Select to expand quoteMacaha said...
If the shark swims into the net,call it suicide or just a dumb fish 
It is called one that did not attack somebody..and if it had attacked someone in the past...well it won't in the future...shark net worked just fine
but if its not a cull then what is it 
What the nets will do, is remove what ever it can, they will kill anything indiscriminately that swims into them. (Even a human or child) They will stop attacks, but only after they have fished down the area and removed the food source and the sharks will stop swimming by. Bull sharks taking an opportunistic feed would worry me..
Will it stop all attacks going forward, will it halve the attacks, will it takes years before any result is seen
img] What the nets will do, is remove what ever it can, they will kill anything indiscriminately that swims into them. (Even a human or child)
Hahaha, that is hilarious..
Shark nets killing children..
you are joking aren't you?? Or maybe never seen nets? If you did you'd understand how far fetched that statement is..
In Queensland, there has been only one fatal attack on a controlled beach since 1962, compared to 27 fatal attacks between 1919 and 1961.Statistics from the NSW Department of Primary Industries indicate that before nets were introduced in NSW in 1936 there was an average of one fatal shark attack every year. There has been only one fatal attack on a protected beach since then and that was in 1951. Similarly, between 1943 and 1951 the South African city of Durban experienced seven fatal attacks but there have been none since nets were introduced in 1952. A more recent comparison shows that in South Africa there were three shark attacks, none fatal, at protected beaches in KwaZulu-Natal between 1990 and 2011, while there were 20 fatal attacks in the same period at unprotected beaches in the Eastern and Western Cape Provinces. [2]
Gotta say I was once a pro culler but no more. By catch from nets way too great and drum lines couldn't catch a cold in Perth. Protect yourself people there are devices that reduce the risk
Select to expand quoteRazzonater said..
In Queensland, there has been only one fatal attack on a controlled beach since 1962, compared to 27 fatal attacks between 1919 and 1961.Statistics from the NSW Department of Primary Industries indicate that before nets were introduced in NSW in 1936 there was an average of one fatal shark attack every year. There has been only one fatal attack on a protected beach since then and that was in 1951. Similarly, between 1943 and 1951 the South African city of Durban experienced seven fatal attacks but there have been none since nets were introduced in 1952. A more recent comparison shows that in South Africa there were three shark attacks, none fatal, at protected beaches in KwaZulu-Natal between 1990 and 2011, while there were 20 fatal attacks in the same period at unprotected beaches in the Eastern and Western Cape Provinces. [2]
This and similar has been put out a bit in the last few days so basically it represents a failure of the nets given that there has been one fatality from a netted beach and In QLD there are more beaches without nets, than there are with, and of those without there are many more that have never ever had a injury or fatality,......sooo when looking at it on face value there's no merit in the nets what so ever other than placebo for the pussy pants.
There are also many more surfer frequented beaches in South Af that have never experienced a fatality that aren't netted than there are that are.
There are nets available now though that are being developed further that will not be fatal to sharks or result in by catch, hopefully these will be made available for use in high turbidity sooner rather than later then more people from both sides of the fence will be happier.
But in the meantime if all the pussy pants stay out of the water, line up congestion should improve, and less people in the water should result in less frequent attacks??? If not...then we have an issue and should take out everything that lives in the ocean just to be safe.
Select to expand quoteMacaha said..
If the shark swims into the net,call it suicide or just a dumb fish
I believe there's a duty of care of the governments installing the nets to ensure sufficient and effective signage is in place to give sharks fair and reasonable notice and warning of the the net hazards presented.
If a shark then swims into said nets with the appropriate and relevant information prominently posted, that can be clearly understood and interpreted by a fair and reasonable shark, as far as is practicable, then it potentially and reasonably assumed, that the shark in question that swims into a net, appropriately and reasonably identified as a hazard, may have been intellectually challenged or perhaps attempting suicide.
Select to expand quoteSurf69 said..
Razzonater said..
