People say we are invading their environment.
They are now invading ours.
www.mail.com/int/news/world/
lol. "leapt over the outboard" Classic example of why i reckon you are kidding yourself that an electric deterrent would stop a charging great white in the last 80cm per the studies.
Select to expand quoteBara said..
lol. "leapt over the outboard" Classic example of why i reckon you are kidding yourself that an electric deterrent would stop a charging great white in the last 80cm per the studies.
Feel free not to use one then, nobody is forcing you. 
Select to expand quoteBara said..
lol. "leapt over the outboard" Classic example of why i reckon you are kidding yourself that an electric deterrent would stop a charging great white in the last 80cm per the studies.
Im not really sure what the outboard would have to do with a electronic surfboard device
Did you know there has been 5 surfers who have lost their lives surfing in the last couple of months in Australia (That i know of)
Select to expand quoteDARTH said..Bara said..
lol. "leapt over the outboard" Classic example of why i reckon you are kidding yourself that an electric deterrent would stop a charging great white in the last 80cm per the studies.
Feel free not to use one then, nobody is forcing you.
and nobody is forcing you to chime in with pointless comments like this one either.... champ
Select to expand quotejbshack said..Bara said..
lol. "leapt over the outboard" Classic example of why i reckon you are kidding yourself that an electric deterrent would stop a charging great white in the last 80cm per the studies.
Im not really sure what the outboard would have to do with a electronic surfboard device
Did you know there has been 5 surfers who have lost their lives surfing in the last couple of months in Australia (That i know of)
Ok ill go slower for ya - the fact that all 200odd kgs of it leapt out of the water with enough speed and energy to clear an outboard and land in a boat means that its not going to pull up in the last 80cm when it detects an electrical field.
Enjoy your snake oil
Select to expand quoteBara said..DARTH said..Bara said..
lol. "leapt over the outboard" Classic example of why i reckon you are kidding yourself that an electric deterrent would stop a charging great white in the last 80cm per the studies.
Feel free not to use one then, nobody is forcing you.
and nobody is forcing you to chime in with pointless comments like this one either.... champ
No worries chimp
Wow, I am still amazed at the attitude some people have towards practicing their chosen sport in a wild place. Last week we found ourselves in an beautiful lagoon on the south coast of Cuba, the wind was blowing, the water was glass and apart from the big crocodiles the locals warned us about in the surrounding mangroves it was the ideal kiting spot. I weighed the risks and decided to go kiting and had an epic session. Now had I been taken by a croc then the fault is clearly that of the idiot who went kiting there, going after the croc or culling them out of their natural habitat so I can recreate there without risk is is a pretty ridiculous notion. For my part I felt safe enough as the water was clear and I kept enough distance from the mangrove to see one coming. And so it is with the GW's in the SW. We know there are periods of high risk, if you want to surf when the vis is **** or the salmon are running that's your choice, weigh the risks and take responsibility for yourself. If using a device that is 90% effective at reducing shark interactions isn't to your liking so be it but expecting the government to step in and kill more animals in an already impoverished ocean so you can feel safe during your fun time is just another sad example of how messed up the human race has become. Ultimately this sort of thinking is stealing from our future generations, we are on track to lose 2/3rds of wild animals by 2020 and this is just since 1970. At some point we have to take a stand and do what's right. Culling sharks for safe recreation is just not right no matter how you spin it, especially if the ocean users refuse to even take basic precautions.
an already impoverished ocean...
exactly....so we still hunt the sharks food, but not them. Not only is it impoverished, the ecosystem has the apex predator top heavy on the old food chain.
Hunt and farm sharks in a controlled, data driven, sustainable manner ....or stop fishing completely. Ecosystem, needs balancing either way.
I do hope the guy above doesn't fish or eat fish.(or any meat)...if you are that concerned with the damn environment or at the very least the fckn sharks.
Select to expand quoteeppo said..
an already impoverished ocean...
exactly....so we still hunt the sharks food, but not them. Not only is it impoverished, the ecosystem has the apex predator top heavy on the old food chain.
