm not a beach person" so your going to be pretty safe whether the government tries to protect a few beaches or not. So if a dog attacked and mauled your youngster (if you have one) you wouldn't want that killed either then? As for Barnett winning or losing friends he's got plenty of support amongst a lot of people that use the ocean. Just that they aren't going out to shout it out at Cottesloe and protest for the actions doesn't mean he has no support. It's not Barnetts job and shouldn't be hos worry whether he's making frineds or not. He's there to do a job and sometimes that means making hard decisions that a lot of people aren't going to like. The protesters who went into his offices and threatened two ladies who worked in there with a hammer hardly covered themselves in glory. It was one protester Paul and he didn't threaten anyone. He went into the office and told them what he was going to do and handed out safety glasses! http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-21/premier27s-office-vandalised-court/5211068 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 [ATTACH=CONFIG]23000[/ATTACH]:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.