I doubt their family think its hilarious 
Yes Children dying is horrible
However as a shark net being the cause of death i'm leaning towards it is bull****... Not saying this didn't happen but a story like a kid drowning in a shark net u would expect a reasonable level of media coverage.
We have 2 local papers and a dedicated tv network that it appears didn't report it? Yet a Perth paper got the story right, but ony reported a few lines, no follow up story etc etc... It just looks odd.
And the original text came from AAP so if it was a story you'd think they would continue to cover it.
To me a reliable story is one that can be corroborated. There is no corroboration of this event or even stating it happened anywhere besides the Perth paper. I have even searched Uni databases of old stories and newspapers, nothing besides that one article.
Not to mention it isn't a netted beach etc etc...
The link above is from 1992, neither of the ones you posted are in 1992?? So what is that link. Another one??
As i said not being an arsehole, you made me feel bad so i looked further and sorry but the more i look the more the story falls apart.
And finally not sure what the drowning thing has to do with anything But if you didn't read it in the news then where did you read about the other deaths at this beach? I know they get reported in the local papers.
Select to expand quotechrispy said...
^^^^^ 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
Just because you like to skim through logic sometimes....and you are back using dead children again...that is horrible
Select to expand quoteIFocus said..
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.
Was a bumper Salmon season for sure...however I've come in after shark sightings more last year than this year. That could be due to less time in the water due to Northerlies though.
Whales dunno, I've seen less close to shore this year than the previous seven but that could be less time in the water too. But don't get me started on whales lol, I'd be happy to see them in restaurants also. Same belief applies, protecting one species over others makes no sense if they are no longer endangered...although I say that & I could never eat a dolphin...besides they surf, they were going off yesterday 
Tagging has just been a total fail obviously, so any stats or "scientific data" in regard to them mean very little to me other than showing sharks are pretty random in their travels. They hang, they bail according to food supply. I don't believe it will ever serve a helpful purpose from a surfing pov.
Tree's are good I like them & sharks did not bother me until they started attacking people on what I determin to be on a far too frequent basis.
Select to expand quotejbshack said..
MickPC 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..
Yes mate, what I have attempted to do is provide logical step by step hypothetical considerations in regard to shark numbers.
The scientists you often refer to do not & have not ever known how many great white sharks there are...they made assumptions based on a lack of observations. You are highly unlkey to ever be provided with legit scientific data stating the number of great white sharks, its not going to happen in our lifetime. All we can do is react to logical assumptions based on observation & frequency of events indicating that there has been a resurgence in the numbers of great white sharks. I believe, this we have seen.
Have you seen evidence of frustration from me, absolutely...but not directed or towards you. People like you allow these discussions to take place & I thank you for that. I will take any oppportunity to voice my opinons on the subject.
In regard to more people in the water garnering more shark activity due to numbers in the water vs greater shark numbers I call BS. You only need one person to spot a shark in a location, no more & trust me. New surf spots are not being discovered in WA lol, there are no secret spots (apart from offshore tow ins). And lesser surfed spots are not getting greater conditions to allow people to surf them. Besides all the places surfers have been attacked here & NSW have been well known spots, even the one up near Wedge we used to surf that stretch of coast regularly in the 80's. Same with SA.
In regard to saving lives & trying to make comparisons with incidents other than people being attacked by sharks due to a greater number of sharks due to one species being protected over others. Its simply irrelevant mate. We're discussing living with the current number of great white sharks & what cause of action to reduce the risk. Other than quitting surfing, coz that is not an option for most of us.
Select to expand quoteSP said..
Yes Children dying is horrible
However as a shark net being the cause of death i'm leaning towards it is bull****... Not saying this didn't happen but a story like a kid drowning in a shark net u would expect a reasonable level of media coverage.
We have 2 local papers and a dedicated tv network that it appears didn't report it? Yet a Perth paper got the story right, but ony reported a few lines, no follow up story etc etc... It just looks odd.
And the original text came from AAP so if it was a story you'd think they would continue to cover it.
