Frankly if sharks want to attack humans then we have every right to attack back. We have no need for such large predators attacking humans. So lets dwindle their numbers and overtime they will go live elsewhere if they have any sort of brain. Live by the sword die by it.

Big dubya said..

What I find humorous is that a lot of people who are really for shark catching and killing are folks who support Sea Shepard and all kinds of other wild life preservation. I think you call that hypocritical don't you?

Not at all. I support all sorts of wildlife issues (Sea Shepherd is one in particular) but I am of the opinion something? should be done about shark nos. in WA. But also Im one who seriously doubts the benefits of drum lines ??
I am also one who wont continue to support Sea Shepherd if they dont accept any sensible plans that may be put forward in the future. Drum Line protests are marginally acceptable in my eyes but only because they are almost certainly useless - or worse may exacerbate the problem.

If its 'one in all in' for wildlife preservation then why arent there rallies protesting the ready availability of fly spray or mouse traps or the million other ways we top-of-the-chain humans desecrate life around us selectively.
How about those poor rabbits on Macquarie Island being hunted to extinction deliberately without a word of support from any greeny anywhere. Reckon I should start a Bunny Backlash Org in support of these hapless victims of human intervention. An ex-naval warship to disrupt the delivery of the 1000's of tons of deadly poison to be spread across the island.
Surely you can see theres a need to view these issues intelligently on a 1-by-1 basis.
Seems to me as soon as ANY issue goes viral you get a whole band of bandwagoners following the pack blindly into to any protest. Most of whom are more in favour of protests than of issues. These are the type of greenies that get up my nose!
Did you know the cops have a file on serial protesters - same ppl turn up everywhere.
I have heard too there is a website somewhere that offers 'rally support for YOUR cause'. Cyberspace has made Dial-a-Crowd a reality!

I don't think you can be some who say's they care about ocean preservation and support this program its totally opposite to preservation there are a few hi tech ideas out there about how to warn people of the big fish in the area with out killing . It's simple if you don't want the risk don't go in the water.

The people that do not agree to a cull have:

A) Never been attacked by a shark.

B) Never lost a loved one to a shark attack.

kiterdan said..

$600k to potentially save the 2 people that died as a result of a shark attack in Australia last year .
I'd rather see that $600k invested to potentially save the 291 that drowned in Australia last year.

Well said Dan,

$600K would save more than 2 lives!

cauncy said..

Ercorn said..

The people that do not agree to a cull have:

A) Never been attacked by a shark.

B) Never lost a loved one to a shark attack.

youll actually find they don't want sharks harmed after an incident

How would you know that?

Ercorn said...

cauncy said..

Ercorn said..

The people that do not agree to a cull have:

A) Never been attacked by a shark.

B) Never lost a loved one to a shark attack.

youll actually find they don't want sharks harmed after an incident

How would you know that?

Because I educate myself ,

Give it a few more years with shark numbers rising and more attacs, maybe a young surfer kid or two taken along our metro coast every year and lets see what sort of public sentiment we end up with then

Ercorn said..

The people that do not agree to a cull have:

A) Never been attacked by a shark.

B) Never lost a loved one to a shark attack.

The family of the young bloke who was taken by a shark recently vocally opposed any cull of sharks.

There are many survivors of shark attacks who publicly state they don't take it personally and don't want sharks culled.

Blaming sharks for attacks is like blaming an avalanche for burying a snowboarder riding off piste or a rock climber for being hit by a boulder.

Stop putting human traits onto sharks ie. "they attack us so they deserve it" and "maybe they will learn not to attack us" If anything they attack us because WE deserve it - how many sharks do we kill as bycatch? And they don't "talk to each other" so as to warn each other about drum lines and the bad humans.

Ercorn said..

The people that do not agree to a cull have:

A) Never been attacked by a shark.

B) Never lost a loved one to a shark attack.

I was nudged by a great white off Fremantle North Mole, I went into the water at the time spearfishing with the thought that the water looked "sharky" - day was overcast and water was murky.

I have friends who have been followed whilst swimming by (allegedly) the same shark off North Mole round to Leighton beach.

I am against the "cull".

Nudging is apparently classed as an attack, the shark is trying to figure out if you're edible and what your reaction will be.

It's amazing how emotional people have become on the issue.

1. The reality is that catching the odd shark off the coast is unlikely to do much to affect:
a) their numbers, or
b) attack incidents.

2. What about the ongoing international over-fishing of other large fish species? Do they not count? This is much bigger problem than a few drumlines off WA coast.

A long time commercial fisherman told me last week that they reckon ( professional fishermen) there is at least 30 - 40 very large sharks 5m +cruising the waters down South more than there were 10 years ago and this is the problem and as a result the increase in shark attacks. They also suspect the same 2/3 sharks are responsible for the shark attacks and when they come back to a populated area they will attack again if they are hungry and any surfer in the wrong place may get attacked. Hence why they are so worried about the South point and left handers area. ( not to mention Cottesloe)

He also told me that very large sharks only eat every couple of weeks on a diet of large mammals ie whales , dolphins, seals etc so they drum lines will only catch sharks that are hungry and looking for food. A large non-hungry shark won't attack humans but may swim past and check you out and scare the living day lights out of you - I was kiting at South Cottesloe about 6 years ago in September and saw a massive 5m+ white pointer about 50m off the small groyne and the shark rolled on its side as I passed about 20ft away and looked at me with its big black eye but just cruised on like a big submarine - I totally **** myself. - So sharks don't attack every day or get hooked on drum lines every day. Hence why large hungry sharks are so dangerous to surfers and swimmers.

He reckons cull 30/40 big ones down South and those massive sharks cruising the Perth Metro area and the huge risk of being attacked will go down to levels as they where 10/15 years ago -

Cull the monsters in populated surfing and swimming areas and leave the rest alone - The drum lines only catch hungry sharks.

I surfed down South for a week last week with my 13 year old son and I was pretty nervous in the water for him more than me.

Peterc150 said..



There is no scientific basis for WA's shark cull program.

There is no scientific basis that screening of luggage decreases airplanes being hijacked or bombed. I am nonetheless still in favor of passenger and bag screening.

from where I sit there is an overpopulation of Great Whites in WA waters..

cauncy said..

Ercorn said...

cauncy said..

Ercorn said..

The people that do not agree to a cull have:

A) Never been attacked by a shark.

B) Never lost a loved one to a shark attack.

youll actually find they don't want sharks harmed after an incident

How would you know that?

Because I educate myself ,

Knowing about how people react after shark attacks would not be classed as education to most people