What were the drastic environmental/ecological disasters we faced 10-20 years ago that were a direct result of the low numbers of GW, that you shark-huggers are saying will happen now if today's numbers are reverted back to what they were?
Anyone?
Still no one?
C'mon, if you're all so sure of your side of the argument, then come out with it.
Select to expand quotecauncy said..kiterboy said...Gustenzo said..
Death unfortunately is a natural part of life, why are we always trying to stop everyone from dying? Is the population not large enough? Why do we want everyone to live forever! I know it is a natural survival instinct but aren't we smart enough to analyse the future implications?
I see most people who are for the drumlines and cull are just too scared to go into the water now and grossly uneducated about the environmental systems and the implications of making decisions on a finite 'thing' (GWS) and the effects of changing food webs.
You get an engineer and an architect to create a well designed house (people in the know) you don't get Joe Blow no idea to design it. Let the professionals EPA and other environmental managers do there job. If you are to scared to go in the ocean then stay out.
"Everyone should have no fear into going into the ocean, plus I want uncrowded breaks! Lets just make more surf spots with artificial reef all along the coast and impact longshore drift. Hooray for the human race! Sick sad world."
Dream on, buddy.
The anti-cullers are the ones too scared to go in the ocean.
And what are the EPA and such doing about the situation?
I spend time on, in and under the ocean
And I'm not keen on a shark cull, I am conciouse though of the threat,
Same as when I get on a roof, go riding my bike , riding my quad,
My eldest brother used to race bikes all over the uk, he's got pins , lost his left leg below the knee, multiple scars , broken bones , usually the 1st thing he'd ask was how's me bike, he'd rebuild and tune something that would kill him,
Maybe class watersports as an extreme sport
And accept the risks, I do
OK, now take any of those situations, and add in the extra level of risk of being blind-sided and taken out by a toothy-bitey animal.
Now it's the same risk.
Select to expand quotebusterwa said..
How much head did it take to get to that position?
Mabe you should start teaching them people how to prevent BLOOD LOSS.
CULL THE MANEATERS .If not **** off and go hugem. Over and over Vote green
You know what if it was up to you ****s my family would of burned alive in a bushfire cause I could cut down a tree. **** YOU Theres really no helping you dumb mother****ers is there.Cant be ****ed with ****en retards.
NO_CONVERSATION_EXISTS
EXPECT MORE ATTACKS blood is on your hands.
The lack of sense of proportion here is astonishing.
Looks like they will open up commercial fishing. The the sea shiptards and all its tree hugging hippies can direct there attention something a bit more important ( like move to asia and stop shark finning). Great to see the leaders addressing the issue. Great to see some action.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said...cauncy said..kiterboy said...Gustenzo said..
Death unfortunately is a natural part of life, why are we always trying to stop everyone from dying? Is the population not large enough? Why do we want everyone to live forever! I know it is a natural survival instinct but aren't we smart enough to analyse the future implications?
I see most people who are for the drumlines and cull are just too scared to go into the water now and grossly uneducated about the environmental systems and the implications of making decisions on a finite 'thing' (GWS) and the effects of changing food webs.
You get an engineer and an architect to create a well designed house (people in the know) you don't get Joe Blow no idea to design it. Let the professionals EPA and other environmental managers do there job. If you are to scared to go in the ocean then stay out.
"Everyone should have no fear into going into the ocean, plus I want uncrowded breaks! Lets just make more surf spots with artificial reef all along the coast and impact longshore drift. Hooray for the human race! Sick sad world."
Dream on, buddy.
The anti-cullers are the ones too scared to go in the ocean.
And what are the EPA and such doing about the situation?
I spend time on, in and under the ocean
And I'm not keen on a shark cull, I am conciouse though of the threat,
Same as when I get on a roof, go riding my bike , riding my quad,
My eldest brother used to race bikes all over the uk, he's got pins , lost his left leg below the knee, multiple scars , broken bones , usually the 1st thing he'd ask was how's me bike, he'd rebuild and tune something that would kill him,
Maybe class watersports as an extreme sport
And accept the risks, I do
OK, now take any of those situations, and add in the extra level of risk of being blind-sided and taken out by a toothy-bitey animal.