To me a reliable story is one that can be corroborated. There is no corroboration of this event or even stating it happened anywhere besides the Perth paper. I have even searched Uni databases of old stories and newspapers, nothing besides that one article.
Not to mention it isn't a netted beach etc etc...
The link above is from 1992, neither of the ones you posted are in 1992?? So what is that link. Another one??
As i said not being an arsehole, you made me feel bad so i looked further and sorry but the more i look the more the story falls apart.
And finally not sure what the drowning thing has to do with anything But if you didn't read it in the news then where did you read about the other deaths at this beach? I know they get reported in the local papers.
Loose equipment killed 9-year-old surfer Paul Rogers at Nobby Beach in 1992. The boy drowned after his leg rope became wrapped around a shark drum line with a later inquest told acid levels in his blood showed he had put up an enormous fight to free himself.
However sorry my bad, ill correct myself and on re reading it does say DRUM LINE not shark net..
Select to expand quoteMickPC said..
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..
Yes mate, what I have attempted to do is provide logical step by step hypothetical considerations in regard to shark numbers.
The scientists you often refer to do not & have not ever known how many great white sharks there are...they made assumptions based on a lack of observations. You are highly unlkey to ever be provided with legit scientific data stating the number of great white sharks, its not going to happen in our lifetime. All we can do is react to logical assumptions based on observation & frequency of events indicating that there has been a resurgence in the numbers of great white sharks. I believe, this we have seen.
Have you seen evidence of frustration from me, absolutely...but not directed or towards you. People like you allow these discussions to take place & I thank you for that. I will take any oppportunity to voice my opinons on the subject.
In regard to more people in the water garnering more shark activity due to numbers in the water vs greater shark numbers I call BS. You only need one person to spot a shark in a location, no more & trust me. New surf spots are not being discovered in WA lol, there are no secret spots (apart from offshore tow ins). And lesser surfed spots are not getting greater conditions to allow people to surf them. Besides all the places surfers have been attacked here & NSW have been well known spots, even the one up near Wedge we used to surf that stretch of coast regularly in the 80's. Same with SA.
In regard to saving lives & trying to make comparisons with incidents other than people being attacked by sharks due to a greater number of sharks due to one species being protected over others. Its simply irrelevant mate. We're discussing living with the current number of great white sharks & what cause of action to reduce the risk. Other than quitting surfing, coz that is not an option for most of us.
Mick ill try one more time. Its only logical if and thats IF shark numbers have rebounded to numbers that are well out of hand..
The problem is, that doesn't seem to be the issue. The science doesn't support it, the studies don't support it and thats why people are against culling. The issue is not that their is a massive spike in Great White numbers, the issue is that Great Whites are hanging around closer to the coast then ever before, taking a little more interest in humans than ever before. Those are two entire different problems.
The report that Legion shared shows a interesting picture.
"WA receivers have detected 64 individual acoustically-tagged white sharks, a total of 22,291 times since 2009" 16,523 of those were in the metro area.
So in the metro area, in 17 years their has been 972 times a year a receiver has registered a tagged great white. Of that its only 64 individual sharks.. 64.. If indeed there was thousand or tens of thousands of these sharks (all be them not all tagged), can you imagine how many really should be seeing or interacting with.. 
We cant fix the problem, if we don't even understand what the problem actually is
If we don't understand it how can you recite anything as fact?? And tell Mick he is wrong??
You seem to tell everyone that disagree with you or challenges you that they are wrong and don't understand and then at another time say no one understands.
In the end You are expressing an opinon, all of us are. Unless you are trained, educated and experienced you are purely speculating based on your experience, bias's and beliefs..
It's not like a maths problem with an answer.
Different opinions and ideas are how humans got out of a cave, lit a fire and progressed. Two people can look at the same problem and see different solutions.
It doesn't make the other wrong that's just how humans work..
Love your passion JB but lecturing others for having a different opinion based on essentially the same information is not cool.
Anyway this is reminding me why i stopped posting in shark threads. Have fun.
Here's proof of the above 
opinion is different to Maths..
Maths has an answer...
