Let's talk about sharks, baby
It's a shark story but not.
Robert Brander is an Associate Professor at University of New South Wales who in the past has worked on mitigating surfing injuries. At present, one of his students is studying people's perceptions of sharks based on their background and ocean usage. The work requires a public survey and here's where you come into it: just click on the link below and answer the questions to help the good folk out.
It says it takes 10-15 minutes but I knocked it over in half that.
Do it while you're watching the Fiji Pro!
Comments
They are fish , and fish are cold blooded ...they must continue to move to stay alive and they are hunters of opportunity , even if they have a regular diet.
If fuckwit cage dive operators continue to chum the water to attract them to human filled cages , they will associate humans with food/chum on a growing basis.
Ban cage diving tours ............nothing cage dive operators do is natural.
well said
Agreed. Utterly irresponsible way to make a $.
I agree GREGLVOV, its irresponsible to continue this practice.
The DPI were irresponsible for not monitoring an apex predator thats protected for 25 years and to turn around and start their inquiry after people start getting munched is also negligent.
Once we have interfered with the marine ecosystem it will require ongoing management of all species to keep the best balance possible. One alternative is we walk away from all fishing and let the ecosystem rebalance itself ....At a guess if you keep protecting an apex predator and keep taking its normal food source or part of the chain. It will adapt and learn to hunt alternative food source such as Dolphins, Other sharks that are struggling (Grey Nurse), humans etc...
Sharks are apex predators that are required for a balanced ecosystem. The issue I see is they don't have natural predators, to manage their populations (numbers), other than humans. I also believe it doesn't lead to a balanced ecosystem if their populations are not managed so in order for this to occur human intervention is required. I am in favour of commercial shark licences being reintroduced and previously closed shark fisheries being reopened to enable the fishermen to fish a designated number (bag limit) of certain shark species to control their populations. This will hopefully lead to shark numbers being logically managed to ensure over/under-population doesn't occur and also reduce the number of interactions between sharks and humans.
Lets take the hysteria out of this discussion and bring some logic back.
Sharks do have natural predators. They're called humans.
You know what happens when great white sharks are hunted to the point of being endangered ?
Fuck all.
Cause that's the state we were in twenty years ago .
The seals returned . Wow.
https://m.
Cold(or warm) blooded killers but thats what they do, a human is just as good meal to them as a seal the BS they they don't like to eat humans is just that BS they like anything meaty be it fish, penguins, seals, human, a dog whatever.
They are amazing creatures when you see them in big aquariums etc but personally out of all the animals on this planet that i care about going extinct they are at the bottom of the list on my care factor, Apex predators they may be, but I'm sure the ocean would go on fine without them.
Did they teach you how to read where you went to school Blowin...I said we are their only predators. Don't follow your logic at all, I never said hunting them to the point of being endangered. Get off the pipe mate.
How many predators does an apex predator have ?
Rest of the post was just general comments.
Nothing insulting or dismissive intended towards you with any of it , Quokka.
But maybe that's just the Pipe talking .
Far call on the predator of an apex predator Blowin, a bit of an oxymoron that one hey, I suppose we are the only true apex predator...when we have a gun in our hands that is.
Maybe, hard to tell from words on a screen.
I can't quite tell, are you against managing shark populations?
the more sharks the better, they keep the crowds down, plus they love to eat boogers
Same as yourself.
The reintroduction of managed commercial licences is the best outcome in my opinion. As long as people are aware of the caveat appropriate regarding the consumption of mercury potentially found in any large shark then why should they not be eaten ?
Notice the idea of the reintroduction of fishing wasn't an option for the mitigation strategies forwarded in the survey ?
Nice conflation between species when it asked for the attitudes towards shark protection also.
Yeah I did notice that so I added it under "Other" and selected it as one of my preferred methods.
I agree with this too.. has been my opinion for a while now. Heavily regulate it so that if the rules get bent, they get shafted..
I'm of the above in regards to cage diving.
FFS, stop conditioning sharks to associate humans with food (or the chance of food). Totally irresponsible.
If people want to dive with sharks, no worries, just ban the cages.
this questionaire was equally about "humans" and their behaviour/thoughts as it was anything to do with sharks. and quite thankfully. im glad the conversation is opened to that space. what will be interesting is the results.
two questions. how often do you use the ocean. and what is your greatest fear.
rationally speaking there will be a correlation. i.e. those that are weekend warriors should be less afraid of death by shark than those who surf everyday.
although i suspect there will be little correlation. which points then to the possibility of irrational fear in the human psych.
I put 'big waves' as my biggest fear.
Wuss;)
With you Zen!
My greatest fear in the ocean is sharks.
I wouldn't go as far as to call it a phobia , but it's recogniseably irrational at times when you consider the percentage of attacks on surfers vs total amount of hours surfed by everyone.
But that's just my thing.
I've seen plenty and that actually diminishes the fear as counterintuitive as it may appear.
But I know people that have been killed and others that have been present during attacks and I've seen the ferociousness of sharks when they're feeding.
Probably didn't help when my mum made me sit through the original Jaws film when I was about 6 years old. Or when I was innocently sitting at the window of the tour bus at Universal studios when the freaking huge animatronic extra from the same film launched out of the water right next to me not long after.
Still surf radically sharky places solo, though often a bit of anxiety involved.
Thats a very broad range of questions in that survey , and I imagine its results could be dissected and interpreted in a number of ways. Not sure how Joe Blows opinion from Farknose really contributes anything meaningful to constructive research but, hey why not ,Impress the Prof with some diluted essay on Jaws movies, and rely on some anonymous people to back your bullshit. White sharks were only ever put on the "protected" list as a "cautionary" knee jerk measure, Fisheries freely admit they had no idea of the numbers when they did it, and still don't. And the bottom of the food chain is doing fine , so let that one go. I,m all for learning about how these awesome machines go about their business , but that survey reeks of being another student project that will eventually find its way into the back pages of your next inflight magazine.
my thoughts exactly.
This constant conflation of shark species is maddening. There are over 440 species of sharks.
