dmjg Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 If you go into a potentially dangerous environment it's up to you to protect yourself. Thus I think shark culls are not the answer. People who choose to enter the water do so at their own risk. They should therefore protect themselves by buying something like a "shark shield" it costs about $600 and works off a localised electric field. General swimmers don't need one, but surfers who choose to go into great white territory do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack91 Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 1 hour ago, dmjg said: If you go into a potentially dangerous environment it's up to you to protect yourself. Thus I think shark culls are not the answer. People who choose to enter the water do so at their own risk. They should therefore protect themselves by buying something like a "shark shield" it costs about $600 and works off a localised electric field. General swimmers don't need one, but surfers who choose to go into great white territory do. Just saying.... They don't work. Surf regularly. Few mates have them..... Still makes no difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robfromdublin Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 10 hours ago, newjez said: I see self defense as very different to culling. If a homeless drug addict breaks into my house, I wouldn't fancy their chances. But I don't roam the streets culling homeless drug addicts, just on the off chance they may break into my home. Great analogy! Taking a non-human equivalent: Dogs kill way more people than sharks in Australia, but we only kill specific dogs that are known to have attacked someone. We don't cull dogs on the off-chance they could attack someone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robfromdublin Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Jack91 said: Just saying.... They don't work. Surf regularly. Few mates have them..... Still makes no difference. What makes you say that? Are your mates regularly fending off shark attacks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 11 hours ago, robfromdublin said: Great analogy! Taking a non-human equivalent: Dogs kill way more people than sharks in Australia, but we only kill specific dogs that are known to have attacked someone. We don't cull dogs on the off-chance they could attack someone. I don't think you are right. Actually a better analogy is with certain breeds of dangerous dogs. Certain breeds which are known to be dangerous are banned to be kept as pets in UK and Australia and will be euthanased just based on their breed and characteristics to attack humans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 13 hours ago, dmjg said: If you go into a potentially dangerous environment it's up to you to protect yourself. Thus I think shark culls are not the answer. People who choose to enter the water do so at their own risk. They should therefore protect themselves by buying something like a "shark shield" it costs about $600 and works off a localised electric field. General swimmers don't need one, but surfers who choose to go into great white territory do. Swimmers do get taken by sharks. One person in WA was attacked while walking in knee deep water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robfromdublin Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Parley said: I don't think you are right. Actually a better analogy is with certain breeds of dangerous dogs. Certain breeds which are known to be dangerous are banned to be kept as pets in UK and Australia and will be euthanased just based on their breed and characteristics to attack humans. Could you name one of these breeds? Because actually the legislation is usually related to restricted breeds and simply requires a few more precautions from the owner, not widespread culling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmjg Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Parley said: Swimmers do get taken by sharks. One person in WA was attacked while walking in knee deep water. One? About as unlucky as it gets. Compare that to the amount of surfers taken and it's as unfortunate as a lightening strike. What protection can we offer for lightening other than to be careful where and when you shelter? same level of responsibility on the individual. Pick where and when you go, and acknowledge the risks, then you will have to live with the consequences of your actions and choices. below is an interesting article about causes of deaths. It US based but still appropriate. Animals appears near the middle http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 4 hours ago, robfromdublin said: Could you name one of these breeds? Because actually the legislation is usually related to restricted breeds and simply requires a few more precautions from the owner, not widespread culling. Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentina, American Pitbull. Similar to saying a Great White out of all the different shark breeds. Mind you I would not advocate a widespread cull myself. But similar to a dangerous croc that has killed I don't really have a problem with killing a dangerous shark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack91 Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 17 hours ago, robfromdublin said: What makes you say that? Are your mates regularly fending off shark attacks? Actually yes. Not so much attacks, more too close for comfort. Also depends where you surf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robfromdublin Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 So the sharks come close but then go away without attacking anyone. Sounds like it's working well by that definition, no? Re the crocs, I also have no issues with a specific croc being killed. The problem is you cannot discriminate for sharks because they travel so widely. If you find a 3m pointer a couple of days after an attack it's pretty unlikely to be the one in question. None of those dog breeds are subject to euthanasia in Australia. They must be spayed/neutered but you will not be forced to euthanise them on the spot if you own one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest263228 Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Few around to attack at this time of year. I would suppose the great increase of sharks in our oceans of the West Australian coast line must be paying havoc on other marine life. Be that seals and so on. I do not see the need to maintain white pointers as a protected breed. I recall shark fishermen that made a living decades back in the Southern Ocean culling shark. Never brought to the point of extinction as far as I know. Whales of course, a totally different story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VERYSTORMY Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 4 hours ago, Pura Vida said: Few around to attack at this time of year. I would suppose the great increase of sharks in our oceans of the West Australian coast line must be paying havoc on other marine life. Be that seals and so on. I do not see the need to maintain white pointers as a protected breed. I recall shark fishermen that made a living decades back in the Southern Ocean culling shark. Never brought to the point of extinction as far as I know. Whales of course, a totally different story. Most species of shark are still highly endangered due to things such as shark fin catching. The White shark is the top predator. Every single piece of research in the last 100 years shows that the most important animal in a life cycle is the apex predator. Culling sharks is one of the single most stupid ideas man has ever come up with. I would suggest you do some research on the amazing shark species around the coast of Australia which any Australian should be proud of. Including the majestic White Shark. Maybe though you are of the opinion we should obliterate the lion? Or the hippo? Or the tiger? