Amazed and dissapointed by some of the comments here,really thought some of you guys were better than this, have surfed all over aus for 40 years, and kited for the last 10 , find it disappointing to see, stuff the rest of the creatures in the ocean as long as its good for us .
Most people surf/kite have a affinity with the ocean , if you dont get out and go to ski parks and pools ,i read comments all the time about how we all think that kiteing is a extreme sport ,the risk we take in the water is no worse than the risk otehr sports have , paragliding, base jumping driving every day in the car, sure we need to protect ourselves , more tagging and monitoring of GW might help , wont know till we try.
I have heard from many guys that surf/kite and if a shark takes me so be it , its their water ,im sure that they would rather die of old age,i know i would ,had a few close calls over the years ,but never once was tempted to go and grab a gun a shoot every shark , a bit of common sense and when and where not to surf/kite goes a long way to saying safe .
You dont kite in 40 knots on a 12M kite !!
Select to expand quotesir ROWDY said..
Every thread I think I get a bit stupider.
don't worry- in the lesson he posted earlier, djdojo provided a reading list for us lowly plebeians. just be sure to start with the prosaic text before moving on to the difficult or otherworldly ones.
i'm sure he did it for the right reasons, and not simply to be condescending and pompous.
One thing is for sure though WA is seeing more and more GWs.
Friend of mine is very active at the local SLSC and they get sightings a lot more then is reported to the media.
Sharks off the coast of Augusta is one thing but GWs at scarbough beach is another.
I think tracking needs to be done so that the sharks coming into METRO beaches are at the very least spotted.
Be interested to see the how the number of attacks/sightings stack up since the dive with/feed the sharks businesses have kicked into gear. I accept that there is a certain amount of risk entering the ocean but I can't personally see any good coming out of conditioning any type of sharks to associate a free feed with human contact.
On a sadder note there has been another fatal attack on the east cost today.
www.smh.com.au/national/i-love-you-guys-shark-attack-victim-zac-youngs-last-words-20131130-2yi51.html
Select to expand quotesir ROWDY said...
Every thread I think I get a bit stupider.
haha... youll be on my level soon
Select to expand quoteCocosLocals said..
One thing is for sure though WA is seeing more and more GWs.
Friend of mine is very active at the local SLSC and they get sightings a lot more then is reported to the media.
Sharks off the coast of Augusta is one thing but GWs at scarbough beach is another.
I think tracking needs to be done so that the sharks coming into METRO beaches are at the very least spotted.
GW's have been at scarborough beach before william dampier hit the west coast. There is seal colonies on Rotto, bird, Carnac and garden islands.
It appears that an ill-considered environmental policy has come back to bite us. Eco-religion has prevented us from fighting these beasts for the beaches.
P.S. Zach Young: while your body has been savaged, may your positive spirit live on.
Of course I like to be condescending and pompous: see dojoism 101.
Beyond that, I'm attempting to tease out some of the underlying cosmologies from which the various viewpoints sprout.
The "it's our planet to use as we see fit" clearly has Abrahamic roots - man created in the image of a God who is separate from his creation and can dominate and control it by fiat. My suggestion is that this worldview has been pretty thoroughly made obsolete by the combination of evolutionary understanding in the 19th century and ecological frameworks in the 20th.
The notion of Australia as a "frontier" country, with "boundless plains to share" probably underlies some of the sense that we can extract resources as quickly as we like and simply move on further when a given fishery/plain ceases to keep up with or collapses under that rate of extraction. This may have seemed true when our population was smaller, our technology for resource extraction/harvesting less advanced and much of Australia was still barely touched by colonialists. Again, the foundations for the boundless frontier notion are no longer tenable - the fertile lands and waters of this country are pretty thoroughly charted and exploited. (The Future Eaters by Tim Flannery is relevant here).
The above viewpoints may also combine with a kind of infantile grandiosity - "I want everything to be just how I want it and I'm entitled to that and I will rage and wail and scorch the whole wide world unless I get it."
That these viewpoints were once widely held is understandable. That vestiges of them live on subconsciously in collective and individual thinking is no surprise either. That it may be sobering, maddening, and challenging to move beyond them is clear. But I submit that we either learn our ways into a more sustainable cosmology or we destroy ourselves hanging on to the old one.
None of this need detract from the distress and grief of those whose loved ones are killed by sharks. We can offer our deep and sincere condolences and sympathies whilst also bringing a mature attitude to our stewardship of the biosphere.