Now it's the same risk.
The risk is minimal, check some stats out and don't get so paranoid, I'll be getting on the water and under next week
Select to expand quotecauncy said...kiterboy said...cauncy said..kiterboy said...Gustenzo said..
Death unfortunately is a natural part of life, why are we always trying to stop everyone from dying? Is the population not large enough? Why do we want everyone to live forever! I know it is a natural survival instinct but aren't we smart enough to analyse the future implications?
I see most people who are for the drumlines and cull are just too scared to go into the water now and grossly uneducated about the environmental systems and the implications of making decisions on a finite 'thing' (GWS) and the effects of changing food webs.
You get an engineer and an architect to create a well designed house (people in the know) you don't get Joe Blow no idea to design it. Let the professionals EPA and other environmental managers do there job. If you are to scared to go in the ocean then stay out.
"Everyone should have no fear into going into the ocean, plus I want uncrowded breaks! Lets just make more surf spots with artificial reef all along the coast and impact longshore drift. Hooray for the human race! Sick sad world."
Dream on, buddy.
The anti-cullers are the ones too scared to go in the ocean.
And what are the EPA and such doing about the situation?
I spend time on, in and under the ocean
And I'm not keen on a shark cull, I am conciouse though of the threat,
Same as when I get on a roof, go riding my bike , riding my quad,
My eldest brother used to race bikes all over the uk, he's got pins , lost his left leg below the knee, multiple scars , broken bones , usually the 1st thing he'd ask was how's me bike, he'd rebuild and tune something that would kill him,
Maybe class watersports as an extreme sport
And accept the risks, I do
OK, now take any of those situations, and add in the extra level of risk of being blind-sided and taken out by a toothy-bitey animal.
Now it's the same risk.
The risk is minimal, check some stats out and don't get so paranoid, I'll be getting on the water and under next week
Maybe have a watch of the tt races and the norwest 100 , then ask yourself is going in the water that risky compared to other sports
Select to expand quotebusterwa said..
How much head did it take to get to that position?
Mabe you should start teaching them people how to prevent BLOOD LOSS.
CULL THE MANEATERS .If not **** off and go hugem. Over and over Vote green
You know what if it was up to you ****s my family would of burned alive in a bushfire cause I could cut down a tree. **** YOU Theres really no helping you dumb mother****ers is there.Cant be ****ed with ****en retards.
NO_CONVERSATION_EXISTS
EXPECT MORE ATTACKS blood is on your hands.
Can someone please decipher this comment ???
I have raced motorcycles, still ride on the road and I know the risks. Feel safer in the ocean than on the road especially on my push bike. I was attacked by a shark at Mullaloo beach when I was 14 so know about sharks as well. More people in the ocean = more attacks just statistics and very sad for the victims. The risk of shark attack is not going to stop me kiting or surfing on the weekend. I am more likely to be injured mountainbiking which is the new passion. Dirt is way harder than water :(
No cull vote from me.
Select to expand quotebusterwa said...
hope you get attacked then. Its a no brainer?Hopefully its going to be open to commercial fisherman. About time. 
Nice.
Such a class bloke. Full of compassion for his fellow man.
Its really quite elementary. Do you need to study beaner for 4 years at uni to work that your unemployable? Join the greens You can still make a difference? Least of al you can fall back on centerlink.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..
What were the drastic environmental/ecological disasters we faced 10-20 years ago that were a direct result of the low numbers of GW, that you shark-huggers are saying will happen now if today's numbers are reverted back to what they were?
Anyone?
Still no one?
C'mon, if you're all so sure of your side of the argument, then come out with it.
I've not seen anyone say we'll have an ecological disaster stemming from low GW numbers, more so from low shark numbers overall and there are some examples of that like the collapse of the shell fisheries in the US after the stingray population exploded because the Sharks weren't there to keep them in check. There is a paper about the importance of Tigers to Shark Bay as they keep the dugongs in check from eating all the shallow sea grass beds which is a critical habitat for juvenile snapper. It goes on to suggest that without the Sharks the snapper fishing industry would very likely collapse. In the case of Great Whites their primary food is seals, it just so happens seals were also hunted to close to extinction and many colony's disappeared. They have taken a while to get re-established but now their numbers are sharply increasing, without the GW's doing their bit there would again be a fisheries issue and the fishos would be screaming for a seal cull.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said...thedrip said..kiterboy said...