In Queensland, there has been only one fatal attack on a controlled beach since 1962, compared to 27 fatal attacks between 1919 and 1961.Statistics from the NSW Department of Primary Industries indicate that before nets were introduced in NSW in 1936 there was an average of one fatal shark attack every year. There has been only one fatal attack on a protected beach since then and that was in 1951. Similarly, between 1943 and 1951 the South African city of Durban experienced seven fatal attacks but there have been none since nets were introduced in 1952. A more recent comparison shows that in South Africa there were three shark attacks, none fatal, at protected beaches in KwaZulu-Natal between 1990 and 2011, while there were 20 fatal attacks in the same period at unprotected beaches in the Eastern and Western Cape Provinces. [2]
This and similar has been put out a bit in the last few days so basically it represents a failure of the nets given that there has been one fatality from a netted beach and In QLD there are more beaches without nets, than there are with, and of those without there are many more that have never ever had a injury or fatality,......sooo when looking at it on face value there's no merit in the nets what so ever other than placebo for the pussy pants.
There are also many more surfer frequented beaches in South Af that have never experienced a fatality that aren't netted than there are that are.
There are nets available now though that are being developed further that will not be fatal to sharks or result in by catch, hopefully these will be made available for use in high turbidity sooner rather than later then more people from both sides of the fence will be happier.
But in the meantime if all the pussy pants stay out of the water, line up congestion should improve, and less people in the water should result in less frequent attacks??? If not...then we have an issue and should take out everything that lives in the ocean just to be safe.
How is an attact at a netted beach a failure? Nothing is 100% Not even a seatbelt and especially not shark nets. A 30 second reading of the NSW dpi website or the Nick Carroll link above would show this.
It is commonly known on this side of the country that they do not keep the sharks out, If they were 100% there would be no need for Shark Alarms, which are at all patrolled beaches.
And lets be honest the netted beaches are also the beaches with the most eyes on them.
It seems many of the WA people have little understanding of how the nets work, where they are placed and all the other things that go along with it ( numerous research papers for one) the deterrents, level of by catch etc..
The goal of the nets is quite clearly outlined in many places and the scientist believe that they are effective in reducing attacks. Maybe not in WA but in NSW and QLD yes.
I doubt their family think its hilarious 
Select to expand quoteroodney said..
Beaches in WA would be hard to net.
The WA state government paid for a report. It was completed by a professor from Bond Uni. He actually promoted the use of nets, said they would be efficient once they had first removed the local food source.
The nets in NSW were installed in 1937. They didn't keep very good records in the early days, but the by catch rate was said to be huge falling of a short time after that. People often compare by catch records from the last few years, well hanging a commercial fishing net 150 m long in a bay for 79 years, you would expect very little sea life in those areas. So maybe the reason the original nets work (If they even do) is because after 79 years the areas they are installed are so barren that large sharks no longer frequent.
What price are people prepared to go to, just to able to try and surf in comfort..
I would have to agree with Vic Hislop. Shark nets are not the best way to catch sharks. I would much prefer to see drum lines & more focussed measures used at a time great whites are proving troublesome, like not over the summer period in a government stunt to be seen as doing something. The drum line was very effective in removing the likely culprit after the last WA surfer was attacked. It was effective & I think a more rapid deployment without red tape restrictions delaying response can only improve their effectiveness.
Select to expand quotejbshack said..roodney said..
Beaches in WA would be hard to net.
The WA state government paid for a report. It was completed by a professor from Bond Uni. He actually promoted the use of nets, said they would be efficient once they had first removed the local food source.
The nets in NSW were installed in 1937. They didn't keep very good records in the early days, but the by catch rate was said to be huge falling of a short time after that. People often compare by catch records from the last few years, well hanging a commercial fishing net 150 m long in a bay for 79 years, you would expect very little sea life in those areas. So maybe the reason the original nets work (If they even do) is because after 79 years the areas they are installed are so barren that large sharks no longer frequent.
What price are people prepared to go to, just to able to try and surf in comfort..
