It will be interesting how many big target sharks will be caught, imo it will be a total fail.
Might as well cut the fins off and sellem to the Japs 
F_cking disgrace 
I'm expecting a lot of harmless tiger sharks to get ****ed up by these things over the summer months. We've always had Tiger Sharks here and never had any dramas with them. They will probably be the most caught large fish we get.
Select to expand quotepweedas said..jbshack said..subasurf said..
I was there this morning at the protest (filming) in the city.
The decision and the sheer stupidity of Barnett is truly astounding.
But it will be welcomed by surfers who want a cull..
I can't believe anyone would support $20 million to bait our beaches
I hope you're not surprised jbhack.
I did say last year and again this year in the discussion on this topic, if nothing was done then the final result would be all all out cull.
Well, nothing was done except spend money on a lot of long term and mostly useless projects, so now we have the all out cull.
All along, if yu really supported the preservation of the majority of sharks, you should have supported a very targeted removal of just a very few sharks in close proximity and immediately after the fatal attacks.
At least then you could have argued against the all out cull by saying something was being done, specially since by now it would have made a significant difference to the attack rate.
However, as it is, it was clear to everyone that nothing was being done, so we have the current anouncement of an all out cull.
I would have preferred the targetted cull but I'm still happy with the present announcement in comparison the the 'nothing' we had for the last ten years.
I wont be complaining.
Merry christmas. 
You do still realise that if anyone was to go out and kill a great white they will be in violation of federal fishing laws? He has to get it past the Fed's yet and petitions to the Fed government and Senate's started last week..
My bet is they will say you can't touch the GW's and our state government will roll over and say oh well we tried..But waisted more of your money at the same time..
A report came out talking about the risk of bush fire in this country over the next 30 years. Should we cut down all the bush land, or just admit that's life and get on with it. Or should we spend millions upon millions cutting down forests ? Its almost the same thing, except that more people are killing by fires than sharks..
Sharks are no risk if you stay out of the water…..
Select to expand quoteWA71 said...kiterboy said..WA71 said..
I recon George Costanza could do a better job than Barnett 
That must mean you have an opinion on what should be done.
What do you think should be done that would be better handled than Barney has done?
If this works, and thats a big if, the amount of upkeep of the system will be massive.
Then what happens if there is another attack??
But do you have an alternative?
Select to expand quotejbshack said..
Sharks are no risk if you stay out of the water???..
...and they're a very small risk if you go in the water.
Select to expand quoteWA71 said..
It will be interesting how many big target sharks will be caught, imo it will be a total fail.
Might as well cut the fins off and sellem to the Japs
F_cking disgrace
Yeah and our country will sit back and criticise the Japs for killing whales, or dolphins by the thousands, or the South africans for hunting and killing elephants, Tigers. I hope we won't criticise the Japanese for tearing up coral reefs to make Jewellery, or polluting the environment with nuclear waste..
ITS PATHETIC..Honestly anyone happy with this solution or proposed solution and agreeing with the wastage of $20 million dollars for nothing other than sport, i just shake my head
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..WA71 said...kiterboy said..WA71 said..
I recon George Costanza could do a better job than Barnett
That must mean you have an opinion on what should be done.
What do you think should be done that would be better handled than Barney has done?
If this works, and thats a big if, the amount of upkeep of the system will be massive.
Then what happens if there is another attack??
But do you have an alternative?
But we don't have an answer to all the road deaths…? So why do we keep driving..? Because its called LIVING
Select to expand quotejbshack said...pweedas said..jbshack said..subasurf said..
I was there this morning at the protest (filming) in the city.
The decision and the sheer stupidity of Barnett is truly astounding.
But it will be welcomed by surfers who want a cull..
I can't believe anyone would support $20 million to bait our beaches
I hope you're not surprised jbhack.
I did say last year and again this year in the discussion on this topic, if nothing was done then the final result would be all all out cull.
Well, nothing was done except spend money on a lot of long term and mostly useless projects, so now we have the all out cull.