"WA receivers have detected 64 individual acoustically-tagged white sharks, a total of 22,291 times since 2009" 16,523 of those were in the metro area.
So in the metro area, in 17 years their has been 972 times a year a rece
2016-2009= 7 not 17..
Just ****ing with JB sure t was typo..
Select to expand quoteSP said...
If we don't understand it how can you recite anything as fact?? And tell Mick he is wrong??
You seem to tell everyone that disagree with you or challenges you that they are wrong and don't understand and then at another time say no one understands.
In the end You are expressing an opinon, all of us are. Unless you are trained, educated and experienced you are purely speculating based on your experience, bias's and beliefs..
It's not like a maths problem with an answer.
Different opinions and ideas are how humans got out of a cave, lit a fire and progressed. Two people can look at the same problem and see different solutions.
It doesn't make the other wrong that's just how humans work..
Love your passion JB but lecturing others for having a different opinion based on essentially the same information is not cool.
Anyway this is reminding me why i stopped posting in shark threads. Have fun.
This should be pinned at the top of every shark thread that starts on Seabreeze...
Select to expand quoteSP said..
Here's proof of the above
opinion is different to Maths..
Maths has an answer...
"WA receivers have detected 64 individual acoustically-tagged white sharks, a total of 22,291 times since 2009" 16,523 of those were in the metro area.
So in the metro area, in 17 years their has been 972 times a year a rece
2016-2009= 7 not 17..
Just ****ing with JB sure t was typo..
Actually id love to say it was a typo but thats what you get for working too fast. The point is my mistake even shows the situation a little clearer. So only 64 sharks over a 7 year period thats 2360 times a year those 64 sharks set of the metro area receivers.. So what % of the sharks do you think have tagged, If they have tagged only 1% of the population, (Thats 6400 sharks in total in the West coast region) That would mean a great white would be detected 230,400 times a year of our metro beaches swimming past the receivers. Thats 631 times a day a receiver would have a great white swim past them, remembering those receivers are all less then few KMS of shore, thats a lot of sharks swimming around..So you could guess from that either theres lots of sharks that no one sees, OR that their is at least less than 6400 sharks in total in the west coast.. Actually the estimate from fisheries has always been around 3500 to 5000 mature aged great whites..
Im sure I've made more mistakes in their also, but I'm sure they'll be pulled up. Either way, it doesn't paint a picture of shark populations going crazy, and its its correct than their obviously are a lot of sharks swimming around near beach users that very rarely bother people
Select to expand quoteSP said..
If we don't understand it how can you recite anything as fact?? And tell Mick he is wrong??
You seem to tell everyone that disagree with you or challenges you that they are wrong and don't understand and then at another time say no one understands.
In the end You are expressing an opinon, all of us are. Unless you are trained, educated and experienced you are purely speculating based on your experience, bias's and beliefs..
It's not like a maths problem with an answer.
Different opinions and ideas are how humans got out of a cave, lit a fire and progressed. Two people can look at the same problem and see different solutions.
It doesn't make the other wrong that's just how humans work..
Love your passion JB but lecturing others for having a different opinion based on essentially the same information is not cool.
Anyway this is reminding me why i stopped posting in shark threads. Have fun.
Im not sharing my opinion though, I'm simply arguing the opinions of the marine research industry. Why would we not bother to listen to the educated people who get paid to study and research this stuff I just don't get that part.
But to be fair, i didn't say that Mick was wrong, i simply explained a different possible scenario that maybe he hadn't considered. Sometimes the most simple answer is not the right one..Why is it when i have a different opinion I'm lecturing, but when someone else pushes a different barrow, its considered educating or sharing..
Select to expand quotejbshack said...SP said..
Here's proof of the above
opinion is different to Maths..
Maths has an answer...
"WA receivers have detected 64 individual acoustically-tagged white sharks, a total of 22,291 times since 2009" 16,523 of those were in the metro area.
So in the metro area, in 17 years their has been 972 times a year a rece
2016-2009= 7 not 17..
Just ****ing with JB sure t was typo..