Well, you're making progress, kind of. Out of four sentences, you made a barely legible statement, so let's explore that shall we.
"Or is it that you don't care because you will be dead by the time the environment is f@#ked."
That statement shows that you know something the rest of us don't.
So with your superior knowledge, do you think you can answer the question I posed earlier?
What were the drastic environmental/ecological disasters we faced 10-20 years ago that were a direct result of the low numbers of GW, that you are saying will happen now if today's numbers are reverted back to what they were?
Please darthoggie, save us from our ignorance.
Go read The Unnatural History of the Sea
Give us a brief summary.
Use your intellectual skillz to enlighten us lowbrow folk, instead of just hoping one person takes up your reading list recommendation.
It's waste of my time. If you want to educate yourself, then go and read it. It's by a university Professor. But considering the patronising tone of your post (and others feral attacks like busterwa's) you don't have the ability, or refuse, to think critically and will be happy to dismiss him as a "tree hugging hippie".
If you are, as I suspect, completely satisfied with your ill informed, hysterical opinion then feel free to remain ignorant of proper research. Nothing I say will convince you.
I'm amazed people bother arguing about it with people like you.
Select to expand quotebusterwa said...
Its really quite elementary. Do you need to study beaner 4 years at uni to work that your unemployable?
What?
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..
What were the drastic environmental/ecological disasters we faced 10-20 years ago that were a direct result of the low numbers of GW, that you shark-huggers are saying will happen now if today's numbers are reverted back to what they were?
Anyone?
Still no one?
C'mon, if you're all so sure of your side of the argument, then come out with it.
I'll take this one on.
The drastic environmental/ecological disaster we faced 10-20 years ago as a direct result of the low numbers of white sharks was... nothing. Zip. Zero. Nil. Sharks were killed out of sight of the vast majority of humans and due to a lack of social media and a societal affliction known as political correctness, it raised few, if any, eyebrows. In fact if ancient photographs can be believed, large groups of interested onlookers sometimes thought it was okay, a point they proved by sitting on, around, near and under dead white sharks to have their photo taken and presumably show their support for the action of whoever did the deed.
The sun still comes up, the sun goes down. The tide comes in, the tide goes out. Life as we know it just carries on as normal.
This is a stunning cock-up on nature's behalf because as we are well aware, popular modern-day rhetoric dictates that the entire world and everything in it should have died a direct and painful death because of the lack of white sharks.
Fortunately, or not, as your opinion falls (although if you apply logic to this it does become somewhat confusing and irrational) the end of the world did not happen. The good news is that there is an excellent chance it will not happen again if a bit of downward pressure were to be applied to the white shark population. This blatant fact though is well beyond the comprehension of an emotive group of modern folk known colloquially as "shark huggers".
Once upon a time sharks were placed somewhere below humans on the food chain and the vast majority of humans couldn't give a fat rat's clacker whether white sharks were being killed or not. In fact, it would have been a very special type of person that would have even noticed any were even missing. The same is true now, although this is not a popular point to make. Strangely though, in only one short decade the spectrum of give-a-****-ness has swung almost completely to the opposite pole. Even more strangely, it has coincided with more people being killed by white sharks than ever before. Humans truly are a strange breed.
In conclusion, humans are willingly no longer the top dog in the pack, they are now part of the food chain. The most vocal ones, on behalf of everyone, will have you know that if you choose to enter the ocean you should do so knowing that if you do not have the correct ability to read shark body language and react accordingly, it pretty well serves you right if you get eaten. So there.
Select to expand quotebusterwa said...
Drip you seem to be educating a bunch of muppets? Just like yourself
No. Just recommending a good read. See any arguments from me? Like I said, it's a waste of time.
And having a laugh at how personal you feel the need to be.
Select to expand quotethedrip said..kiterboy said...thedrip said..kiterboy said...