Summer maybe, winter, not a chance.
Select to expand quoteMickPC said..
The drum line was very effective in removing the likely culprit after the last WA surfer was attacked. It was effective & I think a more rapid deployment without red tape restrictions delaying response can only improve their effectiveness.
I know killing that shark gave a lot of people relief but it wasn't the same shark involved in the attack which was a lot smaller.
Also killing a great white shark after the fact is pointless as they don't like boney low fat meat and don't strike again as a result luckily as the whites would then just go on a killing spree all that easy prey.
I doubt their family think its hilarious
Select to expand quoteIFocus said..MickPC said..
The drum line was very effective in removing the likely culprit after the last WA surfer was attacked. It was effective & I think a more rapid deployment without red tape restrictions delaying response can only improve their effectiveness.
I know killing that shark gave a lot of people relief but it wasn't the same shark involved in the attack which was a lot smaller.
Also killing a great white shark after the fact is pointless as they don't like boney low fat meat and don't strike again as a result luckily as the whites would then just go on a killing spree all that easy prey.
I have a lot of respect for you mate...but I do not agree with you.
You may well be correct on the boney seal comments we so often hear/read. However so often a single strike is enough to end someones life or change it completely.
I try to focus on the fact there has been a huge increase in great white shark numbers since they were protected. I feel they no longer need protecting.
The greater number of great white sharks with behavioural patterns to cause great harm to ocean lover's is of increasing concern as a direct result of the increasing numbers of great white sharks.
Select to expand quoteIFocus said..
MickPC said..
The drum line was very effective in removing the likely culprit after the last WA surfer was attacked. It was effective & I think a more rapid deployment without red tape restrictions delaying response can only improve their effectiveness.
I know killing that shark gave a lot of people relief but it wasn't the same shark involved in the attack which was a lot smaller.
Also killing a great white shark after the fact is pointless as they don't like boney low fat meat and don't strike again as a result luckily as the whites would then just go on a killing spree all that easy prey.
Thats what is called a political football. The perception is that they got the culprit. The same as Esperance and IMHO its wrong, a false sense of security is not a safety tool, its a political reaction to help business and the relieve pressure from those at the top who should be doing more..
Select to expand quotejbshack said..IFocus said..MickPC said..
The drum line was very effective in removing the likely culprit after the last WA surfer was attacked. It was effective & I think a more rapid deployment without red tape restrictions delaying response can only improve their effectiveness.
I know killing that shark gave a lot of people relief but it wasn't the same shark involved in the attack which was a lot smaller.
Also killing a great white shark after the fact is pointless as they don't like boney low fat meat and don't strike again as a result luckily as the whites would then just go on a killing spree all that easy prey.
Thats what is called a political football. The perception is that they got the culprit. The same as Esperance and IMHO its wrong, a false sense of security is not a safety tool, its a political reaction to help business and the relieve pressure from those at the top..
The greater number of great white sharks with behavioural patterns to cause great harm to ocean lover's is of increasing concern as a direct result of the increasing numbers of great white sharks.
The less great white sharks around, the less chance of attack. It is ridiculous protecting one species over others when that species is no longer endangered.
Select to expand quoteMickPC said..jbshack said..IFocus said..MickPC said..
The drum line was very effective in removing the likely culprit after the last WA surfer was attacked. It was effective & I think a more rapid deployment without red tape restrictions delaying response can only improve their effectiveness.
I know killing that shark gave a lot of people relief but it wasn't the same shark involved in the attack which was a lot smaller.
Also killing a great white shark after the fact is pointless as they don't like boney low fat meat and don't strike again as a result luckily as the whites would then just go on a killing spree all that easy prey.
Thats what is called a political football. The perception is that they got the culprit. The same as Esperance and IMHO its wrong, a false sense of security is not a safety tool, its a political reaction to help business and the relieve pressure from those at the top..