All along, if yu really supported the preservation of the majority of sharks, you should have supported a very targeted removal of just a very few sharks in close proximity and immediately after the fatal attacks.
At least then you could have argued against the all out cull by saying something was being done, specially since by now it would have made a significant difference to the attack rate.
However, as it is, it was clear to everyone that nothing was being done, so we have the current anouncement of an all out cull.
I would have preferred the targetted cull but I'm still happy with the present announcement in comparison the the 'nothing' we had for the last ten years.
I wont be complaining.
Merry christmas.
You do still realise that if anyone was to go out and kill a great white they will be in violation of federal fishing laws? He has to get it past the Fed's yet and petitions to the Fed government and Senate's started last week..
My bet is they will say you can't touch the GW's and our state government will roll over and say oh well we tried..But waisted more of your money at the same time..
A report came out talking about the risk of bush fire in this country over the next 30 years. Should we cut down all the bush land, or just admit that's life and get on with it. Or should we spend millions upon millions cutting down forests ? Its almost the same thing, except that more people are killing by fires than sharks..
Sharks are no risk if you stay out of the water???..
I like your bushfire similie;
Controlled burning prevents bushfires.
Same as culling really.
Do you have an alternative to the announced actions by Barney?
Select to expand quotesubasurf said..jbshack said..
Sharks are no risk if you stay out of the water???..
...and they're a very small risk if you go in the water.
This is the most honest statement on the entire subject God its that simple..
Woodo makes a good point about the cray pots.
As for the $20m over four years to 2015-2016 , yeah, gosh, that's an awful lot hey? With about 2 million of us in WA, that works out at about $2.50 each annually. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't "four years to 2015-2016" be 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-15?, in which case isn't that money already partly spent anyway? So they've assessed the situation and decided to spend what's left more effectively, yes? Can't say that's a bad thing, bit surprising actually. At least they're not entertaining the thought of using nets to back up the bait lines as they do in the east.
I can't see why it's so hard for people to accept how small the risk is. I understand there is an ingrained natural fear of being eaten and having a violent death, but really, a fear of sharks brings out the most irrational side in people.
Select to expand quotejbshack said...kiterboy said..WA71 said...kiterboy said..WA71 said..
I recon George Costanza could do a better job than Barnett
That must mean you have an opinion on what should be done.
What do you think should be done that would be better handled than Barney has done?
If this works, and thats a big if, the amount of upkeep of the system will be massive.
Then what happens if there is another attack??
But do you have an alternative?
But we don't have an answer to all the road deaths???? So why do we keep driving..? Because its called LIVING
Ah, so by that logic, we may as well stop all the road safety campaigns and black spot projects.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..
Ah, so by that logic, we may as well stop all the road safety campaigns and black spot projects.
....or maybe by his logic we should have water safety campaigns to inform people of the risks that they must accept if they want to enter a wild and uncontrolled environment such as the frickin ocean.
We need to do a cull on rips too. Let's build rock groynes every 15 metres to stop the coastal currents from sweeping people away. Sure, it'll **** up the environment, but who cares right?
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..jbshack said...pweedas said..jbshack said..subasurf said..
I was there this morning at the protest (filming) in the city.
The decision and the sheer stupidity of Barnett is truly astounding.
But it will be welcomed by surfers who want a cull..
I can't believe anyone would support $20 million to bait our beaches
I hope you're not surprised jbhack.
I did say last year and again this year in the discussion on this topic, if nothing was done then the final result would be all all out cull.
Well, nothing was done except spend money on a lot of long term and mostly useless projects, so now we have the all out cull.
All along, if yu really supported the preservation of the majority of sharks, you should have supported a very targeted removal of just a very few sharks in close proximity and immediately after the fatal attacks.
At least then you could have argued against the all out cull by saying something was being done, specially since by now it would have made a significant difference to the attack rate.
However, as it is, it was clear to everyone that nothing was being done, so we have the current anouncement of an all out cull.
