eco warriors

They are cutting shark nets....wonder what happens when someone inside net gets attacked and dies . Will this be manslaughter?
Fu cking tree huggers.

Too true nebs.

I wish they'd stop using the term shark "net".

It is pretty damn misleading...

Look at the big picture. 7 billion people on the planet but you'd compromise the ocean ecosystem to save one or two.

On an individual level, yes the relatives of the poor victim will mourn. But why are we so special? The relatives of the whales and dolphins drowned in the nets as by catch are likely to be just as mournful.

An interesting account by a zoologist studying marine mammal behaviour.

radio.abc.net.au/programitem/peW0L4Bg63

Select to expand quote

fingerbone said..
They are cutting shark nets....wonder what happens when someone inside net gets attacked and dies . Will this be manslaughter?
Fu cking tree huggers.

They have yet to produce any evidence from what i have seen, thats just a paper trying to sell headlines. Unless they are now calling the whales that get caught in them Environmentalists..

Select to expand quote

fingerbone said..
Then why cut holes in them?

Who says anyone does

Select to expand quote

seanhogan said..
so what exactly is a shark net ?

I found the pesky environmentalists who are damaging the nets

Everything's here:www.wa.gov.au/organisation/department-of-the-premier-and-cabinet

"The program was designed to reduce the number of potentially dangerous sharks in particular areas rather than creating an impenetrable barrier against shark attack. Nets (see Appendix 1) manufactured to DPI&F specifications are 186 metres in length. Each net is made up of 3 x 62 metre sections. The nets have a depth of 6 metres and a mesh size of 500 millimetres. They are marked with inflatable buoys and are anchored to the seabed using either Danforth or CQR pattern high-holding anchors."






And Drum lines (same objective):

I dont understand most of you.
Surely any protection we can get while swimming is better than none.
You do realise that your precious sharks and other sea creatures have the rest of the fuc king ocean to play in. You knew that right?

It's common knowledge that most sharks that are caught in "shark nets" are caught on the inside.
That is they made it inside and are caught existing.

Do we really wish to have a shark contained in the swimming area longer than one chasing schooling fish?
We really do need to do much more shark research.
I see that has started on the east coast.
There is a chance we have changed the balance of fish to sharks and this may ultimately see that we need to even things up a bit until we reduce the catch enough for the balance to head naturally the other way.

I have also heard it said that because sea temperatures have risen more bait balls are hugging the coast more than before.
Thus attracting sharks more often than before closer to the coast
Once again more research needs to be done to get the facts and the best way forward.

Select to expand quote

fingerbone said...
I dont understand most of you.
Surely any protection we can get while swimming is better than none.
You do realise that your precious sharks and other sea creatures have the rest of the fuc king ocean to play in. You knew that right?

That's a terrible attitude to have and unfortunately represents far too many peoples views. It's about time we start to respect this world before it becomes inhospitable. Killing apex predators off is not the way to go. How selfish are you that you think killing such a great animal is OK so that you can have a slightly safer surf. Next you'll want to heat the ocean so you can wear boardies year round.

How many of you calling for nets/culls/any other thing that doesn't work take your own preventative measures, such as a surfsafe/sharkshield?

Surely some of the responsibility, if not all of it, lies in the user (of the ocean).

Because they have knowingly gone into the dangerous water. They don't cull planes every time a skydiver dies. Cars are still around despite the fact they regularly kill inocent people.

The plane has nothing to do with the death of a ski diver - the earth on the other hand has a big say in the outcome. Its a poor analogy. Planes, cars, bikes.... are all heavily controlled, imbued with safety systems, speeds limited in close quarter situations to prevent any injury.

My feeling is that if a bunch of people were on land, say watching a kids soccer game and every month something came out of the bushes and attacked or killed someone, something would be done straight away.

I just want to know why there is a double standard.

I also want to quantify at what level of attacks would people want something to be done?

I'd probably stop playing soccer at that ground, that's for sure!

Why should anything be done? If it gets to a large number, surely it would just be stupid to get into the water? Why should we kill our way to safety?

Most sports like this have several deaths a year. Surfing/snowboarding/rockclimbing/anything that's fun! It's part of the risk and that risk can instantly be reduced to zero, purely by not participating. They are all 100% preventable.

That is something that can be done. It's free, it's easy and it is immediately effective.

Select to expand quote

Dawn Patrol said..
I'm not against them taking out a large shark in the vicinity immediately after an incident. At least that would also put the "rough" shark theory to bed...

Ah, the Canadian Mountie "rough" justice approach. "The Canadian Mountie always gets his man." May not be the right man, doesn't matter.

This may be the completely wrong thing to do. The rogue shark theory has never been validated. The large shark that has taken a bite and spat the foul tasting surfer out will possibly learn from his mistake. Maybe we're better off catching him to tattoo a big "I'm OK now" green thumb on his side. To take it out will just allow another smaller, inexperienced, yet-to-taste-surfer shark take his place. More research needed.

Cage diving ought to be banned immediately. To have the sharks afraid of human interaction as they likely were thirty years ago would be a logical place to start.