Shark Stories
update:
The best peer-reviewed estimate for the eastern Australia + New Zealand population comes from Hillary et al. (2018): ~280–650 adults and ~2,500–6,750 total. That is the figure most researchers cite as the first robust estimate for that region.
Nature
Genetic work since then confirms low effective breeder numbers and high relatedness, which increases conservation concern and motivates continued CKMR and genomic monitoring.
ResearchGate
Academia
Newer 2025 media claims of “<500 breeding animals for all of Australia” are noteworthy, but you should verify with the peer-reviewed paper or official NSW DPI/Deakin publications before using that figure in formal work.
Andrew P wrote:tubeshooter wrote:They take a DNA sample when they tag a shark, and they can extract DNA from a board that's been bitten by a shark.
We should be getting some info by now on which tag numbers are responsible for attacks.Not sure if they can use the DNA for identifying individuals tubey, more likely species
Such a sad incident that impacts the family and the whole community. Condolences to all.
Where are the all the shark biologists with updates on great white shark population figures?
i had a look and the numbers seem very outdated. Apparently 500 - 750 GWs on the east coast. I would x 100 that
wonder if the numbers on Dorsal are for each specie or all pooled together......funny how you never hear of bronze whalers these days as they were as common as dogs balls years ago
simba wrote:wonder if the numbers on Dorsal are for each specie or all pooled together......funny how you never hear of bronze whalers these days as they were as common as dogs balls years ago
Portland has been working hard to rid the coast of the bronzeys and seven gillers. as their saying goes 'if the tuna boat's fucked, it's flake off the breakwater, kids' (how's the even polarisation of the comments.. haha, love I Heart Portland.)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/188361684560807/posts/9292423857487832/
so if you have 280-650 adults and 2500 - 6750 total in 2016 (article published in 2018 so account for a couple of years lag when data were collected) how many of the 2220 - 6100 have reached adulthood in the last 9 years? accounting for natural mortality (slow growth, long lived = low natural mortality) and very limited fishing mortality. lots more methinks
stunet wrote:tubeshooter wrote:Yeah, I realise only a small percentage of large sharks have probably been tagged but it would be interesting to know if any of the tagged sharks have been responsible for one or more attacks.
Surely there must be one or two that have had a go.
And like Fraz suggests, maybe a higher level of notification if a shark with history has pinged a buoy.Steve may be better positioned to answer this than I am, but I recall someone checking the DPI quarterly records and finding that once a (tagged) shark was hooked on a drum line there was an increased chance it'd be hooked again.
The inferences from that - if it's true - would need to be closely studied as prima facie it'd seem the drum lines are attracting sharks. Some of those drum lines are pretty damn close to where I surf.
How often is the bait taken but the shark isn’t hooked would be another interesting angle. If they’re able to scoff a free feed off it…
I reckon they should get zapped or something when they drag them out. Rough them up a bit… condition them away from coming to the beaches.
The CSIRO has claimed "There is no scientific evidence showing tagged sharks being involved in human encounters."
Any evidence they have not been involved?
I found this on the DNA sampling of sharks, and it looks like identifying individuals can be done.
Forensic genetic identification of sharks involved in human attacks
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1872497321000958
simba wrote:wonder if the numbers on Dorsal are for each specie or all pooled together......funny how you never hear of bronze whalers these days as they were as common as dogs balls years ago
Simba, I think they are just tagging Whites, Bulls and Tigers so if the Bronzeys are not tagged there may not be any data for them.
Also looks like the numbering system is consecutive so the three species are lumped together which makes it difficult to say how many of each have been tagged.
Be interesting to drill down the data and look at some of the trends. For instance locally the catch rate of the Whites seems to drop off when the water is dirty, now it has finally cleared up, they are back on the bite.
burleigh wrote:Andrew P wrote:tubeshooter wrote:They take a DNA sample when they tag a shark, and they can extract DNA from a board that's been bitten by a shark.
We should be getting some info by now on which tag numbers are responsible for attacks.Not sure if they can use the DNA for identifying individuals tubey, more likely species
Such a sad incident that impacts the family and the whole community. Condolences to all.