I would have preferred the targetted cull but I'm still happy with the present announcement in comparison the the 'nothing' we had for the last ten years.
I wont be complaining.
Merry christmas.
You do still realise that if anyone was to go out and kill a great white they will be in violation of federal fishing laws? He has to get it past the Fed's yet and petitions to the Fed government and Senate's started last week..
My bet is they will say you can't touch the GW's and our state government will roll over and say oh well we tried..But waisted more of your money at the same time..
A report came out talking about the risk of bush fire in this country over the next 30 years. Should we cut down all the bush land, or just admit that's life and get on with it. Or should we spend millions upon millions cutting down forests ? Its almost the same thing, except that more people are killing by fires than sharks..
Sharks are no risk if you stay out of the water???..
I like your bushfire similie;
Controlled burning prevents bushfires.
Same as culling really.
Do you have an alternative to the announced actions by Barney?
Yep tell the truth. Let people know the real risk involved (not the media build up we are getting). Actually tag some F--ing sharks and then let that info be made to the public so we can see for our selves in real time. BETTER more accurate ariel patrols and investment into real possibilities, like Surfsafe.
Closed swimming sections like the ones they have proposed, but maybe not in the stupid areas they are talking. (like who swims down in Cockburn sound near the old caravan park. Why net that area?)
Fisheries get a better system to warn fisherman of the dangers of feeding sharks from boats and then for fisheries to act on situations and charge people found to be doing just that.
These are real solutions that could help. Will they stop shark attacks no not really but will killing any do that either?
I mean christ, I feel more threatened by the numpty SUP riders on beach breaks than I do by the presence of sharks.
Select to expand quotesubasurf said..
I mean christ, I feel more threatened by the numpty SUP riders on beach breaks than I do by the presence of sharks.
+1
This news just in
BREAKING: Enviro Minister Greg Hunt has approved for 3 million cubic metres of seafloor will be dredged up and dumped to make way for a huge new coal terminal in the Reef World Heritage Area.
It could transform this natural wonder into the largest coal export facility in the world.
Unthinkable isn't it? LIKE & SHARE if this outrageous and reckless decision does not represent you >>
Culling an endangered species on one side of the country, ripping up a Coral reef, "A Wonder of the world no less" on the other side of the country. To the rest of the world, we must look so stupid..
Also the good news, most of the Heavy Baiting will be done down south were the locals were most vocal for change. Away from were i surf i guess, from a selfish point of view
Don't panic the sea shepherd will come to the rescue.So when they knock on the door next Sunday be sure to donate or jump on board 
At least they will save money by removing the tags from the dead sharks and sending them back to South oz for re-tagging....
Select to expand quotesubasurf said...
I can't see why it's so hard for people to accept how small the risk is. I understand there is an ingrained natural fear of being eaten and having a violent death, but really, a fear of sharks brings out the most irrational side in people.
It's hard to understand if you surf, coz the risk has risen significantly in the last 10 years. You are probably to young to understand that Suba. Shark attacks were pretty much unheard of in WA in 90s and earlier. i think I stated earlier in this thread 3 people I knew have been killed by white sharks in the last 10 years. 2 others were friends of friends. I haven't got stats anywhere near that for people I know in fatal car accidents.
Select to expand quoteCtngoodvibes said..
subasurf said...
I can't see why it's so hard for people to accept how small the risk is. I understand there is an ingrained natural fear of being eaten and having a violent death, but really, a fear of sharks brings out the most irrational side in people.
It's hard to understand if you surf, coz the risk has risen significantly in the last 10 years. You are probably to young to understand that Suba. Shark attacks were pretty much unheard of in WA in 90s and earlier. i think I stated earlier in this thread 3 people I knew have been killed by white sharks in the last 10 years. 2 others were friends of friends. I haven't got stats anywhere near that for people I know in fatal car accidents.
But we didn't have social media to build up a story..