The greater number of great white sharks with behavioural patterns to cause great harm to ocean lover's is of increasing concern as a direct result of the increasing numbers of great white sharks.
The less great white sharks around, the less chance of attack. It is ridiculous protecting one species over others when that species is no longer endangered.
Its also ridiculous to assume that just because their are more sharks in close to people (IE metro waters) that their are therefor more sharks in total in the ocean..Its a massive assumption and one that is not backed up by any science or for that point, any scientific group.
What is needed is real solutions because these sharks have moved closer to shore, hanging around closer to shore and no matter how many you want to kill, the remaining ones will also stay close to shore..
Select to expand quotejbshack said..
Its also ridiculous to assume that just because their are more sharks in close to people (IE metro waters) that their are therefor more sharks in total in the ocean..Its a massive assumption and one that is not backed up by any science or for that point, any scientific group.
What is needed is real solutions because these sharks have moved closer to shore, hanging around closer to shore and no matter how many you want to kill, the remaining ones will also stay close to shore..
Think about it mate, just for a minute stop & think.
Oh & on your next trip to Albany do a trip to the old whaling station if you havnt yet. Hear how many great white sharks they killed in a day.
Consider how it was fashionable to obtain a set of great white jaws, leave them on an ants nest to clean them up to hang on your wall. A very popular past time in the wild wild West. Consider the sharks that were served up with a side of chips from your local fishnchip.
Now consider those practices have stopped.
Consider how often people are seeing sharks inshore & offshore.
Consider it is not just a Western Australian problem, not just a Northern New South Wales problem. But a problem in other places outside Australia also that have GW's in their waters.
Consider how difficult it is to tag sharks & how incredibly difficult it is to count them.
Now consider fishermen claimed to be seeing them rarely before & very often now. Consider non fishermen are seeing them regularly now & that there has been a significant increase in injuries fatal & non fatal due to shark attack.
It is clearly not ridiculous to assume there are more great white sharks inshore & offshore. In fact no assumption needs to be made, even scientists have stated great white sharks have made a come back. They're just reluctant to say to what extent.
I do agree with you that great whites may be seen inshore more often as a result of not being removed or sensing their brethren have been removed. That is why I think removing great white sharks hanging around would be so beneficial.
I always remember an old bloke who fished commercially out of Augusta telling me how sharks used to race off when they saw a boat coz people used to shoot at them & how that changed after gun laws were changed after Martin Bryant's shooting spree in Port Arthur that prompted a crackdown on guns at around the same time great whites were protected. These days sharks are following boats, even biting props. Doubt I need to fill you in on those stories.
Select to expand quoteMickPC said..
jbshack said..
Its also ridiculous to assume that just because their are more sharks in close to people (IE metro waters) that their are therefor more sharks in total in the ocean..Its a massive assumption and one that is not backed up by any science or for that point, any scientific group.
What is needed is real solutions because these sharks have moved closer to shore, hanging around closer to shore and no matter how many you want to kill, the remaining ones will also stay close to shore..
Think about it mate, just for a minute stop & think.
Oh & on your next trip to Albany do a trip to the old whaling station if you havnt yet. Hear how many great white sharks they killed in a day.
Consider how it was fashionable to obtain a set of great white jaws, leave them on an ants nest to clean them up to hang on your wall. A very popular past time in the wild wild West. Consider the sharks that were served up with a side of chips from your local fishnchip.
Now consider those practices have stopped.
Consider how often people are seeing sharks inshore & offshore.
Consider it is not just a Western Australian problem, not just a Northern New South Wales problem. But a problem in other places outside Australia also that have GW's in their waters.
Consider how difficult it is to tag sharks & how incredibly difficult it is to count them.
Now consider fishermen claimed to be seeing them rarely before & very often now. Consider non fishermen are seeing them regularly now & that there has been a significant increase in injuries fatal & non fatal due to shark attack.
It is clearly not ridiculous to assume there are more great white sharks inshore & offshore. In fact no assumption needs to be made, even scientists have stated great white sharks have made a come back. They're just reluctant to say to what extent.
