Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...

Shark things out of hand in WA

Reply
Created by king of the point > 9 months ago, 14 Jul 2012
Woodo
WA, 792 posts
23 Jul 2012 6:40PM
Thumbs Up

SandS said...

Deaths in Australia each year .....147000

Deaths in Australia in the last year (not every year ) due to shark attack 9

Approx. .006 percent


Percemtage of ocean users in WA who will feel more at ease by your maths skills
0.00000000000000000001

Mister Dugong
368 posts
23 Jul 2012 8:05PM
Thumbs Up

1-I think they should remain on the protected list, as long as 5 or so big ones get taken "for research" to mitigate the possibility of a repeat offender..

2-The territorial buffer for large shark tolerance of 1 km from the coast could also be maintained, these larger sharks can divvy up the rest of the ocean themselves.

The main point of these two actions is to stop / discourage the evolution of the "local shark" diet (however transient they may be). I think people are forgetting the genetic intelligence of natural instinct and in my opinion we should be pointing this out to these predators in a such a reserved yet firm manner.

Insert creationist dig here...

jbshack
WA, 6913 posts
24 Jul 2012 10:27AM
Thumbs Up

wotzy77 said...

1-I think they should remain on the protected list, as long as 5 or so big ones get taken "for research" to mitigate the possibility of a repeat offender..

2-The territorial buffer for large shark tolerance of 1 km from the coast could also be maintained, these larger sharks can divvy up the rest of the ocean themselves.

The main point of these two actions is to stop / discourage the evolution of the "local shark" diet (however transient they may be). I think people are forgetting the genetic intelligence of natural instinct and in my opinion we should be pointing this out to these predators in a such a reserved yet firm manner.

Insert creationist dig here...


The experts will tell you that sharks wont eat humans if they have a choice. Especially after tasting as they will normally eat a very high fat content. This is why most attacks are exploratory only and they leave us alone. Tests have shown when given bait of two styles, one high in fat and another lean fat they will leave the lean fat after having tried it We simply don't give them the energy to make it worth while to eat us. Sadly we cant explain that to them till its too late

Mister Dugong
368 posts
24 Jul 2012 11:09AM
Thumbs Up

jbshack said...

wotzy77 said...

1-I think they should remain on the protected list, as long as 5 or so big ones get taken "for research" to mitigate the possibility of a repeat offender..

2-The territorial buffer for large shark tolerance of 1 km from the coast could also be maintained, these larger sharks can divvy up the rest of the ocean themselves.

The main point of these two actions is to stop / discourage the evolution of the "local shark" diet (however transient they may be). I think people are forgetting the genetic intelligence of natural instinct and in my opinion we should be pointing this out to these predators in a such a reserved yet firm manner.

Insert creationist dig here...


The experts will tell you that sharks wont eat humans if they have a choice. Especially after tasting as they will normally eat a very high fat content. This is why most attacks are exploratory only and they leave us alone. Tests have shown when given bait of two styles, one high in fat and another lean fat they will leave the lean fat after having tried it We simply don't give them the energy to make it worth while to eat us. Sadly we cant explain that to them till its too late




Yes i absolutely agree this is the case in the past.

I am pointing the discussion in the direction that one shark is responsible for at least two attacks. Possibly two sharks with two attacks each over the past 4 or 5 years.
These guys have worked out that a quick lean feed is available between fur seals and whale after birth. Not a total diet change just a quick nibble.

This hypothesis is the result of the larger numbers of territorial male whites forcing the slower ones out of their normal feeding hot spots (where they all frequent yet remain elusive and hidden) into meager feeding areas where they must do what they need to do to survive and adapt accordingly.

From the hearsay I receive I'm led to believe the GWS that you see nutters free diving and the like with are usually females while the males are more agrressive,

I'm betting a repeat offender will be a male pushed out by greater numbers. Worked out that a quick feed will pass time while waiting for the others to move on, grabs a seal and says seeya next year.
These truly are intelligent and super creatures that should be protected... And managed.