I'm about as frightened of a wobbegong, or a leopard shark or a blacktip as I am of a guinea pig. A white shark :......at certain spots I'm concerned about ie anywhere south of the Point, at certain times during a surf I'll get the heeby jeebies.....most times when I have there has been a white shark nearby, so I consider these reactions a normal and rational response to the presence nearby of a large predator.
To conflate all those species together into some kind of generalised fear is literally insane.
It sounds like these researchers have come up with a position beforehand (there is an irrational fear of sharks) and are looking for evidence to support that position. This kind of "research" is risible and does nothing but muddy the waters.
edit: actually this aggro wobbegong did bust my balls once when i was snorkelling at the wreck.
Let's talk about sharks, baby
Sharks: cold-blooded man-eaters or just misunderstood. Tell us what you think.
My perception of sharks...
Don't get me wrong I love animals,... they're delicious!
Why aren't sharks on the Australian national shield is beyond me, they're more Aussie than most recent immigrants!... And like our national animal symbols; emus and Kangaroos, they could easily be farmed for food. I'm talking about the larger species like Great Whites, who could even be genetically engineered and bread down for farming like those playful floppy eared doggy's were from wolves.
I'm left wondering about the commercial opportunities available in Shark farming?... Why aren't sharks farmed? They could and should be. They're delicious as bear battered fried flake with chips and salad? Have you ever lived long and broad enough to try shark fin soup? you just have to try it, it should be an Aussie staple and a national dish! healthy and delicious! We Aussies own shark attacks and we should own sharks as a national dish a symbol of national pride along with our Aussie sense of humour. I can envisage our national flag with a big Whitey on it captioned bite me!
You know they are farming all types of sea creatures these days, there are countless ASX listed sea farming companies farming all manner of seafood for ours and overseas supermarket consumption. We have the clean seas & ocean coastlines available ripe for exploitation of commercial shark farming. There is also the advantageous bonus in that extensive organised commercial over-supply-chain shark farming will force those terrible third world dependent fishing countries out of the fishing industry thereby saving countless shark species from unregulated over fishing to extinction.
Shark farming is a real possibility, for bulk shark feed stock we could utilize our never ending supply of human dead, freeing up the land used for cemeteries and returning it for commercial food-chain-store development and preventing the terrible BBQ like pollution that crematoriums create daily; dead humans processed into small green bait sized tabs, the sharks would love it. In return sharks would nourish the living with essential proteins and amino's for decades, its a great win win for all. Sharks get protection, humans get food for massive continued population reproduction, and we all live happily ever after.
I can imagine massive shark areas cordoned off from our public beaches, mechanised by great machines to feed the terrible riving bloody mass our human dead who have passed, and in turn the machines would process the sharks on conveyor belt like the whale ship floating processing factories shown how it can be done...
Maybe a mass public perception re-conception is required to be engineered, one that is politically motivated by politically-correct interests in the aqua-marine farming business, once the media; ABC News ABC Science are on-board, & the commercial TV sponsored infotainment morning programs; A Current Affair & 60 Minutes are on board, we will all become desensitized and it will all become the new norm like feminism and gay-rights.
Food for thought...
Yeah FR, those wobbegongs will go you!
Wind dog - You should run for PM , mate.
That's if there's enough hours left in the week after you've worked your stand up routine gig on the seaboard RSL club circuit.
PS - Sharks qualify for the coat of arms cause they can't move backwards as nor can the emu or kangaroo.
But sharks aren't unique to Australia.
Wobbegong numbers are rising as well ,, Whats causing these recent attacks.? Is it just a case of mistaken identity ? Or is it just some arseholes provoking them.?
"Our fisheries management is not about saving endangered species or beneficial use of resources. It is all about bureaucratic empire building , grant seeking researchers and political pandering for green votes.
All of the prophesying , hand waving, emotive terminology and impressive statistics have little real meaning until they are placed in some context which provides a sense of reality and proportionality." W Starck
Never forget the time I caught a wobbegong as a ten year old fishing off bribie jetty; thought I had the worlds biggest flathead.
not bad on the chew are a wobby.
Chew a wobby.
Now there is a great username.
ha the old maneater tag , how many surfers have been attacked and eaten , or for that matter what are the facts in shark attack cases, of the body being eaten?
they come near ,they accidently bite ,we get spat out , we are not on the menu , seems like juveniles just being ...juveniles!
Off the top of my head - Ben Linden , The bloke at blackfellas , the swimmer at Tathra , the diver at Julian rocks , diver at Abrolhos .
That's 5 in twenty seconds , Sharkman.
Maybe look into it rather than propagating mistruths that support your idealised dream of what sharks are or are not.
Don't even start me on what tiger sharks will or won't eat....
Maybe , if you'd prefer an incident of mass man eating that even you couldn't wilfully ignore , try the USS Indianapolis misadventure.
Or if you're still so certain that humans are never food for sharks I will gladly fork out for a couple of tickets out to the Neptune islands and we could berley up a few hungry pointers and you can carelessly Leap over the side - sans cage of course . Potentially proving me wrong.
I could pick you up from your place and we could drive over. Could be fun !
Ben Linden , False news alert! Ah so berley up the GWS's yeah already done everywhere , so what surfers have been eaten ?
Or you could go back to WWII , and were they GWS's , and yeah come pick me up!
False news alert ! ?
Huh ?
You know what happened to Ben Linden in 5 metres of crystal clear water ?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-25/coroner-finds-surfer-likely-attack...
http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/CoronersFindings/Lists/Coroners%20Findings/A...
False news alright. The news being that you even considered looking into any of the examples I posted.
Would you honestly jump over the side amongst pointers ?
I'm not Talking about the hand picked sharks that are in an accomodating mood that Healy et al swims with. I'm talking straight over the side naked for some inter species action.
me bad , thought you were referencing Bin Laden , who was fed to the fishes .
back to, could have been a GWS in bad health??
I have surfed my whole life with GWS's , never seen one under 15' , usually get out of the water when I see one , but they don't bother me at all , I recognise I surf where there are very big sharks , and I choose not want kill them al just so I can surf .