Where are the all the shark biologists with updates on great white shark population figures?
i had a look and the numbers seem very outdated. Apparently 500 - 750 GWs on the east coast. I would x 100 that
The only way to count sharks is to count shark attacks. Hence the "provoked" BS category to downplay the numbers of shark attacks. Stakeholder science. Tagging them is animal cruelty for profit.
An excerpt from Sir Victor Coppleson's best seller " Shark Attack" page 245 from the chapter "Meeting The Menace"
"Queensland, Australia's warm tropical water state, had suffered 27 fatalities between 1914 and 1984. Meshing and drum set lines were introduced as anti-shark measures in 1962. Since then, Queensland has had only one fatality."
Richard Cheese wrote:An excerpt from Sir Victor Coppleson's best seller " Shark Attack" page 245 from the chapter "Meeting The Menace"
"Queensland, Australia's warm tropical water state, had suffered 27 fatalities between 1914 and 1984. Meshing and drum set lines were introduced as anti-shark measures in 1962. Since then, Queensland has had only one fatality."
I suppose it depends upon what you regard as a fatality, hundreds of thousands of other mammals and living organisms have lost their lives also to those hideous nets. So that doesn’t count ?
You being a person of religious faith, well, where does your ‘description’ of life start and end or do you just select the bits that suit you and your narrative.
Hypocrisy 101. AW
stunet wrote:Steve may be better positioned to answer this than I am, but I recall someone checking the DPI quarterly records and finding that once a (tagged) shark was hooked on a drum line there was an increased chance it'd be hooked again.
Opposite Stu.
Previously caught and tagged sharks have been recaught but it's uncommon.
Most of the sharks caught and tagged are cleanskins.
I'd love to take a couple of weeks and do a proper deep dive into the Tagging/Listening station data.
The few sharks that have been recaught would give us valuable info about growth rates.
Some of the basic biology still seems very fuzzy and incomplete- growth rates, age to sexual maturity in each sex, litter sizes, frequency of reproduction etc etc.
freeride76 wrote:stunet wrote:Steve may be better positioned to answer this than I am, but I recall someone checking the DPI quarterly records and finding that once a (tagged) shark was hooked on a drum line there was an increased chance it'd be hooked again.
Opposite Stu.
Previously caught and tagged sharks have been recaught but it's uncommon.
Most of the sharks caught and tagged are cleanskins.
I'd love to take a couple of weeks and do a proper deep dive into the Tagging/Listening station data.
The few sharks that have been recaught would give us valuable info about growth rates.
Some of the basic biology still seems very fuzzy and incomplete- growth rates, age to sexual maturity in each sex, litter sizes, frequency of reproduction etc etc.
I've approved your research FR. Would be a great article that will bring loads of eyes to swellnet.
Sign the cheque Ben.
There's actually a lot of current science being done on white sharks at present- I'm trying to catch up on it all.
I’d chip in some cash to support swellnet-sponsored citizen science. Enough cash we could fund a couple of weeks’ research.
An issue close to my heart. I know the stats say an attack is unlikely for the average punter. The odds change for those of us who surf. And the data is very opaque.
freeride76 wrote:There's actually a lot of current science being done on white sharks at present- I'm trying to catch up on it all.
Forgoing the quantitative stuff for a minute, lets look at the lines of evidence regarding population dynamics just for GWS on the East Coast.
GWS are listed as vulnerable due to their slow growth and low reproduction rates;
They have been afforded protection for 26 years;
Fishing mortality on GWS has been substantially reduced via widespread reduction in boat days;
They are subject to very few natural predators;
Some GWS that interact with shark control gear (i.e. NSW) are no longer killed so can add to the population;
Strong cohorts of juvenile and sub-adult GWS have been witnessed (eg. Stockton Beach, Port Stephens, Ballina);
Lots of GWS have been caught and tagged in the last decade (approaching 1000 from the NSW work alone);
The illegal/unreported/unregulated harvest of GWS is less of a problem for GWS on Eastern Australia as foreign fishing fleets are further away compared to Northern Australia;
Oceanic productivity from la Nina cycles bring favourable conditions for GWS (water temps, currents, food sources etc.).