Actually id love to say it was a typo but thats what you get for working too fast. The point is my mistake even shows the situation a little clearer. So only 64 sharks over a 7 year period thats 2360 times a year those 64 sharks set of the metro area receivers.. So what % of the sharks do you think have tagged, If they have tagged only 1% of the population, (Thats 6400 sharks in total in the West coast region) That would mean a great white would be detected 230,400 times a year of our metro beaches swimming past the receivers. Thats 631 times a day a receiver would have a great white swim past them, remembering those receivers are all less then few KMS of shore, thats a lot of sharks swimming around..So you could guess from that either theres lots of sharks that no one sees, OR that their is at least less than 6400 sharks in total in the west coast.. Actually the estimate from fisheries has always been around 3500 to 5000 mature aged great whites..
Im sure I've made more mistakes in their also, but I'm sure they'll be pulled up. Either way, it doesn't paint a picture of shark populations going crazy, and its its correct than their obviously are a lot of sharks swimming around near beach users that very rarely bother people
Wow if you can't dazzle the crowd with brilliance....then dazzle them with bull****
So my thinking comes from this...
Scientists have been studying sharks for how long (don't froth yet jb)for one particular study...vs a fishing family from anywhere in the world.
What I believe is coming from the mouth of a greeny who happens to be part of a 3 generation ifishing family from Lennox head. This conversation is from two years ago and even more so today I believe they are right and all this other hypothetical assumptions from all the experts is wrong.
I am believing 70 years of experience from a fishing family vs scientists that have studied for how long? Don't start me on scientists having unbiased or pure hearts for what they do either.
A long story short from the fisherman...
Shark goes near boat...Shark is shot and sharks learned to stay away...
Shark is protected and sharks start hanging inshore and munching people.
Shark numbers are through the roof since they were protected and are now not afraid of the fishing boats.
This is from 70 years worth of scientific research jb. ( they might not be scholar ed scientists,BUT as doctor Karl says it is people like those fisherman who should be heard as time spent watching and doing something over and over again is enough for a scientific experiment...true jb.(no you can't be one because you say the same thing over and over without any experience)
But jb you will be happy now. They did say shark nets should go 
The explanation to me was "if you had a unit block filled with heaps of people and their happened to be one killer living in there. Nobody knows which onethey live in so they kill everything to get the one bad guy. That was their idea on how nets work. ( I disagree)....
But now you will not like them. They are saying all these helicopters flying about should be able to shoot them ... don't tag the ones in close)shoot them . They should be tagging sharks that are way out to sea and then see where they go....but if they come close gooooone. Also fisherman should be able to pop them again....
So I am going for 70 years worth of scientific research over a few peeps in white jackets filling their bellies full of money... don't argue they do not get enough either ...as the above will explain most of it for you....
So no assumptions,nor hypotheticals,nor what my neighbor thinks....
Just 70 YEARS OF OCEAN KNOWLEDGE
Select to expand quotechrispy said..
jbshack said...
SP said..
Here's proof of the above
opinion is different to Maths..
Maths has an answer...
"WA receivers have detected 64 individual acoustically-tagged white sharks, a total of 22,291 times since 2009" 16,523 of those were in the metro area.
So in the metro area, in 17 years their has been 972 times a year a rece
2016-2009= 7 not 17..
Just ****ing with JB sure t was typo..
Actually id love to say it was a typo but thats what you get for working too fast. The point is my mistake even shows the situation a little clearer. So only 64 sharks over a 7 year period thats 2360 times a year those 64 sharks set of the metro area receivers.. So what % of the sharks do you think have tagged, If they have tagged only 1% of the population, (Thats 6400 sharks in total in the West coast region) That would mean a great white would be detected 230,400 times a year of our metro beaches swimming past the receivers. Thats 631 times a day a receiver would have a great white swim past them, remembering those receivers are all less then few KMS of shore, thats a lot of sharks swimming around..So you could guess from that either theres lots of sharks that no one sees, OR that their is at least less than 6400 sharks in total in the west coast.. Actually the estimate from fisheries has always been around 3500 to 5000 mature aged great whites..
