The problem , Chris, is there seems to be a big shark out there everyday nowadays. Does this mean we should always stay out of the water?

Nobody made a call to "cull them all'. I certainly dont agree with that, and I personally believe they have an integral part in the marine ecosystem.

There seems to be heaps more GW s sightings in coastal areas which suggest that there numbers are increasing. I suspect that this is due to their protected species status.

Gill nets are used successfully in some other countries by reducing shark numbers, though they do have uneccessary bycatch.

I personally think that the only option we have here is using baited drumlines or taking an active approach in destroying large sharks(when sighted) in close proximity to our beaches, though the latter would be more expensive to do.

Also, would be interesting to know how many of you shark lovers out there have no qualms on pulling a dhufish or snapper from the bottom of the ocean.

Even note that one of you has photos boasting of their shark fishing prowess on their profile.

dusta said...

Mask said...


There seems to be heaps more GW s sightings in coastal areas which suggest that there numbers are increasing. I suspect that this is due to their protected species status.

In the 80's when the GW went on the protected list their main food source on the west coast was also in decline......wait for it WHALES.

Now why do you think the GW numbers have increased ???? Have anything to do with the fact that whales are now very healthy in numbers ? Coincidence ? I think not

Ok, whatever. Their numbers have increased regardless of cause.
What is your point?

Mask said...

lostinlondon said...
[

Errr, wild pigs are an introduced species in Australia and as such should be culled. You can't justify killing sharks on this basis. Non argument.

Err, So are poms and europeans. Should they be culled as well?

I'm pretty willing to bet you're an introduced species too...

Mask said...

The problem , Chris, is there seems to be a big shark out there everyday nowadays. Does this mean we should always stay out of the water?

Nobody made a call to "cull them all'. I certainly dont agree with that, and I personally believe they have an integral part in the marine ecosystem.

There seems to be heaps more GW s sightings in coastal areas which suggest that there numbers are increasing. I suspect that this is due to their protected species status.

Gill nets are used successfully in some other countries by reducing shark numbers, though they do have uneccessary bycatch.

I personally think that the only option we have here is using baited drumlines or taking an active approach in destroying large sharks(when sighted) in close proximity to our beaches, though the latter would be more expensive to do.

Also, would be interesting to know how many of you shark lovers out there have no qualms on pulling a dhufish or snapper from the bottom of the ocean.

Even note that one of you has photos boasting of their shark fishing prowess on their profile.

I'm actually not against culling GWS, only if it's a considered, justifiable and backed up by sound reasoning, not motivated by fear. If there is reasonable proof of one or two 'rogue' sharks out there then for sure knock 'em on the head, if there is proof that GWS over X metres long are responsible and there is sound reasoning to cull a few without destabilising the population, or they won't just get topped up next season with the next whale migration, for sure cull some.

Are the shark numbers increasing, who knows? who is actually doing the research, is it adequately funded and resourced, does the scope of the research take into account the recent attacks in WA, is it quantifiable research that would stand up to peer review or is it based on a collection of newspaper clippings and google searches that might get a B+ on a year ten school assignment?

Has the population explosion of whales led to a similar increase in GWS, and the attacks are accidental mistakes? if thats the case then for sure some sort of cull could be justified. But culling a currently protected species based on a statistical anomaly and anecdotal evidence is a risky game to play.

Or is it the other way, are the shark numbers stable or in decline and they are getting desperate for a feed and taken humans as a last resort? if that's the case then killing a few of the big breeding stock could have the GWS population collapse within a few years?

Are there more shark sighting because there are more sharks, or are the same number of sharks there as always but there are more cashed up FIFO's out on the water mid-week in their $120,000 boats? I'd almost be willing to be the increase in shark sightings over the last 20 years would closely correlate with boat registrations and demand for marina boat pens? But you could also link it to the whale population, which is it?

Has there been an increase in GWS sighting be people who work on the water? crayfisherman etc? anecdotally, the talk around here is yes, but who is actually collecting and interpreting the data?

Like I said, I don't have the answers but the right questions have to be asked before they can be answered. Arnchair experts calling for an indescriminate cull just doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned.

TurtleHunter said...

Cull the whales and the shark sightings will diminish. (or possibly try and co-exist with nature)

Also I like your post chris except the sharks are always there. Just have a look how many appear when there's a whale carcass.

Ha ha, for sure, when you posted that link for the sharks feeding of that whale carcass a couple of months back it made me think about how far I was off shore at both Tantabiddy and Coral Bay in my kayak last September, alone, in deep water, flapping around looking like lunch

I can't help this.

Internet forums, a marvellous living example of the human social animal.

Shark attacks are a very low base rate event worldwide, let alone on the coast of Australia, or one part of the coast of Australia. Out of 6-7 Billion people, a few tens a year go down, give or take. Its very difficult to say there is an increase in sharks locally, or even shark attacks by sampling one particular year at one particular location. Shark attacks are emotive, they are easily recalled and vivid, so we all suffer availability bias in this discussion (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic). Recognise your own bias here (I do, flame me!).

Taking a few observations, drawing a conclusion, then on the basis of that conclusion deciding to systematically kill them, is exactly what stuffs up the planet in my opinion. Bloody humans, just leave it alone.

Should we kill all the snakes? Hippos? They dont choose to systematically go to war with us.

Sharks live in the water. If you're afraid, don't go in there. The next person might be less afraid, let them choose. But know that its one of the safer places we expose ourselves to daily. And I love toasters.

I think we should all get our pitch forks and head to the beach. We should organise ourselves, maybe wear a uniform. I was thinking to make things easier we could just use white sheets, everyone has those. we could fashion pointy hats that cover our faces too.