Even with slow maturity and low reproduction rates, over 26 years the population has a capacity to increase.
On the balance of this evidence, what would you say about the state of the GWS population in Eastern Australia?
Where are all the shark scientists who have these lines of evidence (and quantitative data) and why aren't they saying there is a possibility of the population increasing since 1999? All we hear is how low their population numbers are, with estimates ranging orders of magnitude.
In the meantime, increases in numbers of shark interactions are implicated as "bad luck" or "result of more people in the ocean more frequently". These are clearly not the only factors.
Remember, GWS are only listed as vulnerable, not endangered or critically endangered which afford much higher protection. For example, koalas are listed as vulnerable, eastern quoll as endangered and eastern curlew as critically endangered. How many fatal attacks on humans are these involved in? What sort of protection are these animal given?
tubeshooter wrote:The CSIRO has claimed "There is no scientific evidence showing tagged sharks being involved in human encounters."
Any evidence they have not been involved?I found this on the DNA sampling of sharks, and it looks like identifying individuals can be done.
Forensic genetic identification of sharks involved in human attacks
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1872497321000958
I'm sure it can be done, but isn't being done in the case of NSW tagging program
tubeshooter wrote:The CSIRO has claimed "There is no scientific evidence showing tagged sharks being involved in human encounters."
Any evidence they have not been involved?
Of course there is no "evidence". The "human" having the "encounter" is definetly not looking for a tag on the shark during this "experience"....
Andrew P wrote:In the meantime, increases in numbers of shark interactions are implicated as "bad luck" or "result of more people in the ocean more frequently". These are clearly not the only factors.
Time to completely discard those explanations.
They are so unscientific they are a joke.
Opinions from this guy might anger some.
One thing I'd like to know; are drumlines/baits bringing sharks closer to beaches where they weren't seen before? I have no idea, but my guess is they were showing up in greater numbers at those beaches before they introduced the drumlines.
Johknee wrote:One thing I'd like to know; are drumlines/baits bringing sharks closer to beaches where they weren't seen before? I have no idea, but my guess is they were showing up in greater numbers at those beaches before they introduced the drumlines.
This is what I was driving at earlier when thinking the same sharks were repeatedly being caught on drum lines.
That factoid was debunked by Steve.
If repeat catches on drum lines are rare then you might assume they aren't luring sharks in closer.
In the case of this region, the increase in sharks predated the drum-lines- or any other mitigation efforts including a net trial run over summers 16/17 and 17/18.
Attacks spiked here in 2014/15- there was a townhall meeting with surfers calling for action in July 2015.
Aug2015 DPI arrived and instituted a tagging program.
Chief scientist for the DPI Vic Pedemoors went on local radio the morning of the tagging and said white sharks were very rare and he didn't expect to tag many- despite frequent encounters and sightings. He basically called bullshit on the surfers.
I think they got 3 or 4 in the first few hours within a mile of Ballina Bar.
They tagged 9 or 10 in 3 rounds of tagging over that spring -mostly juveys and sub-adults.
Smart Drum Lines are set 12 months here and you can follow the data in real-time.
"I think they got 3 or 4 in the first few hours within a mile of Ballina Bar."
If that's accurate, that's incredible.
Sorry, found my notes.
2 within the opening hr, within a mile of Ballina Bar.
I think they got close to a hundred tagged whites before the drum lines went in.
Andrew P wrote:freeride76 wrote:There's actually a lot of current science being done on white sharks at present- I'm trying to catch up on it all.
Forgoing the quantitative stuff for a minute, lets look at the lines of evidence regarding population dynamics just for GWS on the East Coast.