Im sure I've made more mistakes in their also, but I'm sure they'll be pulled up. Either way, it doesn't paint a picture of shark populations going crazy, and its its correct than their obviously are a lot of sharks swimming around near beach users that very rarely bother people
Wow if you can't dazzle the crowd with brilliance....then dazzle them with bull****
So my thinking comes from this...
Scientists have been studying sharks for how long (don't froth yet jb)for one particular study...vs a fishing family from anywhere in the world.
What I believe is coming from the mouth of a greeny who happens to be part of a 3 generation ifishing family from Lennox head. This conversation is from two years ago and even more so today I believe they are right and all this other hypothetical assumptions from all the experts is wrong.
I am believing 70 years of experience from a fishing family vs scientists that have studied for how long? Don't start me on scientists having unbiased or pure hearts for what they do either.
A long story short from the fisherman...
Shark goes near boat...Shark is shot and sharks learned to stay away...
Shark is protected and sharks start hanging inshore and munching people.
Shark numbers are through the roof since they were protected and are now not afraid of the fishing boats.
This is from 70 years worth of scientific research jb. ( they might not be scholar ed scientists,BUT as doctor Karl says it is people like those fisherman who should be heard as time spent watching and doing something over and over again is enough for a scientific experiment...true jb.(no you can't be one because you say the same thing over and over without any experience)
But jb you will be happy now. They did say shark nets should go
The explanation to me was "if you had a unit block filled with heaps of people and their happened to be one killer living in there. Nobody knows which onethey live in so they kill everything to get the one bad guy. That was their idea on how nets work. ( I disagree)....
But now you will not like them. They are saying all these helicopters flying about should be able to shoot them ... don't tag the ones in close)shoot them . They should be tagging sharks that are way out to sea and then see where they go....but if they come close gooooone. Also fisherman should be able to pop them again....
So I am going for 70 years worth of scientific research over a few peeps in white jackets filling their bellies full of money... don't argue they do not get enough either ...as the above will explain most of it for you....
So no assumptions,nor hypotheticals,nor what my neighbor thinks....
Just 70 YEARS OF OCEAN KNOWLEDGE
Maybe you could get him to write up a paper, share his experience with the rest of us, so it can be picked apart piece by piece like the rest of marine biologists have had to. You can say its all people in white coats, but how can you disagree with a big % of the commercial industry also. For every expert you want to share i could provide two commercial operators that don't support culling. Why would the abb industry not support killing sharks, why would they be saying things like "we need to protect sharks" You talk about researches having a conflict of interest because they get paid, yet you sight a commercial fishermen as your expert "Trustworthy" "Conflict of interest free" expert
No one is disagreeing that more sharks are being seen inclose, but I'm sorry that doest mean their are more sharks in total..
Your arguing that their are too many sharks and thats why they are attacking..Your opinion is based on people seeing more sharks in close to shore and around people..
Im saying that what I'm seeing is more sharks in close to shore and near people, however i haven't made the simple assumption that they are in over populated numbers and when i research i find that everyone who is anyone really says numbers can not have breed up to be a problem, not even close, many still believe that numbers are still critically low to sustain a healthy breeding diversity.
All the effort in the world can be made to cull sharks, but if the problem has nothing to do with numbers (like has been publicised time and time again) then how will culling make any difference
There is two arguments in this debate i have come to realise.
1) We are seeing more sharks close to shore because shark numbers have dramatically increased..
or
2) We are seeing more sharks close to shore, but that doesn't mean numbers have dramatically increased, just that something has changed in the ocean that is bringing them closer to shore and people.
Now the first one has little to no evidence to support itself other than hearsay from a mate who knows a bloke who said theirs lots.. The second though has the backing of nearly all marine biologists and many of the commercial industry..