I do agree with you that great whites may be seen inshore more often as a result of not being removed or sensing their brethren have been removed. That is why I think removing great white sharks hanging around would be so beneficial.
I always remember an old bloke who fished commercially out of Augusta telling me how sharks used to race off when they saw a boat coz people used to shoot at them & how that changed after gun laws were changed after Martin Bryant's shooting spree in Port Arthur that prompted a crackdown on guns at around the same time great whites were protected. These days sharks are following boats, even biting props. Doubt I need to fill you in on those stories.
All hypothetical arguments..
Your saying more sharks in the water so more interactions..Well the exact same argument could be made of more people in the water more interactions..I can see your getting frustrated, not sure why, i don't expect everyone to believe in the science, hell people still refuse to vacate their children. In this day and age we need to think smarter than hypothetical..
As for counting sharks, yep its difficult, but with DNA sampling they have a reasonable understanding. Yes numbers are slowly returning but it not not attack of the killer tomatoes out their as people would have us believe.
I saw a report today about a women demanding Magpies getting culled. Her kid got pecked. So now the council is looking at putting up a cage at the park..Really when will people take responsibly for their own safety..? And before you say its about saving lives thats bull s-t. If people were so concerned they'd be trying to have back yard swimming pools outlawed..That would save around 200 times more lives a year than shark attacks..
^^^^^ stop using the saving lives crap.as in ban swimming pools....hey ban boats as well because the people that sell them are assisting murderers and people who engage in environmental terrorism every day......then the ^road toll blah blah blah...it's two different worlds jb.
One is a world where people are making disastous choices,whether it be driving while drunk^speeding or having too many wines while mum takes her eyes of Johnny who drowns all along with what is not neglect or poor choices,but which is in fact a accident
Then the shark world.we have to protect something that kills us...dingoes are protected but we will knock a few off if one nips a kid^not kills but has a nip....then crocs...leave them alone^but as soon as someone is attacked,once again it's by bye bye to who chomped a human...
See the difference in the two worlds? That's why you cannot compare them.
And jb as much as you like to debunk people on what is not science,well you do a great job of finding information that suits you. You make more assumptions on people's thinking,behaviour and also of those which are not human....so you should stop pointing fingers at others
Select to expand quoteMickPC said..
I have a lot of respect for you mate...but I do not agree with you.
Hey all good Mick we don't share the same opinion (thats most of whats going on here) thats OK fire away its hard for me always being right just ask my wife .
I have been surfing our area since the late 70's (mate who lives down from the Avi car part long before then) been a regular most winters for the last 20 to 25 years never seen or heard of a year like this with the numbers of really BIG whites (proper sharks not like the tadpoles they squeal about that cause scratches over East) floating through our breaks.
I been wondering where are the juveniles is it only the big mothers that travel? (Can some one decipher the report Legion posted whats the percentage of < 3mtrs)
Has the bigger salmon season brought them in? (recon thats a given for some)
Increase in whales migration numbers?
Unfortunately the tagging numbers don't seem to reflect the above that well.
Being a tree hugger (hug a great white today and feel better) and always right I am reluctant to get on the cull/net/drum line band wagon but do understand the frustration in our area.
Sorry for the ramble in a hurry.
I doubt their family think its hilarious
GOOGLE must get bombarded with
.......ocean drownings magpies attacks pool deaths struck by lightning WAs road toll electrocution bee stings the great plague
mosquitos dog attacks dingo attacks croc attacks
what all sharks are thinking seeing smelling eating rooting traveling.
whats protesters Numbers thinking doing saying what the public or surfers know feel or need to know think.
dont mention snakes lions whales turtles shark nets drumlines drones
fishing captures fish numbers dive boats shark cages ect ect ect.
but some just might know all this 
Select to expand quoteMacaha said...
Where's Darth gone?
He used too many clown emoticons so they suspended him till after Halloween.
I doubt their family think its hilarious 
