shark attack at umbies cont

What I don't get is why the hunt for this particular shark? The accounts you read are that mostly the shark takes a bite and spits out the victim. Isn't the shark that's tried human flesh but didn't like it the shark that's least likely to bite again? All animals I've encountered are pretty quick to learn and remember what's edible and what's not.

On the other hand if sharks did find people edible, word would quickly get out amongst the thousands of sharks out there, we're such an easy catch next to a seal, we'd lose hundreds next week.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..
What I don't get is why the hunt for this particular shark? The accounts you read are that mostly the shark takes a bite and spits out the victim. Isn't the shark that's tried human flesh but didn't like it the shark that's least likely to bite again? All animals I've encountered are pretty quick to learn and remember what's edible and what's not.

On the other hand if sharks did find people edible, word would quickly get out amongst the thousands of sharks out there, we're such an easy catch next to a seal, we'd lose hundreds next week.

I think some sharks bite because they just have a 'bitey' nature.
A particular shark might be just naturally inquisitive, or aggressive, or anything else which might make it more likely to bite, even if the species is not normally inclined that way.
In the case of GW's, they are normally more aggressive so it doesn't take a big deviation from their normal characteristics to entice them to give anything and everything a bit of a fanging.
Thus, even though they might not normally like eating people, it doesn't cost them anything to give us a bite just out of curiosity.

I base this view on almost all other species I am familiar with.
Cattle, kangaroos, magpies, reptiles,..people,... the whole spectrum of life.
You get placid animals and you get less placid animals,. and you get aggressive animals.

None of them have any intention of eating people but some seem to have a greater dispensation towards roughing us up.
Sharks are no exception and whether they intend to eat us or not, the fact is, even being the subject of their curious investigation can be fatal.
To claim that we are not their favorite food ignores the obvious fact that to the person being attacked, it makes no difference if it was a mistake or not.

Looking at a couple of other species, bulls and magpies.
Bulls don't eat people and mostly don't bother people, however, sometimes even a normally nice bull will decide to give you a bit of a nudge.
From an 800kg bull, a bit of a nudge can give you injuries and can be life threatening.
However, you also get some bulls which will habitually go out of their way to find you and rough you up.
They soon end up as sausage meat simply because there is a good chance they will pass on that 'angry' gene to their offspring, and the paddock is a lot safer without them, and their offspring.
The cattle ecosystem is not wrecked by their removal, even if it was an otherwise good bull.

The same with magpies.
We have hundreds of them and now, none of them swoop and attack, even in mid nesting season.
They used too.
One or two would always swoop down and attack if you walked past what they considered 'their' territory,.. which was extensive.
Removing just one, the main offender, with an air rifle fixed the problem and we still have hundreds of them left.
You can now walk anywhere at any time without so much as a single attack and it has remained that way for about the last ten years.

I could go on but the message is the same.
In all probability we have only a very few sharks that for some reason are more inclined to attack people.
For minimal cost, far less than the ineffective millions we are throwing at it now, simply remove each and every shark which is in close proximity to the last attack AS SOON AS THE ATTACK HAPPENS..
Don't waste time going to a committee to get approval. By then it is quite probable that you will kill the wrong shark.
Give the job to local fishermen who can be there the same day.
He probably knows the area and the business far better than others and is more likely to get an immediate result.
There are a few in the Augusta area who could do the job emminently well and be there in hours.

The removal of such a small number of sharks will have no effect at all on the survival of the species.
In fact it will improve it because it will remove the constant call for all out culling.

All the argument about funding studies and research is no more than snouts in the trough and it is coming at the cost of peoples lives.
Fix the problem first, and then do the research if you want.
To allow the attacks to keep happening just to justify the research is criminal.
Anyway, I said it all last year. It will probably neeed to be said again next year.
I should just do a cut and paste from last years thread.
That's what makes it sad.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

What I don't get is why the hunt for this particular shark? The accounts you read are that mostly the shark takes a bite and spits out the victim. Isn't the shark that's tried human flesh but didn't like it the shark that's least likely to bite again? All animals I've encountered are pretty quick to learn and remember what's edible and what's not.