So I'm arguing and saying to listen to the experts, science and marine studies, your arguing for people to listen to your mate who knows 
Do you just read blah blah blah blah jb? Where in the Fark does it say it culling and .....others are right....you just beat people into submission...I'm out
Edit they are a commercial fishing family and one of the most prominent ones. So stick your bs where it belongs ...with all your scare mongering and avoiding the questions that don't suit you.... you are going to make a great politician as you don't .....you just shout them down
And Fark me jb...how many more sharks have YOU seen inshore compared to years gone by.....i just cried for humanity with the amount of stupid you just dumped on it..... and the other crap.as you just blurted....
Just a few easy references to support my above statements..
www.iflscience.com:443/plants-and-animals/i-spent-the-past-seven-years-counting-white-sharks-the-findings-are-troubling/
A bit more info on seth above study.
www.sharkwatchsa.com/projects/great-white-shark-population/
www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/02/18/3142851.htm
As to the question of whether or not the protected Great White shark species should go through a culling, Ms Miller says the industry doesn't support it.
au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/32911945/great-white-cull-a-waste-of-time-says-abalone-diver/#page1
I cried even more as you keep dumping more stupid into the universe....i can only laugh now as I don't wish to cry
Select to expand quotechrispy said..
Where is that Nick Carroll piece you keep avoiding.....
I'll handle this JB
Nick make the inference that the offshore shark fishing / by catch is a huge number of tonnes so bumping off a few more or the remainder inshore will make no difference to the environment.
I wonder if he understood the irony of what he said......
One thing that did surprise me was the low numbers of bycatch from mesh nets just didn't add up to me.
To be fair to Nick he did say the reporting of by catch from other fishing maybe iffy
I'm a bit short on time today, so I will try & address points made some time over the weekend.
I'll just let you ponder this;
A logical assumption is an assumption that follows sound logic and supporting evidence. It also acknowledges that variables which may make the assumption false do not exist.
This is what scientists used to protect great whites.
JB you said, "i haven't made the simple assumption that they are in over populated numbers and when i research i find that everyone who is anyone really says numbers can not have breed up to be a problem, not even close, many still believe that numbers are still critically low to sustain a healthy breeding diversity".
I will let you think about that statement in that you mention your research & current numbers not yet coming close to being a problem...I guess I can make the simple assumption your "research" is regurgitating information obtained from people of like mind. That's cool, I prefer to do some thinking for myself based on what I have seen, read & heard from a variety of sources...but what concerns me is you say you feel numbers have not yet reached a level of concern.
Why are we seeing more great whites attacking boats & hanging closer to shore? Firstly coz there are more of them, even you yourself admit this & so do the almighty scientists who need to conduct more research coz after all this time they still know so little about great whites. And I don't disagree more research needs to be done. However this does not mean we can not have a system in place to act more swiftly in the event of attack without red tape hampering operations.
There was a global protection of great whites. Shark tourism needs to be shut down globally as this is associating humans with food. People need to stop throwing stuff off boats, however this is incredibly hard to stop. And what about people researching sharks? They're chumming up the water to attract sharks in order to tag sharks or test stuff. Very difficult situation there isn't it. Surfboard floating in the water with electronic devices being tested to see if they fark the sharks off. I'm very reluctant to even bring it up as I see it as far more beneficial than any other study I've heard about...
I've always said I don't support a cull. I just want great white sharks taken off the protected list in order to enable quicker reaction of response & prevention of attacks. As I feel numbers are way past being a problem, that for me is supported by factual statistics of recent scientific data.
Select to expand quoteIFocus said...chrispy said..
Where is that Nick Carroll piece you keep avoiding.....
I'll handle this JB
Nick make the inference that the offshore shark fishing / by catch is a huge number of tonnes so bumping off a few more or the remainder inshore will make no difference to the environment.
I wonder if he understood the irony of what he said......
One thing that did surprise me was the low numbers of bycatch from mesh nets just didn't add up to me.
To be fair to Nick he did say the reporting of by catch from other fishing maybe iffy
The eager appreciate dapper always at the ready...are you going to delete this post..... give him a good pat on the belly jb
Select to expand quotechrispy said..IFocus said...chrispy said..
Where is that Nick Carroll piece you keep avoiding.....
