www.perthnow.com.au/news/qld/diver-killed-by-shark-off-south-west-beach-ng-3d16369f0be66dc592ef34aeca3d3dd4

Condolences to the family.

That makes five in 19 months! The previous five were spread of 10 years. Anyone postulating what has changed?

Umm Smicko " was diving about 1600m off Stratham Beach"

ive bumped into a fair few around here but still in one piece. im thinking im luckier the more stories i hear though. condolances to the family. he was just doing what he enjoyed.

pweedas said...

There is a beter than odds on probability that there is only one or two sharks responsible for all the recent attacks on the south west coast.
The same thing happened many years ago on the east coast of America, a number of attacks within a few hundred miles over a few years. They finally caught and killed the shark which they thought was responsible and there were no more attacks for a long time.

The government is being jelly bellyed with their pathetic excuses when they keep putting off the decision to cull this shark.
I'm very disappointed with Colin Barnett who originally plainly said after an earlier attack that "if the shark was spotted it would be killed." A few days later he went all wishy washy and came up with the usual lame excuses why we shouldn't kill it and then went ahead and wasted millions on helicopter patrols and shark surveys, none of which will make any difference to the problem, and obviously hasn't yet.

One or two sharks less is not going to make the slightest difference to the survival of the species.
Get a backbone Col. Do the right thing and get rid of it.

Ol mate Col probably must have figured out there was a few votes in it, so changed his mind so as to not loose a vote from some far right wing pinko group.

slainte said...

Umm Smicko " was diving about 1600m off Stratham Beach"

Yeah I heard, an earlier report stated "15km from the marina" whilst another stated "diver taken diving off marina" suggesting that the attack happened in the immediate vicinity of the marina, hence my comments in the first place.

jbshack said...

pweedas said...

There is a beter than odds on probability that there is only one or two sharks responsible for all the recent attacks on the south west coast.

I just love it when something like this happens, everyone becomes a University Qualified Marine biologist with years of study and experience under there belt[}:)]

Get with the program, if you don't want the risk stay out of the water.

Problem is that Australia is advertised as family tourism destination. If you are going to tell them now after they paid all airfares and hotel bills to f** of and enter water in their own risk because we don't even care what happen next that is big mistake.
We can not assure that everybody is safe here from crocks, jelly, snake, spiders and sharks, blood sucking koalas, even simple water waves on the beautiful gold beaches but at least we need to take care and try the best we could....

Just reported on the radio that the shark is now swimming around 50 metres off the Busselton shoreline.
They are still wondering what to do about it.

Yesterday they said the weather was too bad and not suitable for looking for sharks. In Geographe Bay??? You gotta be joking! Wave height 1 metre maximum.

Today, even though it is swimming around 50 metres from the beach they say the waters not really clear so it's hard to see. Gee. That's going to make ity difficult.
Lucky they aren't trying to make a living from fishing. They would have had an excuse not to fish for every day of the week.
Lucky they are employed by the government and paid from the public purse.

Some expert from the upper management of fisheries was on the radio saying that they were trying to keep a balance between peoples safety and building up shark numbers. ?????
Keeping a balance???
So far over the last year the balance is four / nil in favour of the shark.
What score is he looking for before he considers a balance has been achieved.
These people amaze me. If he doesn't have the ability to determine a reasonable balance by now he should be thrown out of his job and someone put in charge who has a better appreciation of a persons life. A person with a wife and children, who pays taxes, and is, or was, a worthwhile human being.

The trouble is, it's these clowns who are advising Colin Barnett to hold off from culling this particular shark and since they are in management positions Barnett is not likely to act against their advice. I think he should take the initiative and make the decision himself. I can't see too many people getting upset over it, except fisheries. But then they get upset over anything which might diminish their own authority.
They have a vested interest in as many people as possible getting eaten by sharks because every attack adds to the possibility that they can ask for for money to "manage" the problem.
They got a promise of 14 million from the previous attack. I wonder how much they are expecting for this one?
It's just another government industry being established. Throw the lot out and start again. They're all defective.
In case it's not obvious I am seriously annoyed. Specially since it's my taxes that pay for these tossers.