Hunt and farm sharks in a controlled, data driven, sustainable manner ....or stop fishing completely. Ecosystem, needs balancing either way.
I do hope the guy above doesn't fish or eat fish.(or any meat)...if you are that concerned with the damn environment or at the very least the fckn sharks.
Absolute bull$hit argument. Try again eppo.
Select to expand quoteDARTH said..
Absolute bull$hit argument. Try again eppo.
You are the anal retentive one. Eat a pack of Laxettes to relieve your self.
Select to expand quoteeppo said..
an already impoverished ocean...
exactly....so we still hunt the sharks food, but not them. Not only is it impoverished, the ecosystem has the apex predator top heavy on the old food chain.
Hunt and farm sharks in a controlled, data driven, sustainable manner ....or stop fishing completely. Ecosystem, needs balancing either way.
I do hope the guy above doesn't fish or eat fish.(or any meat)...if you are that concerned with the damn environment or at the very least the fckn sharks.
In general sharks eat (and more importantly change the behaviour of) meso-predators, the next level of predator below them which is why removing sharks often has devastating effects on reef life. The meso-predators increase in number very quickly and remove the algae grazers, the reef gets smothered and everything leaves. I have seen this plenty of times now, wherever the sharks are missing the reef is covered in algae with few grazers about but lots of Barracuda etc hanging about. Nature has a way of balancing things out and human attempts to do the same never work out.
In the case of GW's we're not really competing with their target diet (seals and sting rays) and in fact the increase in numbers of seals and rays is what competes directly with our own fisheries so less sharks can result in less fish for everyone.
I do eat sea food but only what I catch. I spear fish so what I take is 100% targeted, I only take what I see is plentiful and never the large breeders. Until the last month I didn't spear for almost a year because all the islands we visited were so low in fish numbers and guess what, all those places had no sharks but loads of Barracuda which are inedible due to Ciguatera.
Select to expand quotecisco said..DARTH said..
Absolute bull$hit argument. Try again eppo.
You are the anal retentive one. Eat a pack of Laxettes to relieve your self.
EAD 
Select to expand quoteGradient said..
In general sharks eat (and more importantly change the behaviour of) meso-predators, the next level of predator below them which is why removing sharks often has devastating effects on reef life. The meso-predators increase in number very quickly and remove the algae grazers, the reef gets smothered and everything leaves.
So you're saying the south west oceans were devastated, deserted and smothered in algae during the many decades sharks were being fished and caught there? Funny, I was seeing loads of fish and bird and sea life, a thriving fishing industry and a couple of generations of water users who were barely ever harassed by a shark, let alone eaten by one.
Maybe the information you believe in about removing sharks is the result of studying aquariums.
Select to expand quoteThinkaBowtit said..Gradient said..
In general sharks eat (and more importantly change the behaviour of) meso-predators, the next level of predator below them which is why removing sharks often has devastating effects on reef life. The meso-predators increase in number very quickly and remove the algae grazers, the reef gets smothered and everything leaves.
So you're saying the south west oceans were devastated, deserted and smothered in algae during the many decades sharks were being fished and caught there? Funny, I was seeing loads of fish and bird and sea life, a thriving fishing industry and a couple of generations of water users who were barely ever harassed by a shark, let alone eaten by one.
Maybe the information you believe in about removing sharks is the result of studying aquariums.
I was talking in general terms and addressing the assertion that we have overabundance of apex predators which we don't. The water temps in the Southern ocean don't support coral reefs. Overall shark numbers have fallen by more than 50% in the last 15 years, for many pelagics it's well above 90% so it's pretty dire. The Southern ocean has the advantage of remoteness and lack of fishing ports which along with the weather makes it a hard place to operate and so it's seeing far less pressure from fisheries than anywhere else yet even here Tuna stocks have been smashed and sea bird populations are being decimated by long lines with some species now headed for extinction. We're getting off track but if you think our actions aren't somehow responsible for upsetting the natural order of things (including shark movements and behaviour) then you should read and travel a bit more because you obviously live in a bubble.