And how many disappearances in the sea may well have been sharks ....we don't know how many shark attack deaths there are.........they are Hunters of opportunity.
Unhealthy sharks will take the easiest food at hand.
Happy that you will swim /dive with them ........ another temporary Australian.
glad to hear you are not temporary , and making up scenarios about what might or could is just hypothetical fearmongering.
Sounds like its the juvenile shark s are the problem not unhealthy ones , alternative facts?
You're not from South Australia are you sharkman.
How about we train packs of Orcas to patrol our beaches, that'll fuck the Whites
I did this survey thing yesterday. I put 'other humans' as my response to the fear question (fear was a weird term I thought...'concern' maybe?)
A coupla thoughts:
Who loves crowds in the surf?
As rugged individualists that pride ourselves as such, what to do if you're personally scared of sharks?
Some coastlines have faced and dealt with these questions for years in whatever ways the INDIVIDUAL saw fit. State involvement or not.
To your point sharkman , They generally bite all their prey first then shadow it because it is believed they prefer to eat their meal without it thrashing around on the dinner plate, most hits on any larger seagoing prey they eat are rarely fatal on the initial strike. However , most of the other food sources they attack don't have the option of limping the fuck out of the ocean when it happens. They might confuse us with other prey at times but I dont see how that seperates or negates the fact that sharks have consumed humans in their entirety on many occasions,as history has documented.
Totally agree Tubeshooter it's such a myth that Sharks don't really want to eat humans or don't like the taste of us, we are meat, big chunky meat and I'm sure to a shark we taste just as good as a seal or a dog or big fish etc.
Like you said the only reason people do survive is we can scramble out of the water.
How many surfers have been eaten?
when you se that juvenile sharks still do not have the force to kill a seal , they hunt in the shallows eating fish and rays , when they bite humans , they usually let go , and the bite usually is just that , to think that you can scramble away from a shark after being bitten ha!
ever watched a GWS cut a seal in 2?
Sharkman, Juvenile white sharks are responsible for only 20% of human attacks according to the experts.
link please , as there are also a lot of attacks by other shark species!
I've got an epic photo of a seal with a massive bite out of its hind quarter taken by a mate at the Is***d in SA while we were there. The poor seal looks like a dog that's been hit by a car , sitting on the rocks with a bite mark like it'd been hit with the sharpened rim of a 44 gallon drum.
Not bitten in two.
Just an initial ambush strike to a large and potentially damaging animal to debilitate it and wait for it to succumb to its injuries to the point that it could be overwhelmed. But this seal made it to shore , like a lot of surfers.
Sharkman , there isn't actually any real experts on pointer behaviour , not even amongst scientists , but your lack of actual knowledge as you continue to debate proven circumstance is impressive .
Keep that up and I'll have to deny you DJ privileges as we drive West from Torquay. You'd probably have us listening to French electro pop anyway.
I'll try and find that photo , it's on an old floppy disc.
Ive seen half of a seal down here at Phillip Island dead on the beach the body otherwise still in decent condition (not rotten) looked like a shark had bitten it pretty much clean in half and I can't think of any other reason why it would be like that, can't think of why someone would cut one in half with a chainsaw.
there are people who are studying GWS behaviour , and I choose to educate myself , and not join the hysterical chorus of people who have a little personal knowledge such as antidote's about what they have seen and draw conclusions based on their very narrow experience.
Imagine a human being hit as hard as the seal was and a big piece of blubber missing Vs a skinny bag of bones such as human , the full force of a grown GWS ';s bite would literally cut the person in 2 , which has happened before , but for most of the time , it looks like the GWS's spit out their human prey!
I think for our trip across West , I love the carpenters and the monkees!
You love the carpenters and the monkeys !
Good news as we'll be spending so much time in an enclosed environment is that I've been known to drive a nail or two from time to time . Not sure about the monkeys, having restricted my own loving to humans only so far but hey , get a few glasses of goon into me and who knows what I'm capable of !
Their trip sounds good so far , we might have to take the long way round.
It's gonna be a sad moment as you're standing on the gunnel about to launch your naked self into the shark filled Briney.
My only real hope is that you would potentially get taken whole so that as you're disappearing into the beast's maw you'll have the opportunity to hear me yell out "I told you so !"
Going to be a lonely trip back for me.
we could visit all the other shark infested surf spots in Australia and turn it into round strayla looking for the evil GWS's and I will paddle out with a glad bag full of blood in my teeth to berley the waters and see how many sharks we can attract and how much uncrowded surf we can surf , well me not we !
I'm usually surfing those spots solo so it'll be nice to have some company.
Though if your paddling around with a little berley microcosm established around yourself I better not get too used to you being around.
Can you cook ?
Solo , well at least cutting down the odds to 50/50 , but paddling out with a blood bag could increase the chances of spying a GWS or 2 , and can open a can very fast!
And your extensive knowledge comes from where Sharkman? Shark week on discovery channel no doubt. What exactly is your experience with these creatures? , I,m interested, given your title. Enlighten me
yes Shark Week is one of the educational tools , as seeing scientific programs , does tend to increase ones knowledge and understanding.
The Area I grew up in and still surf to this day , has mainly big GWS's , lots of BIG seals ,. Had to come to the beach quite a few times because of GWS's , and have spent most of my life with Professional fishermen/surfers , so pray tell what your experience is and where do you update your knowledge of Sharks?
I'll pay for the fuel
TT: ""As rugged individualists that pride ourselves as such, what to do if you're personally scared of sharks?""
no amount of drum-lines/nets etc makes you completely safe. at some point all that is left is TT's question to answer for each individual.
I find that a stream of faeces emitted from one's anus upon suspicion of a lurking beast , whilst not demonstratably proven in repelling sharks , can temporarily relieve anxiety.
Happy-Arse, that's why I chucked in the first question: Who loves crowds in the surf?