Woodo
WA, 792 posts
24 Jul 2012 11:17AM
Thumbs Up

jbshack said...

The experts will tell you that sharks wont eat humans if they have a choice. Especially after tasting as they will normally eat a very high fat content. This is why most attacks are exploratory only and they leave us alone. Tests have shown when given bait of two styles, one high in fat and another lean fat they will leave the lean fat after having tried it We simply don't give them the energy to make it worth while to eat us. Sadly we cant explain that to them till its too late



4 out of the last 10 WA fatalities have seen the victims taken whole with no remains recovered. Fact.

JB start looking at actual proven evidence not what some so called expert says.

As for your 2 style bait debate that's like putting a piece of sirloin steak down next to piece of topside and saying pick one. Anyone in their right mind would pick the sirlion, but if there's none of that on offer at the time and your a bit peckish you'll definitly go the topside...

jbshack
WA, 6913 posts
24 Jul 2012 12:05PM
Thumbs Up

Woodo said...

jbshack said...

The experts will tell you that sharks wont eat humans if they have a choice. Especially after tasting as they will normally eat a very high fat content. This is why most attacks are exploratory only and they leave us alone. Tests have shown when given bait of two styles, one high in fat and another lean fat they will leave the lean fat after having tried it We simply don't give them the energy to make it worth while to eat us. Sadly we cant explain that to them till its too late



4 out of the last 10 WA fatalities have seen the victims taken whole with no remains recovered. Fact.

JB start looking at actual proven evidence not what some so called expert says.

As for your 2 style bait debate that's like putting a piece of sirloin steak down next to piece of topside and saying pick one. Anyone in their right mind would pick the sirlion, but if there's none of that on offer at the time and your a bit peckish you'll definitly go the topside...



Proven evidence. You mean like although people interaction with sharks due to the fact that the population has blown out putting more people than ever in contact with sharks. Yet the amount of attacks has not grown proportionally with the population. Isn't that a fact that we now have less attacks

Woodo
WA, 792 posts
24 Jul 2012 1:04PM
Thumbs Up

jbshack said...

Proven evidence. You mean like although people interaction with sharks due to the fact that the population has blown out putting more people than ever in contact with sharks. Yet the amount of attacks has not grown proportionally with the population. Isn't that a fact that we now have less attacks


You must be on some good gear if you want start proportioning the population increase with attacks and saying "we now have less attacks"

southace
SA, 4776 posts
25 Jul 2012 10:43PM
Thumbs Up

jbshack said...

wotzy77 said...

1-I think they should remain on the protected list, as long as 5 or so big ones get taken "for research" to mitigate the possibility of a repeat offender..

2-The territorial buffer for large shark tolerance of 1 km from the coast could also be maintained, these larger sharks can divvy up the rest of the ocean themselves.

The main point of these two actions is to stop / discourage the evolution of the "local shark" diet (however transient they may be). I think people are forgetting the genetic intelligence of natural instinct and in my opinion we should be pointing this out to these predators in a such a reserved yet firm manner.

Insert creationist dig here...


The experts will tell you that sharks wont eat humans if they have a choice. Especially after tasting as they will normally eat a very high fat content. This is why most attacks are exploratory only and they leave us alone. Tests have shown when given bait of two styles, one high in fat and another lean fat they will leave the lean fat after having tried it We simply don't give them the energy to make it worth while to eat us. Sadly we cant explain that to them till its too late




Hang on! The experts say that sharks normally eat high fat content?
Could someone remind me how much fat content is in squid,snapper and tuna????????????
I have seen them shark eat, 1 large pizza with the lot, 1 can of coke , large numbers of white foam floats , a red rag , a boat fender , giant pectral birds , I large stingray and tons of tuna in bite sized pieces! The experts are who???

Macroscien
QLD, 6806 posts
25 Jul 2012 11:33PM
Thumbs Up

Maybe we just should allow Japs to do more scientific research on our sharks ?
problem solved



Subscribe
Reply

Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...


"Shark things out of hand in WA" started by king of the point