I live on the water, I'm in the water pretty much every day, I surf, spearfish and freedive with sharks pretty much every week. My wife is a marine scientist and most my friends are employed in ocean activities around the world, be it science, fishing or recreation so no, my information isn't from studying aquariums. Where is your info from?
last summer in the Sa bight the tuna spotters told me it was the most amount of tuna they had seen in ten years, it was backed up by the fastest harvest season by the fishermen!!
Select to expand quoteGradient said..ThinkaBowtit said..Gradient said..
In general sharks eat (and more importantly change the behaviour of) meso-predators, the next level of predator below them which is why removing sharks often has devastating effects on reef life. The meso-predators increase in number very quickly and remove the algae grazers, the reef gets smothered and everything leaves.
So you're saying the south west oceans were devastated, deserted and smothered in algae during the many decades sharks were being fished and caught there? Funny, I was seeing loads of fish and bird and sea life, a thriving fishing industry and a couple of generations of water users who were barely ever harassed by a shark, let alone eaten by one.
Maybe the information you believe in about removing sharks is the result of studying aquariums.
I was talking in general terms and addressing the assertion that we have overabundance of apex predators which we don't. The water temps in the Southern ocean don't support coral reefs. Overall shark numbers have fallen by more than 50% in the last 15 years, for many pelagics it's well above 90% so it's pretty dire. The Southern ocean has the advantage of remoteness and lack of fishing ports which along with the weather makes it a hard place to operate and so it's seeing far less pressure from fisheries than anywhere else yet even here Tuna stocks have been smashed and sea bird populations are being decimated by long lines with some species now headed for extinction. We're getting off track but if you think our actions aren't somehow responsible for upsetting the natural order of things (including shark movements and behaviour) then you should read and travel a bit more because you obviously live in a bubble.
I live on the water, I'm in the water pretty much every day, I surf, spearfish and freedive with sharks pretty much every week. My wife is a marine scientist and most my friends are employed in ocean activities around the world, be it science, fishing or recreation so no, my information isn't from studying aquariums. Where is your info from?
Cuba shots are looking amazing..Hope all the family are well
Select to expand quoteGradient said..ThinkaBowtit said..Gradient said..
In general sharks eat (and more importantly change the behaviour of) meso-predators, the next level of predator below them which is why removing sharks often has devastating effects on reef life. The meso-predators increase in number very quickly and remove the algae grazers, the reef gets smothered and everything leaves.
So you're saying the south west oceans were devastated, deserted and smothered in algae during the many decades sharks were being fished and caught there? Funny, I was seeing loads of fish and bird and sea life, a thriving fishing industry and a couple of generations of water users who were barely ever harassed by a shark, let alone eaten by one.
Maybe the information you believe in about removing sharks is the result of studying aquariums.
I was talking in general terms and addressing the assertion that we have overabundance of apex predators which we don't. The water temps in the Southern ocean don't support coral reefs. Overall shark numbers have fallen by more than 50% in the last 15 years, for many pelagics it's well above 90% so it's pretty dire. The Southern ocean has the advantage of remoteness and lack of fishing ports which along with the weather makes it a hard place to operate and so it's seeing far less pressure from fisheries than anywhere else yet even here Tuna stocks have been smashed and sea bird populations are being decimated by long lines with some species now headed for extinction. We're getting off track but if you think our actions aren't somehow responsible for upsetting the natural order of things (including shark movements and behaviour) then you should read and travel a bit more because you obviously live in a bubble.
I live on the water, I'm in the water pretty much every day, I surf, spearfish and freedive with sharks pretty much every week. My wife is a marine scientist and most my friends are employed in ocean activities around the world, be it science, fishing or recreation so no, my information isn't from studying aquariums. Where is your info from?