GWS are listed as vulnerable due to their slow growth and low reproduction rates;
They have been afforded protection for 26 years;
Fishing mortality on GWS has been substantially reduced via widespread reduction in boat days;
They are subject to very few natural predators;
Some GWS that interact with shark control gear (i.e. NSW) are no longer killed so can add to the population;
Strong cohorts of juvenile and sub-adult GWS have been witnessed (eg. Stockton Beach, Port Stephens, Ballina);
Lots of GWS have been caught and tagged in the last decade (approaching 1000 from the NSW work alone);
The illegal/unreported/unregulated harvest of GWS is less of a problem for GWS on Eastern Australia as foreign fishing fleets are further away compared to Northern Australia;
Oceanic productivity from la Nina cycles bring favourable conditions for GWS (water temps, currents, food sources etc.).Even with slow maturity and low reproduction rates, over 26 years the population has a capacity to increase.
On the balance of this evidence, what would you say about the state of the GWS population in Eastern Australia?
Where are all the shark scientists who have these lines of evidence (and quantitative data) and why aren't they saying there is a possibility of the population increasing since 1999? All we hear is how low their population numbers are, with estimates ranging orders of magnitude.
In the meantime, increases in numbers of shark interactions are implicated as "bad luck" or "result of more people in the ocean more frequently". These are clearly not the only factors.
Remember, GWS are only listed as vulnerable, not endangered or critically endangered which afford much higher protection. For example, koalas are listed as vulnerable, eastern quoll as endangered and eastern curlew as critically endangered. How many fatal attacks on humans are these involved in? What sort of protection are these animal given?
The science is in place so as to determine whether shark numbers are actually increasing, or whether its a case of populations shifting from a place of low food sources to a place of higher food sources.
None of us currently know the answer to that, and these studies are painstakingly slow.
But i'd like to get to the bottom of that question.
Keep in mind all the pointers cleared out from Sth Africa a few years ago and there's been reports this year from the mongrel Neptune Island cage dive operators that shark numbers have been very low, so perhaps a population shifting?
stunet wrote:Johknee wrote:One thing I'd like to know; are drumlines/baits bringing sharks closer to beaches where they weren't seen before? I have no idea, but my guess is they were showing up in greater numbers at those beaches before they introduced the drumlines.
This is what I was driving at earlier when thinking the same sharks were repeatedly being caught on drum lines.
That factoid was debunked by Steve.
If repeat catches on drum lines are rare then you might assume they aren't luring sharks in closer.
I didn't pick up on that earlier, but now you point it out, that's logical!
Whether shark numbers , either GWS or any other species are increasing or decreasing in numbers, who are we to decide that we should cull, trap, hook or net them.
Leave organisms to their own devices, the most destructive animals on this planet are Homo sapiens, we kill more species including humans than any other entity, we have altered, interrupted , pushed and dramatically reduced school (bony) and cartilaginous fish to the horizon of extinction.
We are the ones that should start a global culling program, less new borns would be a great start. AW
Game fishing (more stakeholders for the govt cash cow) for the GW is one of the many ways that could be used to save Human lives. The word ‘cull’ just elicits manic emotions where logic is actually required. The GW was never ‘endangered’ this has now been established... 'vulnerable' is too ambiguous. It was observed in 1989' that the GW population was still strong. And there were still attacks then... so clearly they were not endangered. So we now have a proliferation. Ask the fishos.
Nets.. find the NSW coastline length, then add up all the NSW net lengths in total. See now the percentage of coastline netted. Its minuscule, as is the bycatch. 2000 kms of coast. Approx 100 nets at 100 metres is 10kms. 0.5% NSW coastline covered. 5mtrs for every 1000mtrs of coastline. The marine parks are thriving if there's so much bycatch. The last 20 years I’ve seen more sea life than ever in my 50 years surfing in NSW. The gentler creatures of the ocean are also being terrorised by the GW proliferation. One of our jobs as Humans is to manage the animals responsibly.
Coppleson left us a legacy to study... and not afflicted by any stakeholder agenda.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sir Victor Copplesons 1958' best seller “Shark Attack” page 246 of "Meeting The Menace"
“The main anti-shark measure used off surfing beaches in NSW, as in South Africa, is the mesh net. In NSW , meshing was introduced as an anti-shark measure in January 1935. It was extended in 1937 and again in 1949 to cover the most popular surfing beaches. Clearly, any effective anti shark measure reduces the shark population in a particular area, and so reduces the likelihood of an attack. Off Sydney, where meshing was first introduced, there has been only one attack, a non-fatal off Bondi.