Join-the-dots, comrades. Pretty easy for the rugged individualist to avoid sharks completely if one doesn't go in the sea at all, hey? Or only surfs in the designated 'safety zones' (hopefully, all on the East coast). Is it just me or ain't it a bit weird that rugged individualist's would want Big Mother's State help to soothe away those fears?
Anyway, semms like it could be a win-win. For all of us.
Then again, how's this scenario? Upsurge of SUPs for shark safety! Or jet-ski tow-ins for Jesus. Don't laugh, THAT'S HAPPENED!
Maybe that's a 'glass half empty' view of "some coastlines have faced and dealt with these questions for years in whatever ways the INDIVIDUAL saw fit. State involvement or not" ?
Gun amnesty on at the mo, yeah? QUICK!
i reckon a bit of shit would be like choco topping on ice-cream for the shark. though a good curry turd could possibly stings its eyes.
Turkey - you're one post away from self labelling as a rugged individualist.
I recommend acute evasive manoeuvring before you reap the harvest that you choose to sow.
But then again , a Rugged Individual don't take kindly to recommendations , do they Tex ?
https://m.
A very emotive topic, and I do believe in live and let live. However if a shark attacks a person I think if it is possible then that shark should be destroyed, not merely chased away into deeper waters. Treated much the same as an aggressive dog that attacks and maims, and I am a dog person. Perhaps this practice would quieten those who call for an outright cull. Just my thoughts.
I agree, ideally as many sharks should be tagged and tracked and if one attacks it needs to be hunted down and killed, most animals are creatures of habit and if it has an easy feed be it someones leg or arm or whatever, its obvious it may do it again.
Sharkman? you dont wear a cape do you?
And Toppa, sharks are nothing like dogs, most dog attacks come from poorly treated animals,, One day in the future we might know whether or not some sharks are serial offenders and need a little more than an ankle bracelet, but thats a few years from today .
I totally agree with TT on the crowd thing. but the rugged individualist part leaves me with images of soda can crushing, speedo wearing ,abseiling kayakers .and I cant see any signs of shark phobia reducing numbers at your local break anytime soon.
No Just a mask , the cape gets in the road when surfing .
Shark Phobia , now there's topic , Sharknado 1-5 now theres some serious education !!
Hi tubeshooter, I agree many aggressive dogs have bad owners but unfortunately there are times when a dog will surprise a good owner and act aggressively, perhaps territorial behaviour in its own backyard. I was jogging recently near my home and a dog came from nowhere and took a piece of my calf. The owner was very apologetic. I was pissed off, but being a dog lover I let it slide.If the dog had attacked a toddler it may have been a very different situation. I know sharks are not dogs but the case could be made to have that dog put down. I don't believe in destroying a shark as an act of revenge for an attack on a human, but if it is possible to identify the shark responsible for an attack I think it should be destroyed. After the dog incident I found myself a dog repellant magnetic ankle bracelet on e bay that only cost $150 bucks, don't know if it is good luck or technology working wonders but I haven't had any problems with dogs since I started wearing it!
Take it as Good Luck Toppa .
I agree with ya Toppa, there are some "junkyard" mentality dogs out there, and not all of them are mistreated. However I think comparing a dogs mental attributes with that of a sharks ,given their different environments, is a little simplistic. Having said that I believe sharks can and do learn from 'successful' hunts, ,, Identifying the culprit though is not as easy as calling the local council ranger and a vet with a green syringe, and next time your out jogging , leave your calf at home, just a thought ;]
i pray for solo man to join this thread and tell shark fearers to suck it up.....oh and slam it down fast.
The local abalone divers have stories to make every hair on your body stand on end. The local reef has had 3 close shark sightings in the last month, unprecedented stuff. I'm also on the side of some form of control especially after an attack or if a shark is hanging around buzzing people. Cage diving should be outright banned.
I wonder what the rate of increasing risk of attack is as the years of gw protection go on . I guess its increasing by the year / decade etc as the proplem gets bigger .
Heres a pro shark hugger clip showing a little shark copping brutal bashing death .
Humans managing the environment, FFS where did that happen that was successful? Big picture is future generations need wild oceans with wild environments to sustain human life. Wild environments determine species numbers not the number of shark attacks. All I read here is a group of fearful pussies worried about their need for recreation and screw the future generations. Kill the sharks kill the ocean..................
I Focus , where have you been mate ?
The sharks were killed , remember ?
They were endangered for a couple of decades. Did the Earth spin off ts axis and explode ?
No.
Meanwhile , I focus lays on his lounge eating a burger that is the result of industrial agriculture and types furiously on his I Phone about the potential degradation of the planet.
How many cows died to clad your leather lounge ?
How many acres of virgin bushland were destroyed to grow grass to feed the cow ?
Save your hypocracy Eco warrior.
Eating a few sharks to keep down the numbers and feed ourselves is as holistic an approach as humanity has ever taken to life on Earth.
On the west coast sharks were absolutely hammered as cray licences included taking just about anything so just about every one also set lines taking large number of sharks including a few whites each year hence low numbers of attacks no debate there.
But even a fearless great white hunter like yourself looking for excuses to exercise your two million years of genetic emotional needs to kill a feared predator would appreciate the time period this all happen in is not a realistic sample to justify your argument.
The emotion morale personalization of your argument demanding sainthood to have a contrary opinion / argument to your own you do realise is an epic fail.
Eco warrior..........nope, shark hugger maybe but hopefully I am thoughtful on the larger picture for future generations .ie. next 2 million years.
Humanity has never had a holistic approach to life on earth our history since day one has been survival and destruction of the environment around us which was fine when we had such a small impact in percentage terms of the earth's surface.
Right now I don't know of any environment system that's not being screwed or has been screwed worldwide with shark species worldwide are working their way to top of the list.
Now if you and your cohort could just stop living your lives through your Iphones demanding instant gratification to feed the insatiable demand of recognition and realise that's not what sustains you that it's the environment with Great whites been the canary in the coal mine test that would be good......unlikely
BTW enjoyed the reply
So you think it's wrong to eat a few Great Whites ? We've got to eat something , may as well be an animal that may potentially eat us.