I don't think anyone has said there is an overabundance of apex predators. There is however, plenty of evidence that numbers of white sharks are on the increase, which isn't surprising considering they've had time to mature and breed for long enough to allow that to occur and for us to see the results (i.e, large white sharks are taking more and more regular chunks out of humans in close to the coast encounters). Coral reefs aren't the typical areas we have these problems in WA. You're talking about "overall, shark numbers have fallen etc etc". Seems we're talking about different things.
We do agree, sort of. Our actions are most definitely responsible for upsetting the natural order of things -- we provided ongoing protection to white sharks. We just see it differently is all.
To qualify for this conversation I've worked and played both on, in and under the water from Augusta to Broome. I have friends and family who do the same. I used to have a tropical fish tank.
Select to expand quoteThinkaBowtit said..Gradient said..ThinkaBowtit said..Gradient said..
In general sharks eat (and more importantly change the behaviour of) meso-predators, the next level of predator below them which is why removing sharks often has devastating effects on reef life. The meso-predators increase in number very quickly and remove the algae grazers, the reef gets smothered and everything leaves.
So you're saying the south west oceans were devastated, deserted and smothered in algae during the many decades sharks were being fished and caught there? Funny, I was seeing loads of fish and bird and sea life, a thriving fishing industry and a couple of generations of water users who were barely ever harassed by a shark, let alone eaten by one.
Maybe the information you believe in about removing sharks is the result of studying aquariums.
I was talking in general terms and addressing the assertion that we have overabundance of apex predators which we don't. The water temps in the Southern ocean don't support coral reefs. Overall shark numbers have fallen by more than 50% in the last 15 years, for many pelagics it's well above 90% so it's pretty dire. The Southern ocean has the advantage of remoteness and lack of fishing ports which along with the weather makes it a hard place to operate and so it's seeing far less pressure from fisheries than anywhere else yet even here Tuna stocks have been smashed and sea bird populations are being decimated by long lines with some species now headed for extinction. We're getting off track but if you think our actions aren't somehow responsible for upsetting the natural order of things (including shark movements and behaviour) then you should read and travel a bit more because you obviously live in a bubble.
I live on the water, I'm in the water pretty much every day, I surf, spearfish and freedive with sharks pretty much every week. My wife is a marine scientist and most my friends are employed in ocean activities around the world, be it science, fishing or recreation so no, my information isn't from studying aquariums. Where is your info from?
I don't think anyone has said there is an overabundance of apex predators. There is however, plenty of evidence that numbers of white sharks are on the increase, which isn't surprising considering they've had time to mature and breed for long enough to allow that to occur and for us to see the results (i.e, large white sharks are taking more and more regular chunks out of humans in close to the coast encounters). Coral reefs aren't the typical areas we have these problems in WA. You're talking about "overall, shark numbers have fallen etc etc". Seems we're talking about different things.
We do agree, sort of. Our actions are most definitely responsible for upsetting the natural order of things -- we provided ongoing protection to white sharks. We just see it differently is all.
To qualify for this conversation I've worked and played both on, in and under the water from Augusta to Broome. I have friends and family who do the same. I used to have a tropical fish tank.
Possibly one of the funniest things I have read in this thread 
Select to expand quoteGradient said..
Wow, I am still amazed at the attitude some people have towards practicing their chosen sport in a wild place. Last week we found ourselves in an beautiful lagoon on the south coast of Cuba, the wind was blowing, the water was glass and apart from the big crocodiles the locals warned us about in the surrounding mangroves it was the ideal kiting spot. I weighed the risks and decided to go kiting and had an epic session. Now had I been taken by a croc then the fault is clearly that of the idiot who went kiting there, going after the croc or culling them out of their natural habitat so I can recreate there without risk is is a pretty ridiculous notion. For my part I felt safe enough as the water was clear and I kept enough distance from the mangrove to see one coming. And so it is with the GW's in the SW. We know there are periods of high risk, if you want to surf when the vis is **** or the salmon are running that's your choice, weigh the risks and take responsibility for yourself. If using a device that is 90% effective at reducing shark interactions isn't to your liking so be it but expecting the government to step in and kill more animals in an already impoverished ocean so you can feel safe during your fun time is just another sad example of how messed up the human race has become. Ultimately this sort of thinking is stealing from our future generations, we are on track to lose 2/3rds of wild animals by 2020 and this is just since 1970. At some point we have to take a stand and do what's right. Culling sharks for safe recreation is just not right no matter how you spin it, especially if the ocean users refuse to even take basic precautions.