Since the meshing at Durban in 1952, there were only 3 attacks until 1978 — all non fatal attacks in the Durban area. Dunedin, New Zealand, following a series of attacks, also introduced meshing, and again its effectiveness has been shown.
Before meshing was introduced, however, shark attacks off Sydney beaches were becoming so frequent that there was a pronounced public lack of confidence in bathing, and in 1924 the NSW govt set up a special Shark Menace Advisory Committee to investigate and report on the best methods of protecting bathers from the man killers.
Between October 1937 and February 1939, 1500 sharks were meshed between Palm Beach and Cronulla. Of these 900 were large sharks believed to be man-killers”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The first rule of science is observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_shark_attacks_in_Australia
Hi AW I know we’ve discussed this at length at other times and I always appreciate your contributions. I’m not advocating for anything except transparency and common sense regarding populations of an apex predator that interact with humans sometimes causing catastrophic consequences. I’m trying to understand why these interactions are happening, and if possible, how to reduce the number of human fatalities. If increasing populations and/or range shifts are occurring we need to share that info with the ocean users so they may conduct their own risk assessments. As I scientist I understand why these studies take so long and why confident statements about population sizes and movements are hard to give. Like FR said the unscientific explanations/excuses of “low risk/unlucky” and “more ocean users” contributing to the interactions are dismissive and do not sit well with an educated and aware society using the ocean. In the vacuum of expert comment we have a punter (bitemetrix) who has collated a range of factors that contribute to increased shark activity in an area, and feels a moral obligation to make his knowledge available to the wider public. Why is this left up to a punter? Where are the scientists studying these factors and producing a risk spectrum so ocean users can make informed decisions about going in the ocean? Kinda like a fire risk or flood risk classification we benefit from on land
When we don’t have robust population estimates from stock assessments we use lines of evidence to make judgements on stock levels of other fish in the sea - that’s my bread and butter! My point is why are no shark scientists prepared to do this for a population of apex predators that pose a small but catastrophic risk to ocean users? Dr Charlie Huveneers has suggested the southern and western population are increasing without empirical data. Why can’t the same be said for the eastern population when they are afforded the same protection that the SW are? Is it not common sense to at least consider assessment using available evidence while we wait for the new science to be delivered?
Richard Cheese wrote:Game fishing (more stakeholders for the govt cash cow) for the GW is one of the many ways that could be used to save Human lives. The word ‘cull’ just elicits manic emotions where logic is actually required. The GW was never ‘endangered’ this has now been established... 'vulnerable' is too ambiguous. It was observed in 1989' that the GW population was still strong. And there were still attacks then... so clearly they were not endangered. So we now have a proliferation. Ask the fishos.
Nets.. find the NSW coastline length, then add up all the NSW net lengths in total. See now the percentage of coastline netted. Its minuscule, as is the bycatch. 2000 kms of coast. Approx 100 nets at 100 metres is 10kms. 0.5% NSW coastline covered. 5mtrs for every 1000mtrs of coastline. The marine parks are thriving if there's so much bycatch. The last 20 years I’ve seen more sea life than ever in my 50 years surfing in NSW. The gentler creatures of the ocean are also being terrorised by the GW proliferation. One of our jobs as Humans is to manage the animals responsibly.
Coppleson left us a legacy to study... and not afflicted by any stakeholder agenda.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sir Victor Copplesons 1958' best seller “Shark Attack” page 246 of "Meeting The Menace"
“The main anti-shark measure used off surfing beaches in NSW, as in South Africa, is the mesh net. In NSW , meshing was introduced as an anti-shark measure in January 1935. It was extended in 1937 and again in 1949 to cover the most popular surfing beaches. Clearly, any effective anti shark measure reduces the shark population in a particular area, and so reduces the likelihood of an attack. Off Sydney, where meshing was first introduced, there has been only one attack, a non-fatal off Bondi.