Besides , I don't dig on swine .
https://m.
PS - I don't have an I phone.
I've got an I Pad.
You ever tried photoshopping a selfie on that little screen ? Fucking nightmare.
No one eats Whites except the odd Orca the meat is below ordinary plus eating the end of the food chain is a issue healthwise any protesting vegan hipster eco warrior knows that.
Have you tried pointer meat ? I haven't .
But I've got a collection of fishing books from the 50's / 60's / 70's and they are United in consensus that pointer is similar to Mako in flavour and very highly rated as a food fish.
Maybe you're referring to the Mercury content that accumulates in some individuals ? Yeah , I mentioned that on the first page of the thread. Individuals should consider limiting consumption as they should for any of the large sharks and pelagic fish that we consume already.
PS How did I end up being the protesting hipster ?
I may not eat meat but I really don't think that should limit my ability to play the role of the blind sighted , environmental vandal if you don't mind.
No never tasted, mates who are in the game used to always kill and dump the pointers mainly due to the heavy metal issues it's the smaller shark species that end up as flake etc anything big that used to be caught by the pros fishing for shark ended up as fertilizer.
"PS How did I end up being the protesting hipster ?"
Just trying to reverse label you.............yeah I know fail.
Back to what is the right numbers of whites to exist that's up to wild environments to sort out which is actually a separate discussion to dealing with attacks.
Irony is Iphone users arguing caveman solutions (i.e. no fu(king idea) to dealing with attacks.
once upon a time you got flake at your fish and chips shop, but mostly people turns their noses up at it thesedays. in many cases its plain hard to find.
cage diving should be banned.
Only south Australia does the cage diving in Australia . Its funny that i enjoy seeing the cage boats daily reporting (on S.M. ) of sharks that are preoccupied with the tours . I dare to say that sharks arent lining up on sa beaches to eat humans the way they are in other states of oz . That theory maybe has a flaw in it about training the sharks . If sa had the highest number of recent attacks the suggestion would be more valid right ?
How can that be explained or theorized ?
One reason could be that the majority of the SA population is along one tiny speck of coastline, whereas the Eastern states are heavily spread out and more populated. If you considered just how few people are in the water along the Yorke Peninsula/West coast vs size of the coast line and number of attacks over previous years the statistics would start to look a bit more ominous.
It is also about risk probability. Each of the following is shifting the risk % upwards:
- Great White Shark population is increasing but food sources are not
- cage diving creates a pool of migrating sharks who associates boats with food and have no fear of the unfamiliar human shape,
- fish farming brings sharks in closer to shore to areas that would historically have been of little interest to them and again associates boats with food smells
- seal population increasing closer to popular beaches (big issue in the USA, soon to be apparent in Australia)
- more people and boats in and on the ocean increasing contact and lessening fear of the unfamiliar among sharks
- potential for behavioural shifts among Great White populations that could spread through association / observation if attacks on humans give them a full belly for limited work - they often hunt in at least pairs - not always the lone stalker
- if the food imbalance gets pronounced and lots of mature GW are very hungry shifts in behavior could get dramatic (Jim Shekhdar a British ocean rower who completed a solo crossing of the Pacific Ocean in mid ocean had his boat repeatedly rammed by some large Great Whites who would steam in at full pace from 20 metres away and ram his boat even after he stabbed them with a spear - possible they were extremely hungry as the open ocean often has limited food and got desperate - this went on for a long time, not just a one off ram. I would hate to think of some equally hungry sharks at Bondi)
The above may cause a slight steady ratchet up in risk but the Reunion Island example suggests that sharp transitions in behaviour and population dynamics could occur that will jump up risk dramatically.
Some good points.
You do the survey Indo?
It's funny to hear people speak about a "wild environment" and nature in balance.....as if that is some tangible historical fact, let alone some kind of desirable outcome.
Humans and human ancestors have been on the planet for a few million years, we've been intensively using and part of the inshore marine and aquatic ecosystems for most of that time. We are nature, we are part of the "wild environment", unless you want to completely rewrite biology and the theory of Evolution.
If white shark numbers increase because of Commonwealth legislation that is as artificial a reason as could be imagined.
If we fish a few and reduce the numbers or help to change behaviours by using other successful mitigation techniques then that is what nature does: protect itself from predation.
It's pure speculation to suggest that increasing white shark numbers will lead to some kind of increased health in the ocean to pass down to future generations. We simply have no idea if that is the case. It might mean that increased numbers of white sharks will mean less inshore dolphins or less mulloway or less salmon, for instance.
I live on a farm and grow my own food: I've got chickens, I catch my own fish: I'm almost totally self-sufficient in a lot of things, so I'm down with having less impact, but all this green propaganda, often mired in a kind of historically ignorant version of Utopia is getting too much.
Here are the current facts for food sources for whites in Australia: reduction in commercial fishing effort in NSW by 75% over the last 15 years. Incredibly abundant stocks of australian salmon (arripis trutta) favourite food source for juvenile whites.
Increasing numbers of pinnipeds (seals) and whales, favourite food source for adult whites.
Are you trying to say that for millions of years humans and their ancestors have been using ,"we've been intensively using and part of the inshore marine and aquatic ecosystems for most of that time. " , are you for real?
C'wealth legislation is an artificial reason of GWS's increasing , Huh?
"It's pure speculation to suggest that increasing white shark numbers will lead to some kind of increased health in the ocean to pass down to future generations," or you could say that because the fishermen decimated the oceans , we needed to legislate against mans inherent greed , and the oceans are trying to recover , and one of the results is increased GWS's!
some pretty outlandish statements based on some sketchy alternative facts!
"sketchy alternative facts",, I like that,.. the same could be applied to your "theories" and "hypothesis" that I would consider regurgitated humdrum
well which ones do you find regurgitated humdrum , try and debate them ?
Your short term memory loss is catching up with you "sharkman". Not so long ago in another thread you just constantly carried on about whales buried on beached and dunes. Another hypothesis and regurgitated humdrum.