Actually my kids swim and surf with me all over. Rottnest not so much surfing as its a bit big. Mullaloo, Trigg, Wedge, Dunsborough, Busselton hell we're of surfing to Albany this weekend.

The difference is that my kids aren't so stupid to think that they are safe in the water, but then they also understand the risks. Even at 7 and 10 they both have had long discussions about it and the risk of sharks. In fact my daughter has given a few talks at school on the matter.

As for 4 to none. Well its actually more like 4 to 5 million. That's how many sharks get taken every year by humans.

As for the $14 million. To be honest i wish that use that money more on a cure for cancer, that would make many many more people happy i think.

As for a degree and having a expert opinion? Would you say you could perform brain surgery because you've seen a TV show? Think not, that's why we educate people. Lack of education had people being burned for being witches

Isn't this part of the problem? You think that if someone doesn't have a university degree in marine biology then they can't possibly make a reasonable decision on this matter.
What a truly pathetic attitude.!

So you know why there hanging around or how many more there are today then say ten years ago

Whats the answer and would you bet you house on it

How do they know its the same shark?

They could just ask Pet, he knows everything

Pweeda your right it was Brian's opinion. He had actually talked about like i'm am now on Westenangler. Does it make his death any less important? Of Course not it was still a tragic accident that i wish upon no one.

I should also point out that the young guy at Boneyards was a huge Sea Shepherd fan and had the same view. In fact his family asked if people would donate to his cause instead of waisting it on flowers.

Ken Crews family agreed that was the risk as did the guy this year who disappeared at Cott.

The Navy diver from NSW now advocates for shark protection, why is it that all the victims seem to no the risk but not everyone else.

In fact i have not heard any reports of this victims family asking for the shark to be killed either. Only the Mayor and local business who believe they will suffer financially from the attack. Politicians bandwagoning.

Pweeda do you understand how a ecosystem works? What do you think will happen if you start killing a endangered species? Especially when that one is the top of the food chain? This is not as simple as lets just kill the sharks and be done with it..

The experts (not key board heros but educated people in the field) all say Te GW are still critically endangered. They all talk of a collapse of the Worlds Oceans and ecosystems if we don't curb our habits NOW.

I love the Ocean, i play in it, i make a living out of it and i want my kids to be able to enjoy it, maybe even there kids one day and i will side with the educated.

Why argue the point, because uneducated and missguided opinions will hurt our cause, will hurt our Oceans and i'm prepared to stand up for what i believe in

pweedas said...

jbshack said...

Pweeda do you understand how a ecosystem works? What do you think will happen if you start killing a endangered species? Especially when that one is the top of the food chain? This is not as simple as lets just kill the sharks and be done with it..

Yes I understand how an echosystem works. I have been involved in trying to restore echosystems for over 12 years now. However, I also know you will NOT get public support if you allow the echosystem to turn around and start eating people. It's a simple as that.
And you're partly right. It's certainly NOT as simple as killing all the sharks and I have never suggested that. But I am saying that killing one or two sharks which are causing problems will not make ANY differenct to the survival of the species.
You seem to be missing that point. I'm puzzled why some people either can't or refuse to see that point.
I can understand why fisheries can't. It's because they get money to "manage the problem" while the problem persists, so it's not in their interest to remove the problem, even though that would be the logical action.

I get your point. You're saying kill one shark and the problem will be fixed...

Serously

If you understand an Ecosystem than explain to me what will happen when all the large sea going predatory sharks are gone You cant, even the educated can't. So shouldn't we tread carefully..

jbshack said...

pweedas said...

jbshack said...