Kneeling Sea Shepherd don't do door to door fund raising But sadly they won't step in unless its against the law..
If however its against international law, then i'd still help fund them to interrupt the illegal catch, Cull
Edit: i just saw a quick section on Disney Fox-tell about a Young girl Film maker called Maddie Stewart. Promoting protecting our oceans and sharks..How ironic. We tell our kids to look after the oceans, yet we think its okay to kill the ourselves..
Select to expand quotesubasurf said...kiterboy said..
Ah, so by that logic, we may as well stop all the road safety campaigns and black spot projects.
....or maybe by his logic we should have water safety campaigns to inform people of the risks that they must accept if they want to enter a wild and uncontrolled environment such as the frickin ocean.
We need to do a cull on rips too. Let's build rock groynes every 15 metres to stop the coastal currents from sweeping people away. Sure, it'll **** up the environment, but who cares right?
Crikey, I can't believe the diatribe you anti cullers sprout.
I mean, if you're against a cull, that's enough of a statement to make, and if you have a solution then state your line, stop making these ridiculous comparisons.
As humans it is our nature to try and control those things which pose a risk to us, those things that act out side of our own personal sphere of influence.
Rips kill because people are perhaps not educated enough, but that is something within our own personal sphere of influence, if you don't educate yourself about the risk and you get taken by a rip, then that is your own personal responsibility.
Road fatalities are less of a concern to us, in relation to shark attacks for example, because we practice safe driving for the most part, that is within our personal sphere of influence, what we don't have control over with driving is what other people are doing on the roads, that is why we have laws against mobile phone use, drink driving etc and education campaigns, because we are trying to control a situation which is outside of the individual's personal sphere of influence.
Bushfires, we are educated look after our properties and laws are put in place for boundary clearing etc, if you are caught in a bushfire, that falls within your personal sphere of influence.
Sharks, like driving, fall within and outside of our own personal sphere of influence, that is why we try to minimize our own controllable risk and also try to put measures in place to minimize the risk component that we can't control.
To suggest that people stay out of the water completely is utter nonsense and makes anyone who suggests that as a solution look like an utter fool.
It just isn't viable.
At all.
SO, we try to minimize the risk of shark attack, there are many ways to do this, but if no viable solution is presented that avoids a cull and such measures, then that is what is going to happen like it or not.
So if you can't put together a viable, structured and comprehensive alternative to the measures put forward by Barney and his cronies, then you're just going to have to suck it up or gather enough public support to stop any measure being put in place and because of that having all further deaths on your hands.
So the message is, stop making ridiculous comparisons and put up, contribute to finding a better solution, or shut up.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said...subasurf said...kiterboy said..
Ah, so by that logic, we may as well stop all the road safety campaigns and black spot projects.
....or maybe by his logic we should have water safety campaigns to inform people of the risks that they must accept if they want to enter a wild and uncontrolled environment such as the frickin ocean.
We need to do a cull on rips too. Let's build rock groynes every 15 metres to stop the coastal currents from sweeping people away. Sure, it'll **** up the environment, but who cares right?
Crikey, I can't believe the diatribe you anti cullers sprout.
I mean, if you're against a cull, that's enough of a statement to make, and if you have a solution then state your line, stop making these ridiculous comparisons.
As humans it is our nature to try and control those things which pose a risk to us, those things that act out side of our own personal sphere of influence.
Rips kill because people are perhaps not educated enough, but that is something within our own personal sphere of influence, if you don't educate yourself about the risk and you get taken by a rip, then that is your own personal responsibility.
Road fatalities are less of a concern to us, in relation to shark attacks for example, because we practice safe driving for the most part, that is within our personal sphere of influence, what we don't have control over with driving is what other people are doing on the roads, that is why we have laws against mobile phone use, drink driving etc and education campaigns, because we are trying to control a situation which is outside of the individual's personal sphere of influence.
Bushfires, we are educated look after our properties and laws are put in place for boundary clearing etc, if you are caught in a bushfire, that falls within your personal sphere of influence.