But do carry on, it provides endless entertainment...................
ah guess what fitzy , the relevant authorities in Australia and the USA do not bury whales on beaches anymore , even though there are plenty decomposing whales still on the beaches in NSW , Ballina being one , last year a whale washed up at Casaurina , buried , and then because of the out cry the dug it up and removed it , the endless entertainment for me is the fear generated by a couple of attacks , so carry on , with our new found crowd control!
Think Globally (recognise top-down environmental diktats are changing the ecosystem a la Reunion Island)
Act Locally (does this create a local problem where an imminent threat to life exists, and can you respond to it?)
Aside from the protection of Whites ,"pelagic sharks" such as Tigers were also heavily restricted..Part of the knee jerk reaction by fisheries was caused by longliners switching to targeting sandbar sharks next to relatively close reefs when the tuna was slow one year, however incidental catches of all species went up during that time. Office workers saw a spike in the 'total' landed catch , fed it thru some computer models and hey presto , new laws..The small time drumline operators got caught up in the whole mess, and the longliners were sent packing back to the continental shelf after heavy quota restrictions were applied , but by then the fallout went across the board. Add to this major restrictions on net fishermen catching salmon etc , not to mention changing the structure of the industry to quota and/or shares and often allocating those assets to some who had a well known history of falsifying logbooks and making sure they were on every fishery committee they could be on. Theres a lot more to whats going on that being just for/against sharks, and cutting through the bullshit seems to get harder every day. I dont care about the hysteria , or shark hugging wannabe marine bioligists. I,m more pissed at the amount of misinformation out there thats spread by people , who frankly , haven't got a fucking clue. But on the bright side,. Finally some decent research is being done thanks to technology ,but it still needs a bit of time to get sufficient data , In the meantime , I wouldn't it take it all too seriously ,, the waters fine, come on in
Now they have a lot of tagged sharks, scientist's next step should be to do some behavioral experiments with new deterrent strategies and analyse behaviour relative to existing netting.
For example:
- kill and bleed out a GW in a location during a period where a lot of tagged GW are in the area and track their movements after this. Do they all disappear as has been observed a number of times after Killer Whales have made a kill? If so, what chemical is causing this behavior?
- monitor travel patterns relative to netted areas. Are nets showing up as barriers and / or deterrents to GW swimming patterns or are they showing little statistical impact?
- test out electric fields around dummy surfers / divers anchored long term in certain locations versus numbers of interactions over time with the dummy. Do they learn to avoid? Or do they become habituated to the electric shock and start coming in closer over time? Can we train the populations to avoid and fear the human shape?
Whether they will or not I am not sure - might make them leave their computers and face the real world or upset their group think. Some really useful and interesting research options are going begging at the moment.
I recon you are heading down the right road Frog.
Have spoken to people who have tested stuff on whites, there is more info / understanding around on behavior than you see on the net particularly to do with attacks.
We have the technology to detect whites that enter an area (current costs prohibitive)
We have a couple of deterrents to disrupt the whites stalking process (perhaps a little primitive but they do change the probability dramatically I use one)
In WA most attacks happen below 20 degrees water temp when everyone has a suit on recon having a electrical chemical response to bite in the suit make up to disrupt a white sustaining the attack and minimize the damage is do able.
Last resort carry a torniquete game changer in survival rates for small whites to 3 meters ish not much use once you get to 5 meter whites.
Have hear the same Orca stories but haven't hear a 1st hand account
Saw a programme just last week from SOUTH AFRICA where marine biologists were baffled as to where all their GREAT WHITES have gone. Aparrently according to said programme , the expected numbers have been on the decline for a few years.
Surely they couldn't have migrated to our waters ......have any of our "shark dudes" talked to South Africa's "shark dudes".
Oh by the way , what pisses me off is most of the "shark do-gooders" don't even surf.
C'mon , I'm waiting for a Bite. . . .
Bite..............been surfing WA coast and beyond for over 45 years
North , South or Perth ?
Mid to late 70's surfed the rubbish around Perth, late 70's SW used to have the odd crack at size Margs, 80 went north Gero then Bluff / Gnaraloo stayed Carnarvon 5 years ish left 85 due to crowds back to Perth for a year work / relationship , 86 relationship blew up then Cowaramup on the Bob Hawke surf team, mid 87 12 months Mexico/South America, 88 back to SW, 91 Margs rate payer etc etc ............ ended up Mandurah....funny never realized I measured my life so clearly in surfing around
Sounds like a hell time to me .
Worse ways to spend your gifted days on this tiny blue dot in the universe that's for sure.
Crowds in 85 jeez...hate to see what you say about Avalon Pt on a decent swell.
Yeah...........I think the words young and nave come to mind in regards to 85 but in my defense had those breaks a few times just me and a mate or two while it was going off.
Still there is crowd control around Avalon these days we often see 4 -5 mt whites floating pass which thins out the numbers.
big female GWS tagged in SA about 8 yrs ago, went for a cruise from SA ,NW Australia , down the coast throught the Bight , up the East coast to the Great Barrier reef , then turned around and headed back.....
Its also interesting to note that the Neptune island GWS females travel to Ningaloo reef in WA , but the males go to the West Coast of Tassie......why ?
There were 3 GWS in SA that were killed by Orcas , maybe the Orcas scared em off , as they only ate the livers of the Whites.
So how much do we know to make educated decisions ?
Are you trying to say that for millions of years humans and their ancestors have been using ,"we've been intensively using and part of the inshore marine and aquatic ecosystems for most of that time. " , are you for real?
I'm not sure if you understood what I meant, but yes.
Major fish traps built by aboriginal nations all over the east coast- there's one right here at the base of Lennox Point-, including some which show major differences in sea levels.......I think that qualifies as intensive usage of the inshore marine environment, over millenia. As long as human beings have been on the planet they have been part of the inshore marine ecosystem and harvested it and modified it.
Great thoughts Frog, would love to see some of those hypotheses tested, instead of all this BS social science perception crap we are being subjected too here in this survey.
millennia or millions of years ?
Aboriginals used fish traps , maybe 60K years , but not millions !