Pweeda do you understand how a ecosystem works? What do you think will happen if you start killing a endangered species? Especially when that one is the top of the food chain? This is not as simple as lets just kill the sharks and be done with it..

Yes I understand how an echosystem works. I have been involved in trying to restore echosystems for over 12 years now. However, I also know you will NOT get public support if you allow the echosystem to turn around and start eating people. It's a simple as that.
And you're partly right. It's certainly NOT as simple as killing all the sharks and I have never suggested that. But I am saying that killing one or two sharks which are causing problems will not make ANY differenct to the survival of the species.
You seem to be missing that point. I'm puzzled why some people either can't or refuse to see that point.
I can understand why fisheries can't. It's because they get money to "manage the problem" while the problem persists, so it's not in their interest to remove the problem, even though that would be the logical action.

I get your point. You're saying kill one shark and the problem will be fixed...

If you can see that point then there is no need for further comment. But you don't really see it do you.?

Serously

I said one or two, and Yes seriously. Very seriously.
There are precedents which I mentioned in earlier posts but you didn't pay any attention to that because it doesn't suit your point of view. You might like to look them up.

If you understand an Ecosystem than explain to me what will happen when all the large sea going predatory sharks are gone You cant, even the educated can't. So shouldn't we tread carefully..

Well I don't need to really because the removal of ONE OR TWO (1 or 2. can I make this any clearer?) of this species will MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL TO THE SURVIVAL OF THIS SPECIES.
I've put this in big print for you jbhack because I've mentioned it before but you seem to be able to ignore the point, even though it is critically relevant.

Just as a matter of curiosity, one of the often mentioned reasons that they can't find the shark responsible for the attack after a few days is because they say that there are so many of them that after a few days it is unlikely to spot the same shark. And yet when there is little doubt that it is the same shark because they see it on the same day in the same place as the attack, they then say that they can't destroy it because there's only a few left.
I wish they would make up their minds. You can't have it both ways.

The reality is, there are more than enough left to carry on the species even if we kill one or two. That's ONE OR TWO jbhack, not all of them.
And if you're going to preserve a species, it's best to weed out the ones with the defective gene in it which gives it a penchant for eating people. Because it's also clear that most white pointers don't make a habit of eating people. But right now on the south west coast of WA we have one that does, and it has for over 10 years, and it will continue to until it is removed.

I heard on the radio today that the leader of the opposition wants to establish a lot of sea pools for people to swim in to solve the problem.
What an idiot. How much is that going to cost compared to removing a shark?
And will it make the slightest bit of difference? I don't think so.
He suggests starting at Middleton beach in Albany.
Can you imagine all the people at scarborough being jammed into an ocean rock pool to keep them safe from sharks.?
I hope he was joking but I sadly fear he wasn't.

jbshack said...

So you say kill the shark. What next will everybody the be safe? Or is there still a chance it could happen again? You're answer is just giving false hope to people that they then will be safe from shark attacks because one fish wash removed. All sharks especially GW have the potential to kill humans. Simple really so you'll never be safe untill there all removed.

Not 100% safe, just safer, and probably acceptably safe. You will never be 100% safe. We never were.

Fish wash? jbhack, you've really lost it now! I've never criticised their personal hygiene.

jbshack said...
[brSafer because you've just killed a shark. We already (as humans) take millions of sharks a year and we still aren't any safer so why will just one make a difference

Its like saying if we execute someone who just murdered someone then we will now be safe. False hopes really so why kill something that is just doing what it naturally does to live

So by your own words, if we already "take millions of sharks a year", it won't make any difference to their survival to take a couple more will it?
And this time we can choose to take the ones that eat people.
Sounds logical to me.

And yes, as you say,.. "if we execute someone who just murdered someone then we will now be safe. ", we will certainly be SAFER. Not 100% safe but SAFER. And if there's only one or two murdering people then we will be MUCH safer.

Anyways, I think I will go and chat to the mormons .
They will seem far more logical now after this lot.