Since the meshing at Durban in 1952, there were only 3 attacks until 1978 — all non fatal attacks in the Durban area. Dunedin, New Zealand, following a series of attacks, also introduced meshing, and again its effectiveness has been shown.
Before meshing was introduced, however, shark attacks off Sydney beaches were becoming so frequent that there was a pronounced public lack of confidence in bathing, and in 1924 the NSW govt set up a special Shark Menace Advisory Committee to investigate and report on the best methods of protecting bathers from the man killers.
Between October 1937 and February 1939, 1500 sharks were meshed between Palm Beach and Cronulla. Of these 900 were large sharks believed to be man-killers”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The first rule of science is observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_shark_attacks_in_Australia
Richard Cheese. Watch out for those man killers.
Do they kill women as well ? What tripe. AW
Andrew P wrote:Hi AW I know we’ve discussed this at length at other times and I always appreciate your contributions. I’m not advocating for anything except transparency and common sense regarding populations of an apex predator that interact with humans sometimes causing catastrophic consequences. I’m trying to understand why these interactions are happening, and if possible, how to reduce the number of human fatalities. If increasing populations and or range shifts are occurring we need to share that info with the ocean users so they may conduct their own risk assessments. As I scientist I understand why these studies take so long and why confident statements about population sizes and movements are hard to give. Like FR said the unscientific explanations/excuses of “low risk/unlucky” and “more ocean users” contributing to the interactions are dismissive and do not sit well with an educated and aware society using the ocean.
When we don’t have robust population estimates from stock assessments we use lines of evidence to make judgements on stock levels of other fish in the sea - that’s my bread and butter! My point is why are no shark scientists prepared to do this for a population of apex predators that pose a small but catastrophic risk to ocean users? Dr Charlie Huveneers has suggested the southern and western population are increasing without empirical data. Why can’t the same be said for the eastern population when they are afforded the same protection that the SW are? Is it not common sense to at least consider assessment using available evidence while we wait for the new science to be delivered?
AndrewP. Hi fella. Hope you’re well.
Likewise mate, I always enjoy your contributions, we may not always agree, that’s human nature, but we are both attempting to steer the ship in the right direction.
I’m not a scientist, but I think I’m one, I’m an incessant reader and self researcher, didn’t do well at school at any level I’ve ADD, always looking out the window and not at the blackboard, the biological world outside has intrigued and interested me since I was 4 years of age I’m told. I’ve spent the last 56 years catching up on science as a now 60 year old.
The shark interaction with humans intrigues me, it doesn’t surprise me for obvious reasons.
I like FR’s insight also, because he is seeing and hearing in real time , way too many attacks and not good outcomes.
It’s obvious we have a load more data and information to analyse and disseminate, the more feedback from the many and varied areas of Australia that has consistent
interaction the better.
Ultimately, we may never reach that point of understanding why, where and how attacks occur.
Or, is it just a matter of society having to have a very small acceptable level of fatalities and just living with that.
We may never be able to eliminate or mitigate circumstances that lead up to an attack.
Always good to talk with you. AW
AlfredWallace wrote:Whether shark numbers , either GWS or any other species are increasing or decreasing in numbers, who are we to decide that we should cull, trap, hook or net them.
Leave organisms to their own devices, the most destructive animals on this planet are Homo sapiens, we kill more species including humans than any other entity, we have altered, interrupted , pushed and dramatically reduced school (bony) and cartilaginous fish to the horizon of extinction.We are the ones that should start a global culling program, less new borns would be a great start. AW
Yep!! Agreed AW
Just reading Huveneer et al's paper in Science Direct : Shifts in the incidence of shark bites and efficacy of beach-focussed mitigation in Australia.
Lots to digest in there but this immediately stood out. "From the 1940s to the 1990s, there were few shark bites at ocean beaches in New South Wales. Since 2000, the number of shark bites increased four-fold along the coast, with most bites attributed to white sharks".
The majority of those attacks have been on surfers and on the North Coast and Mid North Coast.
A four fold increase in mostly white shark attacks since 2000.