Millenia is a thousand years cuz, 60 thousand years qualifies as a few millenia. Humans using the ocean intensively goes way further back than that too.
Each bit of research usually stretches further back in time the history of human beings, and human ancestors.
C'mon FR , you did say millions of years , so man was then dealing with Megalodon's ?
"It is now generally agreed that the man/ape split occurred in Africa between 7 and 5 million years ago, during a period known as the fossil gap.
Before it there was an animal which was the common ancestor of human and African apes. After it, there emerged a creature smaller than ourselves, but bearing the unmistakable hallmark of the first shift towards human status: it walked on two legs.
This poses two questions: "Where were the earliest fossils found?" and "Do we know of anything happening in that place at that time that might have caused apes and humans to evolve along separate lines?"
The oldest pre-human fossils (including the best known one, "Lucy") are called australopithecus afarensis because their bones were discovered in the afar triangle, and area of low lying land near the Red Sea. About 7 million years ago that area was flooded by the sea and became the Sea of Afar.
Part of the ape population living there at the time would have found themselves living in a radically changed habitat. Some may have been marooned on off-shore islands - the present day Danakil Alps were once surrounded by water. Others may have lived in flooded forests, salt marshes, mangrove swamps, lagoons or on the shores of the new sea, and they would all have had to adapt or die.
AAT suggests that some of them survived, and began to adapt to their watery environment. Much later, when the Sea of Afar became landlocked and finally evaporated, their descendants returned to the mainland of Africa and began to migrate southwards, following the waterways of the Rift Valley upstream.
There is nothing in the fossil record to invalidate this scenario, and much to sustain it. Lucy's bones were found at Afar lying among crocodile and turtle eggs and crab claws at the edge of a flood plain near what would then have been the coast of Africa."
Alot of our human characteristics that differentiate us from primates suggest an aquatic or marine environment, including and especially brain size, bipedalism and the control of breathing.
all conjecture !
FR just on the intensity bit and maybe I misunderstand
Aboriginal population Australia wide before white settlement, wild guess let’s say one million those with access to the east coast lets be generous and say 400,000 current day population (you guys would know better) has to be north of ten million.
When you say intensive, Aboriginals didn’t take fish for pet food, fertilizer or for export. Although there would have been a net negative effect on the environment but given the population numbers their take would have been a very small percentage compared to today’s recreational fishing IMHO.
Interesting ideas frog , I like the cut of your jib.. , slightly different but a mate of mine had the idea of anchoring decoys like a turtle or seal out the back of the lineup as an early warning system. Yes a few beers were involved in this think tank / focus group, but I imagine decoys only attract predators that are in the area anyway ,and don't really serve as something that would attract sharks into the zone,. I can feel a government grant coming on.
"big female GWS tagged in SA about 8 yrs ago, went for a cruise from SA ,NW Australia , down the coast throught the Bight , up the East coast to the Great Barrier reef , then turned around and headed back.....
"Its also interesting to note that the Neptune island GWS females travel to Ningaloo reef in WA , but the males go to the West Coast of Tassie......why ?
There were 3 GWS in SA..." sharkman .
SA means what , when it comes to GWS discussion ?
South Africa.
Ive heard of them traveling from South Africa to WA and back ,but cant recall one making the trip up the east coast of Oz on the same 'tagged' trip ..I wouldn't say it was impossible at all, but a link to this might be helpful or a reference to name/number of said shark.
The only 'tagged' shark I know of to have crossed the east/west border at the Bass Strait is "shark 28".. www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/shark-migration-great-white-s...
And if I'm wrong sharkboy, I'll shout you a beer, If your over 18, , but you might want to wear your red speedos on the inside at the bar. Rhetoric and "sketchy alternative facts" seem to be your forte. If you cant throw something tangible on the table then I would suggest your take your shark hugging diatribe to somewhere more suited and accepting of your narrow minded deluded perception of all things pertaining to sharks. You lost me at "fishermen decimating the ocean" and continually try to back your bullshit with anecdotal "evidence". Not good enough.
dear Tubey , don't drink beer , It's pretty simple really , been watching and learning about sharks my whole life , and I find them incredibly beautiful to look at , and I do not feel threatened by them when I surf , it seems you know how to operate google , and you have found out that GWS's travel from Sa to OZ , which has been known for more than decade , when did you find out!!
As for shark hugging, no I just understand that our eco systems are changing very quickly , and mans raping and pillaging of the oceans , continues , then a small user group who use the fringe of the ocean , get scared of sharks and want to cull them , so they can continue their fringe dwelling hobbies in security , ha man up son , get out there stop whining about what might happen and your fear of sharks and enjoy , if you are too scared , well better for us , one less in the water!
Sman putting the macho BS aside I'm interested to know whether you think a population of any large predatory animal that continues to increase unchecked is a good thing?
I do love the emotive use of the term "cull", it gets everyone frothing, it is a political word that should be banned from the discussion.
ah the old macho bullshit chestnut , or has a real grip on surfing in an ocean with sharks.
Large predatory animal that really doesn't have humans on the menu , yeah no problem , few mistakes here and there , but we have to find out the scientific facts about sharks and the populations , before we form an opinion, so probably in another 5 years we might have enough facts to form a possible solution to , too many sharks , at the moment we are still learning about them .
Cull , Ok so perhaps you are saying that there be no killing of the predators , or..???
I,m not freaked by sharks, I,m only promoting sensible fisheries management across the board. I dont stand on the left or right of this issue. Ive been actively involved in the Ocean trap and line fisheries for decades , tagged sharks ,, get regular updates from fisheries and csiro etc Ive stated that Ive skippered boats tendered to fisheries research. My commercial fishing fees have helped pay for it and my log books contribute to the general base of knowledge. Surfed ,fished and dived all my life ,Ive been blessed to make a living out of two them, and no I wasn't a pro surfer..So If you think I just googled the whole thing recently , it shows your powers of assumption are working fine. Am I an "expert"?, absolutely not. You believe what you want to believe ,.. See you in the lineup , and we'll see who shits themselves first when the man in grey suit decides to drop in.