Well, you're making progress, kind of. Out of four sentences, you made a barely legible statement, so let's explore that shall we.
"Or is it that you don't care because you will be dead by the time the environment is f@#ked."
That statement shows that you know something the rest of us don't.
So with your superior knowledge, do you think you can answer the question I posed earlier?
What were the drastic environmental/ecological disasters we faced 10-20 years ago that were a direct result of the low numbers of GW, that you are saying will happen now if today's numbers are reverted back to what they were?
Please darthoggie, save us from our ignorance.
Go read The Unnatural History of the Sea
Give us a brief summary.
Use your intellectual skillz to enlighten us lowbrow folk, instead of just hoping one person takes up your reading list recommendation.
It's waste of my time. If you want to educate yourself, then go and read it. It's by a university Professor. But considering the patronising tone of your post (and others feral attacks like busterwa's) you don't have the ability, or refuse, to think critically and will be happy to dismiss him as a "tree hugging hippie".
If you are, as I suspect, completely satisfied with your ill informed, hysterical opinion then feel free to remain ignorant of proper research. Nothing I say will convince you.
I'm amazed people bother arguing about it with people like you.
Well Mr English teacher, you certainly sound all knowing.
How do you know my level of education?
Hysterical? Ill informed?
Sorry, I can only go by the proof & evidence of decades past that no ecological disasters occurred due to the numbers of GWs being what they were 10-20 or more years ago.
You have no basis, no proof, nothing to back up the claim made by many on here and elsewhere, that ecological disaster will occur if GW numbers are reduced to the levels they were 10-20 years ago.
You certainly are wasting your time, posting nothing of susbstance in your teacherly patronising tone.
Select to expand quotebusterwa said...
How much head did it take to get to that position?
Mabe you should start teaching them people how to prevent BLOOD LOSS.
CULL THE MANEATERS .If not **** off and go hugem. Over and over Vote green
You know what if it was up to you ****s my family would of burned alive in a bushfire cause I could cut down a tree. **** YOU Theres really no helping you dumb mother****ers is there.Cant be ****ed with ****en retards.
NO_CONVERSATION_EXISTS
EXPECT MORE ATTACKS blood is on your hands.
Aaah. Nice edit adding all that abuse.
See I thought you were asking about pressure or water hammer or some other specialist plumbing term before you added all the invective, I thought "How much head did it take to get to that position?" was referring to what caused my leaky seats.
My mistake. I under estimated how nasty you could be. Any thing else to add?
Select to expand quotekiterboy said...thedrip said..kiterboy said...thedrip said..kiterboy said...
Well, you're making progress, kind of. Out of four sentences, you made a barely legible statement, so let's explore that shall we.
"Or is it that you don't care because you will be dead by the time the environment is f@#ked."
That statement shows that you know something the rest of us don't.
So with your superior knowledge, do you think you can answer the question I posed earlier?
What were the drastic environmental/ecological disasters we faced 10-20 years ago that were a direct result of the low numbers of GW, that you are saying will happen now if today's numbers are reverted back to what they were?
Please darthoggie, save us from our ignorance.
Go read The Unnatural History of the Sea
Give us a brief summary.
Use your intellectual skillz to enlighten us lowbrow folk, instead of just hoping one person takes up your reading list recommendation.
It's waste of my time. If you want to educate yourself, then go and read it. It's by a university Professor. But considering the patronising tone of your post (and others feral attacks like busterwa's) you don't have the ability, or refuse, to think critically and will be happy to dismiss him as a "tree hugging hippie".
If you are, as I suspect, completely satisfied with your ill informed, hysterical opinion then feel free to remain ignorant of proper research. Nothing I say will convince you.
I'm amazed people bother arguing about it with people like you.
Well Mr English teacher, you certainly sound all knowing.
How do you know my level of education?
Hysterical? Ill informed?
Sorry, I can only go by the proof & evidence of decades past that no ecological disasters occurred due to the numbers of GWs being what they were 10-20 or more years ago.
You have no basis, no proof, nothing to back up the claim made by many on here and elsewhere, that ecological disaster will occur if GW numbers are reduced to the levels they were 10-20 years ago.