I'll handle this JB
Nick make the inference that the offshore shark fishing / by catch is a huge number of tonnes so bumping off a few more or the remainder inshore will make no difference to the environment.
I wonder if he understood the irony of what he said......
One thing that did surprise me was the low numbers of bycatch from mesh nets just didn't add up to me.
To be fair to Nick he did say the reporting of by catch from other fishing maybe iffy
The eager appreciate dapper always at the ready...are you going to delete this post..... give him a good pat on the belly jb
People like me and even Ifocus, we post for a reason, we want some genuine change to water safety and people need to start to think outside of the box for that to be achieved. Thanks to people like you, we get to share our ideas. As you just said all this is to you is big laugh.. For some people though, its not so funny, maybe you should remove yourself from the discussion if you cant be constructive..
Select to expand quoteMickPC said..
I'm a bit short on time today, so I will try & address points made some time over the weekend.
I'll just let you ponder this;
A logical assumption is an assumption that follows sound logic and supporting evidence. It also acknowledges that variables which may make the assumption false do not exist.
This is what scientists used to protect great whites.
JB you said, "i haven't made the simple assumption that they are in over populated numbers and when i research i find that everyone who is anyone really says numbers can not have breed up to be a problem, not even close, many still believe that numbers are still critically low to sustain a healthy breeding diversity".
I will let you think about that statement in that you mention your research & current numbers not yet coming close to being a problem...I guess I can make the simple assumption your "research" is regurgitating information obtained from people of like mind. That's cool, I prefer to do some thinking for myself based on what I have seen, read & heard from a variety of sources...but what concerns me is you say you feel numbers have not yet reached a level of concern.
Why are we seeing more great whites attacking boats & hanging closer to shore? Firstly coz there are more of them, even you yourself admit this & so do the almighty scientists who need to conduct more research coz after all this time they still know so little about great whites. And I don't disagree more research needs to be done. However this does not mean we can not have a system in place to act more swiftly in the event of attack without red tape hampering operations.
There was a global protection of great whites. Shark tourism needs to be shut down globally as this is associating humans with food. People need to stop throwing stuff off boats, however this is incredibly hard to stop. And what about people researching sharks? They're chumming up the water to attract sharks in order to tag sharks or test stuff. Very difficult situation there isn't it. Surfboard floating in the water with electronic devices being tested to see if they fark the sharks off. I'm very reluctant to even bring it up as I see it as far more beneficial than any other study I've heard about...
I've always said I don't support a cull. I just want great white sharks taken off the protected list in order to enable quicker reaction of response & prevention of attacks. As I feel numbers are way past being a problem, that for me is supported by factual statistics of recent scientific data.
Its so simple, there is no supportive evidence of more Great White sharks in population numbers..All there is supportive evidence that more Great White sharks are being seen close to shore. There not the same thing..More likely the answer will be something like Great White sharks have moved closer to shore because thats were their food source has moved..
Hypothetically Thats like saying theres 10 surfers per square km of land in Scarborough. SO if you multiple that number of surfers by each square km in Australia thats the total number of surfer population.
Select to expand quotejbshack said..
For face book users today a really great video was shared by Terra Australis. I cant seem to share it another way then by FB though. If anyone can post directly would be cool..
www.facebook.com/289699477794946/videos/1083667501731469/
Must watch for WA guys.
The game changer is the torniquete applied in the water immediately after the attack.
A lot of our breaks are reef and relatively a fair way out.
You have 2 to 4 mins to get that torniquete on for a missing leg so carrying one in the water is critical.
I carry and hand out the one below but any thing you can apply and tie off easily is good. (x 10 much cheaper)
The idea of using a leg rope is a last desperate measure, if you have sets rolling over the top of you then you will have to chose to stay with the victim and swim (the shark will likely follow you) or hold your board and lose the patient who will likely be unconscious.
PS Mick I have yours in my car waiting for you whenever I can catch up.
Chrispy's on fire, smashing them for six , they drop a short one in Chrispy rocks back and knocks it for another boundary. They'llnever get
him out.