Sharks, like driving, fall within and outside of our own personal sphere of influence, that is why we try to minimize our own controllable risk and also try to put measures in place to minimize the risk component that we can't control.
To suggest that people stay out of the water completely is utter nonsense and makes anyone who suggests that as a solution look like an utter fool.
It just isn't viable.
At all.
SO, we try to minimize the risk of shark attack, there are many ways to do this, but if no viable solution is presented that avoids a cull and such measures, then that is what is going to happen like it or not.
So if you can't put together a viable, structured and comprehensive alternative to the measures put forward by Barney and his cronies, then you're just going to have to suck it up or gather enough public support to stop any measure being put in place and because of that having all further deaths on your hands.
So the message is, stop making ridiculous comparisons and put up, contribute to finding a better solution, or shut up.
And there we have it. Well said.
VeSelect to expand quotekiterboy said..subasurf said...kiterboy said..
Ah, so by that logic, we may as well stop all the road safety campaigns and black spot projects.
....or maybe by his logic we should have water safety campaigns to inform people of the risks that they must accept if they want to enter a wild and uncontrolled environment such as the frickin ocean.
We need to do a cull on rips too. Let's build rock groynes every 15 metres to stop the coastal currents from sweeping people away. Sure, it'll **** up the environment, but who cares right?
Crikey, I can't believe the diatribe you anti cullers sprout.
I mean, if you're against a cull, that's enough of a statement to make, and if you have a solution then state your line, stop making these ridiculous comparisons.
As humans it is our nature to try and control those things which pose a risk to us, those things that act out side of our own personal sphere of influence.
Rips kill because people are perhaps not educated enough, but that is something within our own personal sphere of influence, if you don't educate yourself about the risk and you get taken by a rip, then that is your own personal responsibility.
Road fatalities are less of a concern to us, in relation to shark attacks for example, because we practice safe driving for the most part, that is within our personal sphere of influence, what we don't have control over with driving is what other people are doing on the roads, that is why we have laws against mobile phone use, drink driving etc and education campaigns, because we are trying to control a situation which is outside of the individual's personal sphere of influence.
Bushfires, we are educated look after our properties and laws are put in place for boundary clearing etc, if you are caught in a bushfire, that falls within your personal sphere of influence.
Sharks, like driving, fall within and outside of our own personal sphere of influence, that is why we try to minimize our own controllable risk and also try to put measures in place to minimize the risk component that we can't control.
To suggest that people stay out of the water completely is utter nonsense and makes anyone who suggests that as a solution look like an utter fool.
It just isn't viable.
At all.
SO, we try to minimize the risk of shark attack, there are many ways to do this, but if no viable solution is presented that avoids a cull and such measures, then that is what is going to happen like it or not.
So if you can't put together a viable, structured and comprehensive alternative to the measures put forward by Barney and his cronies, then you're just going to have to suck it up or gather enough public support to stop any measure being put in place and because of that having all further deaths on your hands.
So the message is, stop making ridiculous comparisons and put up, contribute to finding a better solution, or shut up.
Very well written kite boy it's a real shame your so full of it!
As i have read it seems Commercial fisherman will also be able to kill a shark over three meters if its seen in close to shore. I guess they'l get paid by each shark they kill close to a popular beach..
Having dealt with many commercial fisherman, i can see a few of them on the quiet chumming process to attract sharks in close to shore, so they can get paid
Might be time to ramp up on my local shire/government to try and prevent drum lines in my local waters..
It is not a slaughter it is selected fishing and only targeting problem sharks in problem areas. This will go through no doubt,at a federal level the precedent has been set with drum lines in Queensland and NSW. I for one am happy and feel that after 10 years something has finally been put forward. If anyone doesn't like it and wants to protest I strongly recommend you never eat fish and chips again or any other seafood unless you believe in hypocrisy. Furthermore once culling commences you can't then paddle out at cowermup and surrounding waves cause now there safe.hypocrites