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest263228 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 8 hours ago, VERYSTORMY said: Most species of shark are still highly endangered due to things such as shark fin catching. The White shark is the top predator. Every single piece of research in the last 100 years shows that the most important animal in a life cycle is the apex predator. Culling sharks is one of the single most stupid ideas man has ever come up with. I would suggest you do some research on the amazing shark species around the coast of Australia which any Australian should be proud of. Including the majestic White Shark. Maybe though you are of the opinion we should obliterate the lion? Or the hippo? Or the tiger? As I have stated the shark is in record numbers of our West Australian coasts. It is not an endangered spices at this point of time. When numbers were reduced sufficiently a total ban was enforced. The need for the moment is for greater control. Your suggestions on my opinions with regards African/Asian wildlife makes no sense what so ever, although a little impertinent to suggest perhaps, as it was pointed out in earlier post the excess numbers as related. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robfromdublin Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 White sharks are not in record numbers. They are increasing in population after having been decimated by hunting previously. Read this study for WA specifically: https://thewest.com.au/news/australia/four-year-study-gives-no-clue-on-great-white-numbers-off-wa-ng-ya-118174 I'm not sure why comparing against so-called charismatic species makes no sense. Can you please explain that? It makes sense to me. We wouldn't cull hippos but they kill a lot of people and are not endangered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bound4Tassie Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 The shark shields help prevent certain type of attacks where the shark is "investigating" whether you are something to eat. They don't prevent the high speed attacks from below where the shark sees a silhouette and rushes up to grab what it assumes is a seal above. So the times the surfers actually see the shark milling about the Shark Shield is probably working! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simmo Posted April 24, 2017 Author Share Posted April 24, 2017 Sometimes culling can be good for a species 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest263228 Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 On 24/04/2017 at 8:08 AM, robfromdublin said: White sharks are not in record numbers. They are increasing in population after having been decimated by hunting previously. Read this study for WA specifically: https://thewest.com.au/news/australia/four-year-study-gives-no-clue-on-great-white-numbers-off-wa-ng-ya-118174 I'm not sure why comparing against so-called charismatic species makes no sense. Can you please explain that? It makes sense to me. We wouldn't cull hippos but they kill a lot of people and are not endangered. Besides fishers reports of ever growing sightings, the same journal as quoted above from Dec 30 also articled increasing shark numbers. It stands to reason a ban over a decade will increase numbers surely? Quite considerably it would appear. The two camps will I expect remain distant from one another's views. Still nothing on why the poor harmless Roo should be slaughtered but sharks in excessive numbers should not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newjez Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 On 22/04/2017 at 2:19 AM, Pura Vida said: There was a shark not ten metres of a popular Perth beach a few days ago. Shark sightings are far more frequent in recent years. The killing rate of humans by sharks in WA alone numbers some 17 since 2000 from memory. I for one do not see why the Great White remains a protected species. I have been to Cottesloe Beach during 'Save the Shark Protests' where thousands turned out in horror at the prospect. Yet I've yet to see more than a few hundred turn up in protest at assaults by government regressing the human condition by cuts to services and conditions. Our most famous icon, the kangaroo is culled without mercy, for doing what comes naturally to it. Never heard a roo take a human life due to attack. Our fishermen say they have never seen so many sharks in our waters. Of course the shark has a very valid position within our eco system. Just they shouldn't be valued any more so nor in a position where their numbers overwhelm. How many shark attacks have occurred on patrolled beaches? If you really want to protect people, then patrol the surf beaches. But if people go off piste then they take that risk. Culling should only ever be used to control imbalances in the ecosystem. If there is an imbalance in the shark numbers then fair enough. But not as knee jerk reaction to the death of a pretty girl. And she was pretty. Let's not forget that. If she had been fifty five with warts and the size of a whale we wouldn't be having this discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest263228 Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 21 minutes ago, newjez said: How many shark attacks have occurred on patrolled beaches? If you really want to protect people, then patrol the surf beaches. But if people go off piste then they take that risk. Culling should only ever be used to control imbalances in the ecosystem. If there is an imbalance in the shark numbers then fair enough. But not as knee jerk reaction to the death of a pretty girl. And she was pretty. Let's not forget that. If she had been fifty five with warts and the size of a whale we wouldn't be having this discussion. The discussion is ongoing. It's been around for years. Shark numbers are said to be up. Deaths are up. Hardly, as already mentioned, good for the sea eco system. When the killing of sharks was proved to be altering the eco balance, years ago, hunting them was forbidden. Rightly so. Situation has from most accounts moved on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newjez Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 8 minutes ago, Pura Vida said: The discussion is ongoing. It's been around for years. Shark numbers are said to be up. Deaths are up. Hardly, as already mentioned, good for the sea eco system. When the killing of sharks was proved to be altering the eco balance, years ago, hunting them was forbidden. Rightly so. Situation has from most accounts moved on. This is the anti thesis of soft fluffy animal conservation. It really doesn't deserve debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 1 hour ago, newjez said: Culling should only ever be used to control imbalances in the ecosystem. If there is an imbalance in the shark numbers then fair enough. But not as knee jerk reaction to the death of a pretty girl. And she was pretty. Let's not forget that. If she had been fifty five with warts and the size of a whale we wouldn't be having this discussion. That is incredibly offensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newjez Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 29 minutes ago, Parley said: That is incredibly offensive. No, actually it is a fact. Same way as thousands of immigrants drowned in the med, then when a two year old child washed up on the beach it suddenly became important, for a short while. Haven't you worked out how the press work? This girls life is not worth less because she was pretty, but it certainly isn't worth more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 In case you didn't know the cull was in place several years ago in reaction to the death of others who were men. The cull has not happened after the attack of this girl so it disproves your theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newjez Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 15 minutes ago, Parley said: In case you didn't know the cull was in place several years ago in reaction to the death of others who were men. The cull has not happened after the attack of this girl so it disproves your theory. Old ugly men with warts? These are fit young beautiful people cut down in their prime. It makes good press. Same as fluffy white seals get more donations to conservation than tape worms. It's an emotional debate. It should be a scientific debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.