There is something primally horrific about the possibility of being taken by a shark or a croc - something that must run deep in our evolutionary history. There is no such primal, visceral horror though at the thought of death by lung cancer. Sure, it's not a pretty thought, but it doesn't conjure up anything like the same deep gut reaction. But, as others have said, if we were a bit rational about it, we'd spend a woop-load more resources protecting people from nicotine and junk food than from sharks. Gut reactions are not to be denigrated (indeed I support a finer tuning in to them), but they needn't be acted upon immediately and at all costs without reference to other sources of information and decision-making processes.
rip to the dude in coffs harbour
what about this? - Atlantic Dawn - fishes in international waters
Can catch the entire fish quota for nz for a year - in one mission
7 million kg of fish per mission (well maybe now radioactive fish - recent pacific study show very recent considerable increase in radioactive elements in large fish- Tritium, Cesium and Strontium - usa eats most of this)
replaces 7000 traditional fisherman - wiped out area off north africa cost of fish after one visit (fisheran could no longer catch hardly anything)
the irish owned it for a while but have just detained it! the Norwegians built it, the dutch own it right now.... represent....
fim - h
Select to expand quotedjdojo said..
But I submit that we either learn our ways into a more sustainable cosmology or we destroy ourselves hanging on to the old one.
Well here's some news for you, dude. ^^^
Regardless of whether your cosmos is wonderfully sustained,
or perfectly eco-balanced,
God's green Earth is full of harm.
The planet is trying to kill you every minute of every day,
and it's going to win in the end.
lol.
Of the myriad ways a person can die on this great planet and the amount of them that are a pathetic end to what might or might not have been a great life I think shark attack remains one of the most attractive.
Not for me wheezing out my last breath after a long stay in a hospice as an illness ravages my once strong body.
Nor would I chose to have my end delivered by a "one punch" knock out and subsequent brain injury from hitting the ground. Struck by one of the zillion azholes that think their shizzen is so important they must text while driving is hardly a death worth dying in anyone's books.
First choice would be in my sleep unexpectedly. No illness. Just gone.
Failing that becoming part of the food chain in the ocean is strangely attractive .Don't get me wrong I DON'T WANT TO GET EATEN!! and will fight tooth and nail to survive but if I must than so be it.Just do a good job of it. Hopefully when I duck dive or something!!
If you cannot come to terms with the possibility of an end to your life by shark attack then its probably time to stop kidding yourself about who you are and what you do and look at other activities that are more suited to your outlook rather that advocating wholesale killing of what makes you scared.
See you on the water
I was a sailor. I was born upon the tide
And with the sea I did abide.
I sailed a schooner round the Horn to Mexico
I went aloft and furled the mainsail in a blow
And when the yards broke off they said that I got killed
But I am living still
^^ Plus 1 for that seafever! I too would rather pass in my sleep without fuss. But should I end up in the belly of a shark or croc I'd hope no-one would try to hunt it down. Rather at least I would have been able to contribute a little back to nature....
Now if they want to kill something, lets start with flies. Damn these ****ers are annoying. Or better yet, find something we can make from flies so we can harvest the bastards
Young's death a 'freak tragedy'
A massive coastal search is underway to try to find the shark responsible for the attack, with beaches between Sawtell and Woolgoolga closed on Sunday.
Michael Young says his family does not want the attack to result in a shark cull.
He says the family has come to terms with the "freak nature" of the tragedy.
"The Young family has grown up with the ocean as surfers, divers and fishermen since most of us could walk," he said.
"We understand nature and the freak nature of this tragedy. Although we believe in the tagging of large sharks, we do not wish for this to result in any sort of cull."
Theres too many people on this planet.....Our oceans are doomed from overfishing and getting way out of balance.
Bottom line is $$$$$ and filling our greedy guts.
Select to expand quoteAddikt said..
I just want to taste a GW burger, heard it beat's a baraburger hands down ......!!!!!!
ill swap you a gw burger for a human burger :)
Select to expand quotewaveslave said..
For instance;I hate the following retarded throwaway line:
"The ocean is the shark's domain."Who started that one ?lol.
The whole freakin planet happens to be human's domain.
Well, ....it is, isn't it ?That's because humans are very resourceful animals.
Nature is chaotic, there are no hard and fast rules or fixed boundaries.
Having said that, sharks will never be able to make land their domain.
That's because sharks don't have the smarts, legs or freakin lungs.lol.
If sharks can kill humans, then humans can kill sharks .... for food.
Fair's fair, right ?
You are obviously a studious patron of the famous pamphlet 'A Modest Proposal' written by Gulliver's Travels author Jonathan Swift, in which he sanely proposes the Irish eat their own babies to survive the 18th century potato famine. To suggest that one of the ocean's three or four apex predators, about which we really know sweet FA, should be fish burgers is obviously a satire. At least, I hope, for the planet's sake, it is.
Select to expand quoteiandvnt said..
Those factory ships are insane. How you can control what you catch and what you are doing to the wider oceanic population in the nets of one of these is beyond me. The bycatch (seals, dolphins, sharks and non marketable fish) generated by these things is astounding. And to think of how much of what they catch ends up in tins to be fed to cats.
There is no margin for rehabilitation of fish stocks.
At least with commercial pole fishing the fish are caught quickly and undersized/bycatch can be thrown back.
Select to expand quoteTommygun said..
Mixed feelings about this one. From a divers point of view, swimming with sharks is a great experience and i truly belive we should leave the ocean alone and not disturb there fragile ecosystem.