Everywhere is a wild place, this is nature. How does nature operate? Kill or be killed. We are the smarter species therefore we have a right to eradicate our predators. Logic is sound...
...and don't give me any of that environmentalist foodchain protection bullsh!t... If mammals could bounce back from the dinosaur extinction then it doesn't matter if one stupid fish goes extinct. Whales proliferate, yay, more of an intelligent species and less of a ****ing savage one! Oh wait, are you still crying over how much the extinction of the dodo bird impacted the "harmony of nature"?
We are the only species who have the ability to create the scenario where we can justify the indiscriminate killing of other animals just going about their business in their only available environment in order to make recreation, not survival, out of our everyday environment marginally safer. Marginally safer, at best.
This scenario has a tenuous similarity to predators who kill only what is necessary for their very survival.
It's a very long bow to draw.
We also have the ability to annihilate ourselves with thermonuclear weapons, but miraculously have only just enough sense to not do that. Interesting that it is our survival instinct that prevents us from doing that, given that our instinct for war and violence created that scenario in the first place.
Hence the dictum, M.A.D. when it comes to thermonuclear war.
In the meantime whales abound in record numbers according to the news...
www.watoday.com.au/environment/conservation/whale-watchers-observe-soaring-humpback-numbers-on-migration-census-day-20170622-gww2hf.html
More food to the sharks...doesn't look like they are going extinct or running out of food. Why do we have more attacks them in SW WA ?
More sharks in the water, more humans been attacked. Nothing else from whatever rosy colors you want to paint it.
If a few of them were fished the risks would also be greatly reduced.
WTF kiting in CUBA has to do with the GW problem in the SW ???
I prefer to deal with them this way (photo below).
If this shop was in AUS you guys would be running naked around it holding placards asking for the display to be put down. Over there people seem to be more mature on the issue and just get along with their own business.
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
We also have the ability to annihilate ourselves with thermonuclear weapons, but miraculously have only just enough sense to not do that. Interesting that it is our survival instinct that prevents us from doing that, given that our instinct for war and violence created that scenario in the first place.
That's an interesting observation to make. That we have a survival instinct not to kill yourself but by declaring war we increase our chances of losing our lives or our fellow man's life all for the sake of political ideology. Pathetic humans. Can't wait for AI & neural implantation to sort this **** out.Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
We are the only species who have the ability to create the scenario where we can justify the indiscriminate killing of other animals just going about their business in their only available environment in order to make recreation, not survival
Justify? The only arguments i have ever seen for cannibalism is "nature does it so why can't I" which is purely based on a well known fallacy called the naturalistic fallacy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
We are the only species who have the ability to create the scenario where we can justify the indiscriminate killing of other animals just going about their business in their only available environment in order to make recreation, not survival, out of our everyday environment marginally safer. Marginally safer, at best.
Crap. History shows the safety margin increases hugely with a reduction in white sharks. So does common sense, which is not all that common. Obviously.
We are the only species with the ability to put the species indiscriminately eating it on a pedestal because...well, I'm not sure why...
Would all you pro-white sharkers please stop ignoring history. Less whites equals less attacks by whites. Less whites also equals **** all difference in the bigger picture of the balance in the ocean.
Select to expand quotedrewpweiner said..Adriano said..
We also have the ability to annihilate ourselves with thermonuclear weapons, but miraculously have only just enough sense to not do that. Interesting that it is our survival instinct that prevents us from doing that, given that our instinct for war and violence created that scenario in the first place.