You certainly are wasting your time, posting nothing of susbstance in your teacherly patronising tone.
Pretty much proving my point hey? Anything else?
And kiterboy, I never said anything about your education. Just that I think a lot of these posts are emotional, hysterical and ill informed and I doubt you actually want to do any research that may challenge your opinions.
I seem to pretty much be on the money hey? 
Select to expand quotethedrip said..
And kiterboy, I never said anything about your education. Just that I think a lot of these posts are emotional, hysterical and ill informed and I doubt you actually want to do any research that may challenge your opinions.
I seem to pretty much be on the money hey?
I'd bet you lose a lot of bets.
Select to expand quoteRabbs said..busterwa said..
How much head did it take to get to that position?
Mabe you should start teaching them people how to prevent BLOOD LOSS.
CULL THE MANEATERS .If not **** off and go hugem. Over and over Vote green
You know what if it was up to you ****s my family would of burned alive in a bushfire cause I could cut down a tree. **** YOU Theres really no helping you dumb mother****ers is there.Cant be ****ed with ****en retards.
NO_CONVERSATION_EXISTS
EXPECT MORE ATTACKS blood is on your hands.
Can someone please decipher this comment ???
Sorry I dont speak idiot.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said...thedrip said..
And kiterboy, I never said anything about your education. Just that I think a lot of these posts are emotional, hysterical and ill informed and I doubt you actually want to do any research that may challenge your opinions.
I seem to pretty much be on the money hey?
I'd bet you lose a lot of bets.
You'd win. I'm an absolute mug gambler.
That was a rhetorical question, not a wager though.
Select to expand quotenovetti said..Gustenzo said..
The EPA recommended against the proposal of drumlins (2014).
The numbers of GWS 10-20 years ago was and I doubt the number now is KNOWN. Surveying and samples are just snapshots at that time over over a certain time period. More information is needed to make the correct choice. Please check out the precautionary principal. If the shark abundance is deemed too high and some sort of cull is found to be necessary then I trust the professionals will have made their choice on sound science with good reasoning behind it. Check out the precautionary principal.
Educate yourself and look up: keystone species, apex predators, mesopredators, higher order effects.
So basically your proposal is do nothing, let more people get chomped. Then after finding out there are too many sharks, lets cull them.
How different is your proposal to what we are basically saying here? The only difference is that you huggers think we didn't had as many deaths to trigger this mechanism.
How many more deaths do you (or other shark huggers) think are necessary to come up with the obvious that is already in place?
Yeah do nothing because it is part of life. A risk we take in choosing to go into the ocean with dangerous creatures in it. I don't feel it is a number of deaths that should 'trigger' it. If they find that there is a need to cull, I trust those in the know with the research and the knowledge on how to make the decision. There is no abnormal increase in shark numbers yet noted. Precautionary principal.
You just need to think about the bigger picture son.
Are you that intimate with me to be calling me son? Did I gave you that liberty to do so?Why you huggers consider yourselves in to be in a higher moral ground than people who have different views? Who is the nazi here?
Also the argument that there is more people in the ocean that ever is rubbish. In WA? The less populated stretch coastal region together with SA in the whole world? Why there are not exponentially more attacks than here in hawaii, california, east coast us, south africa and other places that GW's roam? If there is a surfer or two more in your spot in WA and you don't like because your surf is bad and you don't like people starring at you that is another problem. I bet we had more water users in the 90's in WA alone than now.
Select to expand quotenovetti said...
Are you that intimate with me to be calling me son? Did I gave you that liberty to do so?Why you huggers consider yourselves in to be in a higher moral ground than people who have different views? Who is the nazi here?
Also the argument that there is more people in the ocean that ever is rubbish. In WA? The less populated stretch coastal region together with SA in the whole world? Why there are not exponentially more attacks than here in hawaii, california, east coast us, south africa and other places that GW's roam? If there is a surfer or two more in your spot in WA and you don't like because your surf is bad and you don't like people starring at you that is another problem. I bet we had more water users in the 90's in WA alone than now.
Feisty.
Who is taking the moral high ground?