On the other hand if sharks did find people edible, word would quickly get out amongst the thousands of sharks out there, we're such an easy catch next to a seal, we'd lose hundreds next week.

The truth is they don't won't to hunt this particular shark. They just want to be SEEN to be doing something

Some surfers call for a cull, others say thats it there ocean and we enter at our own risk (my opinion just for the record) but why can't we all agree that the money being spent in the name of science, in the name of making it safer (if possible) for us ocean users is being grossly miss used.

Luckily today i think I've found a sympathetic ear in our Shadow Ministers for fisheries office. Lets hope.

I will say that there seems to be more of a swing to protection of sharks, or anti a Cull for want of a better description this time around.

Select to expand quote

pweedas said..

jbshack said..
Some surfers call for a cull, others say thats it there ocean and we enter at our own risk (my opinion just for the record) but why can't we all agree that the money being spent in the name of science, in the name of making it safer (if possible) for us ocean users is being grossly miss used.

I think you will find that most people agree that all the money being thrown at this is wasted.
I've said it all along, so in that point at least, we agree.
The problem is, I think the remedy you propose, which I think is more tagging of sharks, will be equally ineffective.
In other words, still more money thrown at the problem with no good result.
The usual course of action to fix any problem is to try the cheapest and most obvious solution first.
Why don't we do that?

Sorry my mistake, and i guess my lack of ability to type. I don't 100% say that tagging is the answer. My point has always been (sorry if you missed it i should have said better) is that is what our government says the answer is, they say tagging is the answer, BUT then have honestly done very little about actually tagging and Great White sharks. If they have then they are keeping it quiet and won't us in the dark regarding how many they've tagged, why Thats my point.

Ive had many messages and emails, phone call from people on the inside (who want to remain anonymous ) who have given me enough info to point me in one direction. Id love to be proved wrong, but i think i won't be

Hope it never happens but wait until a little nipper or someone of some high standing in the comminuty gets taken,then watch the government come up with the cash for the new ideas.Like katanas shield or the USA taggers

What if the real reason they aren't saying much about the tagging of GWs, is that they've been tagging up a storm and they've discovered that there really is hundreds of them in the locality?

They can't kill them for fear of a public and animal activist outcry.

And they can't say how many GWs there are cause it'll hurt tourism, the only thing WA has going for it now the mining boom is over.

Select to expand quote

kiterboy said..

What if the real reason they aren't saying much about the tagging of GWs, is that they've been tagging up a storm and they've discovered that there really is hundreds of them in the locality?

They can't kill them for fear of a public and animal activist outcry.

And they can't say how many GWs there are cause it'll hurt tourism, the only thing WA has going for it now the mining boom is over.

IMHO the way the issue has been handled by our state government via local media, i think they have actually done more damage to our state tourism then if the shark attacks had been twice as many..

Select to expand quote

kiterboy said..

What if the real reason they aren't saying much about the tagging of GWs, is that they've been tagging up a storm and they've discovered that there really is hundreds of them in the locality?

They can't kill them for fear of a public and animal activist outcry.

And they can't say how many GWs there are cause it'll hurt tourism, the only thing WA has going for it now the mining boom is over.

Can of worms here...

A fair few assumptions made and it's only a 'projection'. Not wanting to be the Devil's Advocate, but should/can it be used as an accurate representation?

Underoath, what is the source of the chart?

Hunting down and culling a killer great white (protected species) is a pretty simplistic knee jerk reaction. Waste of fisheries time and money. There are many risks and hazzards in life and I feel most us accept them and take our own calculated risk assessment.

IF there is to be a cull, the govt needs to make money out of it.
$10,000 plus for a license to kill 1 great white bigger than 4m.
Macho dude gets pic with big shark at the docks and 1/2 cash to a worthy charity and the rest in buracratic fees.

Select to expand quote

pweedas said..

If that's true it would certainly explain why the attack rate has gone up so much in the last ten years.
It also would indicate that the selective removal of a few will make no difference to their survival chances.
It woulp;d also indicate that the removal rate will have to increase over the next few years before the start appearing in your bath water.

Its not true as it was made up. I don't think anyone knows enough about GW breeding to make an accurate projection.

I'd say the selective removal of a few out of 160,000 would make SFA difference to any risk of attack.