That's an interesting observation to make. That we have a survival instinct not to kill yourself but by declaring war we increase our chances of losing our lives or our fellow man's life all for the sake of political ideology. Pathetic humans. Can't wait for AI & neural implantation to sort this **** out.Adriano said..
We are the only species who have the ability to create the scenario where we can justify the indiscriminate killing of other animals just going about their business in their only available environment in order to make recreation, not survival
Justify? The only arguments i have ever seen for cannibalism is "nature does it so why can't I" which is purely based on a well known fallacy called the naturalistic fallacy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Holy shmoly what was the naturilistic fallacy bloke smoking it just words on top of words. Humans have eaten each other. For all sorts of mythical reasons.
Humans who find it moral taboo in desperate times will eat other humans despite their conviction.
Select to expand quoteThinkaBowtit said..Adriano said..
We are the only species who have the ability to create the scenario where we can justify the indiscriminate killing of other animals just going about their business in their only available environment in order to make recreation, not survival, out of our everyday environment marginally safer. Marginally safer, at best.
Crap. History shows the safety margin increases hugely with a reduction in white sharks. So does common sense, which is not all that common. Obviously.
We are the only species with the ability to put the species indiscriminately eating it on a pedestal because...well, I'm not sure why...
Would all you pro-white sharkers please stop ignoring history. Less whites equals less attacks by whites. Less whites also equals **** all difference in the bigger picture of the balance in the ocean.
Can you please show me were white sharks have been culled and then show the corresponding reduction in shark attacks
Please not i particularly underlined the "History shows" Part..
Jb buddy let's not be silly about this, when there was shark net and hook fishing and prior to them being protected we had a period down south in excess of 20 years with no attacks.....none......okay okay there was one depending which 20 year period you want to analyse......
in the last ten years there has been ?????10-15 fatals....in west oz...
i get get told all the time about people getting buzzed or chased in or stalked, these people don't like forums or media or in fact people but it's common knowledge in all groups who surf any off track or remote locations...
no one says kill them all, it's not a cull.... It's just a bit off fishing catch and kill one or two here and there until they sort their attitude out
Also I actually put a legit link up here about the South African mitigation strategy there's a couple nets and some drum lines and beaches that had an attack or two a year now have not for five or six years....
its a six seven page write up with science and proof and facts and everything
Select to expand quoteRazzonater said..
Jb buddy let's not be silly about this, when there was shark net and hook fishing and prior to them being protected we had a period down south in excess of 20 years with no attacks.....none......okay okay there was one depending which 20 year period you want to analyse......
in the last ten years there has been ?????10-15 fatals....in west oz...
i get get told all the time about people getting buzzed or chased in or stalked, these people don't like forums or media or in fact people but it's common knowledge in all groups who surf any off track or remote locations...
no one says kill them all, it's not a cull.... It's just a bit off fishing catch and kill one or two here and there until they sort their attitude out
Sorry that doesn't show "History". There is no link between attacks and numbers of sharks. Thinky says history proves this and i have asked for evidence of that? You say that less attacks back years ago, before sharks were protected. Well do you also except that other conditions have changed recently, like more people in the water?
What history does show is that culling sharks for water safety makes zero difference, in fact in most places, attacks have continued or even increased.
Also you say you have fishing experience, can you please let me know of any commercial fishing industry that targeted Great Whites? Also do you mean to tell me that commercial fisherman these days don't accidentally catch and kill great whites as by catch? The only difference is if you did, you wouldn't report it as you'd get fined. Surely you'd appreciate that happens..
Lets also not forget NSW and QLD has been culling sharks continually for over 70 years and attacks are (in case you handn't noticed) increasing dramatically..
Also if attacks are to be attributed more great whites, why are attacks still so sporadic? Two with in a week of each other a little over a year ago, and then one this year just gone..Surely if great whites are increasing in numbers and because of that, attacks would also be continually increasing also.. Thats not really the case though..