To the people who keep harping on about us nasty humans 'taking away the shark's food supply'.

Apparently and evidently all of the recent shark sightings and attacks have involved some big suckers of sharks.

As was mentioned in another one (of many) shark threads on this site- sharks of the recently reported sizes, target marine mammals as their primary food source.

Wikipedia and other information sites across the web backs this up.

So let's get specific with your claims; are you complaining about the whaling practices of the Japanese taking away the poor shark's food supply?

It can't be that you're complaining about us over fishing the seal population, as they are currently thriving and expanding.

Possibly you mean that the declining population of the poor overfished Dhufish is forcing the sharkies to add us to the menu?

Instead of latching onto a baseless claim, think about what you are saying instead of just towing a line.

Why the hell would a shark or sharks hang around in an area virtually barren of food for so long and only occaisionally take a bite of some unfortunate water user?
If the food situation was so dire for them shouldn't we expect them to be munching people everyday?
Especially since there have been so many sightings lately?

I agree that food is actually plentiful for them, they're cruising around enjoying the buffet, unfortunately our water usage overlaps their food cruising, we get mistaken and get chomped.

I don't believe that they don't like to eat us, a meal is a meal.

We drive cars and know the risk, but the risk is a managed risk.
Some of us participate in extreme and 'extreme' sports/activities, but they are also managed risks.

Not enough risk management is being done for the shark problem.

from a very limited experience with sharks with boat, beach fishing,spear fishing, suping and kitesurfing i have found they follow the food sources . seen myself and heard from other boaters of gw's being a hundred meter from shore hunting the pink snapper schools, in summer when the southern salmon run its not uncommon to see 2 or 3 bronzies over the summer period while on the water with supping or kitesurfing. once the salmon have moved on so seem to have the bronzies and same with the gw's regarding the pinkies, at least from a visual basis as im sure both sharks are further out around islands going for the cubs and calves.

few questions that would be interesting to be answered regarding the shark attack areas

are these spots gw migration area's

are these locations known to have high levels of commercial and recreational fishing and/or low levels of fish stock.

are many other breeds of sharks spotted along the coast. bulls, tigers or bronzies?

i think bulls prefer places like the swan river, estuaries?
bronzes from my experience prefer the deep holes along the beach created by beach breaks (at least with the salmon in summer they do)
are tigers more a reef shark? (btw i have seen a tigershark as far down south as esperance in summer and my guess is its followed the tropical water fish down here - which has been fantastic to fish but unsual to have this far south)

are the places also known to have a higher number of human activity. more chance of being in wrong place at wrong time if more times and more people in the water higher the probability of an attack.

the last question is, localized conditions at time of attacks, overcast, murky water, at sunset or sunrise etcetera.

my guess is none of the answers to the questions offer to a solution to protecting water users at least over the short time frame, killing sharks would at least make it seem to have helped to reduce a chance of being attacked by reducing their numbers, but the underlying reasons may still be there.



i wouldn't rule out a rouge shark if sharks are as intelligent as some say - as it happens with lions (apparently) that conclude we are an easy meal then i wouldn't rule it out as having watched too many jaw reruns..

tracking the sharks could be a way to find out if sharks can turn rouge.

2010-2011 there were 61 coastal drownings in Australia. 9 of which were in WA.

Bet there's less this year - just because more people will be afraid of the water and stick to the shallows or swimming pools.

Sharks - saving lives every time they appear on the news.

kiterboy said...I don't believe that they don't like to eat us, a meal is a meal.

If they did you would never find any left overs from a shark meal. And they would choose slow defenceless humans over seals any day.

The fact that people sometimes survive shark attacks is proof enough for me that they don't like the taste at all. I spend loads of time in the water and I am aware of the risks, but I am willing to face it.

Surely this can all be avoided! There are some smart dudes out there, why doesn't a bunch of them get together and find a big fish deterrent that is proven to work and turn themselves into millionaires. Ive heard mixed reports from the ones available, "we" humans can do some amazing things, surely this is not out of reach??

yeatsie said...

its their ocean - we're just visiting

They can do what ever they want with the ocean. They do not, however, own the "visitors".

Don't get too comfy in Botany Bay Silence - talk to some of the sail boarders whose runs go out towards the runways - and the divers at la Perouse - there are some big sharks in Botany bay. Like most places around our coast - they are always there - it's just rare for them to feed on us - cause we're not their natural prey.

The other thing to keep in mind re seeing fins and carrying weapons etc - these bad boys are predators. They have evolved to use stealth and surprise as their modus operandi - if you see one you're safe. If one's gonna eat you - then you won't know a thing about it till it's taken its first bite!

I kite off Perth's beaches and often go 1km or so off shore. They scare the hell out of me but what can you do. You stay out of the water if you don't want to risk it - but if you choose to go in you gotta know that it's always possible. It would be a grusome way to go - but hey, you have to balance the risk and the reward.

Charl dv said...

I've always been very anti culling of any animal. But the question has to be put out there, how many of these attacks are repeat offenses by one shark? I mean if one attacks people more than once I can see it as being justifiable to kill that shark.

If a dog attacks and kills a kid I am fairly certain it would be getting put down soon after.

Given that the general pattern in shark attacks is a single (but often lethal) bite, with the victim generally surviving long enough to get away and then bleeding out I wouldn't think that there's a strong likelihood of a single shark developing a liking for human flesh. If I buy a bar of chocolate I don't take one bite and spit the rest out.
Dog attacks are totally different - I've never been aware of a dog mistaking a human for a food item.