GW giving birth has never been recorded. Mating once. And less than a dozen pregnant females dissected.

If a cull is the answer, which I am against - but it may be, the need for research and a further understanding of the shark is necessary to ensure a successful cull. I think it would be useless just knocking a few off willy nilly.

Questions like: How many should be killed?, What size should be killed?, What sex should be killed? need to be answered first.

The expert insight from surfers of killing GWs over 3 m isn't the smartest thing... There is a fair chance that 3 m + is getting into reproduction size. Selectively targeting the reproducing specimens of a vulnerable species with no understanding or idea of future consequences isn't smart.
That is if reproductive size is 3 m +. Maybe it averages at 4, maybe at 2.5, noone knows and before we go round taking them out redneck style we should at least have an idea of what would be an effective way to do it.


More people drown each year in the ocean, and that is a fairer comparison than car crashes etc. If you want to save lives it would make more sense to focus on something that is killing more people.

Select to expand quote

Underoath said..

Sailhack said..

A fair few assumptions made and it's only a 'projection'. Not wanting to be the Devil's Advocate, but should/can it be used as an accurate representation?

Underoath, what is the source of the chart?

Fair question Sailhack.

I made the chart last night.

I'll be the first to admit that there are plenty of assumptions here. Just by changing the pup survival rate alone can subject the projection to a significant variance.

A lot of the assumptions came from references from the web. I tried to be conservative in my approach to numbers , ie

Reduce pup litter sizes,
Reduce time between litters,
Assume a high death rate of pups not living to adult (50%)
I averaged annual death rate to 1/15 of adult population- when we know adults can live twice as long.
Black market fishing was a stab in the dark number.


Keep in mind that its noted females can produce 10 pups every 3 years. Imagine the human population if we could have 3.3 children a year every year. Even taking into account mortalitys- we would see a significant growth in the population. Same could be said for the GWs.

Maybe a few changes, like the world fishing of Sharks (in total not just great whites) is around 73 million PA..You estimate of only 50 Great Whites is a massive under reach IMHO..

The people with more credibility than a surf board and a computer estimate around 5000 only left in the world.. If thats the case how many do you think we can afford to cull

Select to expand quote

jbshack said..

Underoath said..

Sailhack said..

A fair few assumptions made and it's only a 'projection'. Not wanting to be the Devil's Advocate, but should/can it be used as an accurate representation?

Underoath, what is the source of the chart?

Fair question Sailhack.

I made the chart last night.

I'll be the first to admit that there are plenty of assumptions here. Just by changing the pup survival rate alone can subject the projection to a significant variance.

A lot of the assumptions came from references from the web. I tried to be conservative in my approach to numbers , ie

Reduce pup litter sizes,
Reduce time between litters,
Assume a high death rate of pups not living to adult (50%)
I averaged annual death rate to 1/15 of adult population- when we know adults can live twice as long.
Black market fishing was a stab in the dark number.


Keep in mind that its noted females can produce 10 pups every 3 years. Imagine the human population if we could have 3.3 children a year every year. Even taking into account mortalitys- we would see a significant growth in the population. Same could be said for the GWs.

Maybe a few changes, like the world fishing of Sharks (in total not just great whites) is around 73 million PA..You estimate of only 50 Great Whites is a massive under reach IMHO..

The people with more credibility than a surf board and a computer estimate around 5000 only left in the world.. If thats the case how many do you think we can afford to cull

If that's all that's left, and there are more now than in decades past, they can't be making that much smack of a difference to the ecosystem as a top predator.

BTW, where do you get your figures from?

If you search the net there are pages posted everywhere, by these so called people who study sharks. They think they have all the answers just because they went to UNI and have all these fangled type of degrees and sh-t. They can be a bit annoying and lets face it, just because they spend the entire lives studying something really doesn't mean they now more than say you or me. Hell i have a computer, i have a surf board as well, in fact i have a few, does that make me even smarter

This report talk about only 3500 left in the world..

http://oceana.org/en/blog/2011/08/an-invasion-of-great-white-sharks

This one should be easy to read. It actually says less than 10000 left..Even if it is that high, the numbers are still too low.

www.softschools.com/facts/animals/great_white_shark_facts/10/