But on the other hand, if i saw a GW swimming towards me with the idea of dinner in its eyes, I would want to blow the f**ker out of the water.
Sorry if that affends anyone , i just dont want to be eaten alive
Agreed if you are confronted anywhere in life and its life or death its your right to survive..However there is people who never even swim in the ocean calling out for mass culling with no research etc..Its way more dangerous driving on the Perth freeway or what we eat everyday that is giving us cancer.. The shark debate is headed up by public hysteria. I had some knob threaten me on FBook the other day because I didnt agree with his POV on sharks..can we have a human cull first??
I vote to cull the word cull.
Call a spade a spade, it means selective slaughter, so leave it as that.
So, what do we want to selectively slaughter first?
Select to expand quotetobes said..
Humans killed by sharks worldwide per year - 4.2
Sharks killed by humans worldwide per year - 100,000,000
Fair's fair? I don't think we're playing fair.
I dont think that is a fair call....how many man eaters per year are killed???
Select to expand quotefingerbone said..tobes said..
Humans killed by sharks worldwide per year - 4.2
Sharks killed by humans worldwide per year - 100,000,000
Fair's fair? I don't think we're playing fair.
I dont think that is a fair call....how many man eaters per year are killed???
Less than 4.2 obviously. Plenty of innocent 'man eaters' will be killed though.
NSW and Queensland have a system of indiscriminate shark culling, the 'Shark Net' and Drum line program, in which gill nets and baited drum lines are set to entangle and kill sharks. They also entangle whales, dolphins, rays, turtles, dugongs, and endangered and harmless shark species such as the Grey Nurse. A majority of sharks are entangled on the inside of the nets and there is even a theory that the nets attract larger sharks, scavenging on the catch.
Remove the shark nets.
Sissies ^ get out of the water. I'm going to continue to take my chances.
A few heroes on here that wouldn't mind being munched on by a shark, and some that even look forward to it!! Watch them all squeal like little girls if the time ever came.
Shark cull no, but rogues that get a taste for humans, take them out of the equation.
Select to expand quotekkiter said..
A few heroes on here that wouldn't mind being munched on by a shark, and some that even look forward to it!! Watch them all squeal like little girls if the time ever came.
Shark cull no, but rogues that get a taste for humans, take them out of the equation.
And there's the problem - how do you identify the "rogue?" Sharks can cover some serious distance in a short period of time. And what about it's behaviour is rogue anyway? You're projecting human behaviour and characteristics onto an animal. Like a LOLcat but more bitey.
And do sharks get a "taste for humans?" Outside of Jaws and Sharknado I mean.
If a dog mauls someone it is usually put down out of fear it will do it again. May not even be the dogs fault. It may have been provoked, hurt in some way.
Do you really want to take the chance that the shark does not start to look at humans as a food source after an attack?
Not always going to get the offending shark for sure, but if lifeguards etc are close by, then action should be taken to remove it.
Interesting choice of example kkiter, lets take the dog analogy further.
A quick look suggests there have been 25 fatal dog attacks in Australia since 2000. Similar to the number of fatal shark attacks.
I think we should cull any dogs that are seen to be getting too large as a pre emptive measure. Lets set up a system of randomly placed bear traps to control the numbers of dogs, sure, they might catch the occasional horse, kangaroo, person etc, but this is a small price to pay for the psychological benefit of feeling that we are on top of the 'dog problem'.
Some of you could learn a lot from the family of Zac Young-
"His brother Michael Young says the family has come to terms with the "freak nature" of the tragedy.
"The Young family has grown up with the ocean as surfers, divers and fishermen since most of us could walk," he said.
"We understand nature and the freak nature of this tragedy. Although we believe in the tagging of large sharks, we do not wish for this to result in any sort of cull."
Select to expand quotetobes said..
Interesting choice of example kkiter, lets take the dog analogy further.
A quick look suggests there have been 25 fatal dog attacks in Australia since 2000. Similar to the number of fatal shark attacks.
I think we should cull any dogs that are seen to be getting too large as a pre emptive measure. Lets set up a system of randomly placed bear traps to control the numbers of dogs, sure, they might catch the occasional horse, kangaroo, person etc, but this is a small price to pay for the psychological benefit of feeling that we are on top of the 'dog problem'.
Some of you could learn a lot from the family of Zac Young-
"His brother Michael Young says the family has come to terms with the "freak nature" of the tragedy.
"The Young family has grown up with the ocean as surfers, divers and fishermen since most of us could walk," he said.
"We understand nature and the freak nature of this tragedy. Although we believe in the tagging of large sharks, we do not wish for this to result in any sort of cull."
Good idea with the dog trapping, but your bear trap approach is deliberately ridiculous.
On land we can trap differently than how it can be done with aquatic animals; set up some non-lethal cages specially tailored to attract and trap the risk dogs, that way any by catch that may wander into said traps can be safely released.
If you're gonna be high and mighty about it, try to be smarter.