Sensible fisheries management , now there's thought!
based on the facts that we have so far we are a long way off having enough information about sharks to start making sensible decisions , for surfers who are at the moment experiencing an increase in sharks in their area.
Sounds like you would be aware of how the fisheries in the last couple of decades have been decimated , with crays/abalone/Couta/Tuna really being hit, so yeah now there's concern as fishermen find it harder to get fish .......
Again the use of emotive terms like "decimate". I,m aware fisheries needed to slow some industries up and entirely agree with it only on the point of productivity though. All the fisheries you mentioned are quota managed , none are under threat , and fishermen that are left are still filling their boats , Another broad generalisation with no substance
.. Perhaps your going off that Pew research organisations propaganda that was debunked years ago about how 90% of the oceans fish being left by a certain date, Research like that was never formerly peer reviewed and has largely been suspected of having hidden agendas pertaining to the corporate world.
Any word on that shark that swam from South Africa to the GBR yet, or is that something else you just heard
OK decimate is too emotional for you tuby , yes we have quotas now , why?
Good to hear the Couta are doing good , and there are fisherman filling their boats with Crays and Tuna and abalone , would you say it's a growing industry or an industry that in in decline?
Yeah I watched a show on the GWS being tagged from SA to GBR and the tag came off in Bass Straight .
Does your arm chair come with a swivel
"You hear and read a lot of eco-waffle regarding marine resources . words like sustainability, precaution , delicate , threatened , endangered and biodiversity are applied liberally- but the real situation in the ocean is not nearly as dire or dramatic. These are emotive terms dressed up as scientific ones. They lend an aura of importance and urgency to hypothetical speculations when seeking extravagent funding to address imaginary problems. The simple truth is that no marine fish or invertebrate has ever been exterminated by fishing and none in Australia are even remotely threatened in this regard" " Dr W Starck again
yeah tubby , I actually use a couch , but when I read your waffle , and understand that there are no species threatened, no damage done to the eco system , no climate change , no sea level rise, never been any specie of whales threatened by overfishing , the Couta still run , there's abalone every where , falling off the rocks , Crays are just so abundant , yellow and blue fin tuna continue to populate the planet, yes Donald /Pauline and tubby!
haha , your'e funny guy ,boy wonder > you forgot to mention the sky isn't falling
yeah , everything is wonderful , healthy eco systems are overtaking mankind, economy is booming , the rise of Donald and Pauline is something we should all embrace , no problems here!
In science , definitions of anecdotal evidence include,
Casual observations or indications rather than rigorous scientific analysis , and information passed along by word of mouth but not documented scientifically
you mean like evidence that GWS shark numbers are increasing, the mainstay behind calls for culls.
we've got a bit more than anecdote now, with an intensive tagging program, listening stations and increased aerial surveillance.
That is hard data.
I,m not hearing the scientists calling for a cull, happyas. Thats politically driven ,
Unfortunately those decisions are political and often based on anecdotal evidence or fears and emotions that decide votes.
That is not the case here in Ballina.
The call for mitigation has come after a period of increased white shark numbers observed by both fisherman and surfers and a subsequent increase in the rate of attacks.
This isn't fear based or anecdotal evidence now. We have the attack and encounter rates and now we have very clear evidence from tagging and aerial surveillance of an increased number of juvenile/sub-adult white sharks.
That part of it, what is actually happening , is now not a subject of dispute. What is, is what to do about it.
Smart drumlines are incredibly effective at catching white sharks with minimal bycatch but their long term worth as a mean of reducing risk of shark attack is still debateable.
Nets work in reducing risk but carry a heavy bycatch penalty.
Reducing restrictions on netting salmon would go along way for a start in my mind, Eastern Australian Salmon has a low value commercially but was sold as trap bait to the lobster/crab/trap industry . Scientists have shown specific correlations between schools of salmon and white shark numbers both in East and West Oz,.. Not to mention the damage these massive marauding packs of pillagers can do to the juvenile populations of any fish once they enter estuaries on mass. Seals have also been known to follow the schools as well , and many were 'reportedly' spotted in Lake Macquarie NSW years ago chasing them.
And by taking this species practically out of the bait market has only put the demand up for less sustainable and more expensive product.
Theres a shark plague !
A salmon plague , more like locusts than an actual threat , but there is a relation to salmon attracting sharks inshore
So Exterminate the salmon?
It's logical if you think about it sharkman, if we wipe out sharks' food sources, the sharks will all starve to death and we'll be safer in the water.
We start with the salmon then move on to whales and seals, and turtles for the tiger sharks.
As an added bonus, when sharks really start to get hungry, we can test the theory as to whether or not sharks really do eat people, especially menstruating females.
you're right Am , I have said from the beginning that the increase in whales in the last 15 years is one of the factors contributing to increased shark numbers , and we could license the Japanese to come eat all the whales , and hopefully decrease the GWS population .
I like your reference to Laird and his menstruating female .....maybe we could use them as shark detectors?
Canary in the coal mine...
Note that I didn't mention "exterminating" salmon SM ,and I doubt we ever actually could,, I believe I suggested reducing restrictions, there's a major difference , but don't let that get in the way of your childish responses. Its not about wiping out the sharks food sources its about the volumes of fish attracting them into the surfzone. They believe a lot of attacks in South Africa happen in the 2 weeks after the sardine runs etc. I'm suggesting that our salmon resources are under utilised, and the guys doing the aerial survailence are noticing a connection . Annual Salmon migration numbers ,like mullet, can fluctuate heavily on a seasonal basis and its something the scientists are certainly looking at.
"the fisheries harvest in Australian waters is very low and declining , not from a paucity of fish stocks , but from management seemingly intent on reducing the Total Allowable Catch for which the main beneficiary will be for other countries.
Harvesting seafood is the most environmentally sustainable means of food production , with none of the impacts of terrestrial livestock or cropping production. For this reason alone management should be charged with providing the maximum sustainable yield from a resilient resource..." Max Rheese . Australian Environment Foundation