So through the surf booms of the 60's, 80's and late 90's no change, then a four fold increase in attacks.
If increasing numbers of people in the water was to blame, we would have seen an increase in rate of attacks through the previous surf booms.
Anecdotal, 90's saw incidence of close encounters & drive-bys down south WA, then after 2000 it was very active for attacks.
AlfredWallace wrote:Whether shark numbers , either GWS or any other species are increasing or decreasing in numbers, who are we to decide that we should cull, trap, hook or net them.
A species that has been deciding to cull, trap, hook and net animals for about 300,000 years? In environments terrestrial through to aquatic.
Andrew P wrote:When we don’t have robust population estimates from stock assessments we use lines of evidence to make judgements on stock levels of other fish in the sea - that’s my bread and butter!
Andrew P: if you can, can you please tell us what you are seeing? Are we seeing stocks re-establish across the board in healthy numbers? Are we seeing any unbalanced parts of the ecosystem?
Whales and pinnipeds are protected, the GWS is protected, other species are fished within limits, marine parks exist inshore, and far offshore it's a free-for all with massive factory fishing fleets strip mining the sea. Not quite a pre-1788 ocean. It would be great to quantify the state of it all.
freeride76 wrote:Just reading Huveneer et al's paper in Science Direct : Shifts in the incidence of shark bites and efficacy of beach-focussed mitigation in Australia.
Lots to digest in there but this immediately stood out. "From the 1940s to the 1990s, there were few shark bites at ocean beaches in New South Wales. Since 2000, the number of shark bites increased four-fold along the coast, with most bites attributed to white sharks".
The majority of those attacks have been on surfers and on the North Coast and Mid North Coast.
A four fold increase in mostly white shark attacks since 2000.
So through the surf booms of the 60's, 80's and late 90's no change, then a four fold increase in attacks.
If increasing numbers of people in the water was to blame, we would have seen an increase in rate of attacks through the previous surf booms.
Yep, it's completely unprecedented as far as records go back to have seen such a large population increase. Pointers were never a consideration on the E coast til 2015ish
Loving your work FR and others. Keep it up. Very informative.
I'd chip in for a thorough investigation also.
Just a thought, and i hate to tempt fate but the South of WA has all the big dog sharks swimming past here (they have to...most southerly point etc)...yet minimal increase if any in sightings etc.
You'd imagine if the pointers were increasing in numbers so dramatically, this would be reflected here. Victoria also. Hence why i believe it's possibly more reflective of a population re distribution rather than a dramatic increase in numbers of pointers in the ocean.
southernraw wrote:I'd chip in for a thorough investigation also.
fucken oath @etarip and @SR.. we've been whinging that surfers aren't consulted enough about shark research for so long, I think we've lost confidence that the best among us might be able to corral sensible knowledge and data and seminally (?) dismiss pervading ignorance in shark knowledge not relevant to surfers' safety (a lot isn't directly).
I reckon clever and interested surfers might drive the thinking and public-engagement theses and provoking-thunks.. but I fear if 40 of us gave $10 each.. it might not mean a lot re research enablement..
basesix wrote:southernraw wrote:I'd chip in for a thorough investigation also.
fucken oath @etarip and @SR.. we've been whinging that surfers aren't consulted enough about shark research for so long, I think we've lost confidence that the best among us might be able to corral sensible knowledge and data and seminally (?) dismiss pervading ignorance in shark knowledge not relevant to surfers' safety (a lot isn't directly).
I reckon clever and interested surfers might drive the thinking and public-engagement theses and provoking-thunks.. but I fear if 40 of us gave $10 each.. it might not mean a lot re research enablement..
Exactly mate. It's not just the contest reports FR excels in. Deep, thoughtful and unbiased investigation that seems to be lacking in all the other agencies that keep rolling out the same old predictable statements. Bees, lightning, they don't like the taste of humans....blah blah.
We all know that sort of talk is just gibberish from people who aren't close to the source.
And i reckon there'd be more than 40 and would be happy to chip in 50. A fair investment as far as i'm concerned.
Bees??
I’ll chip in $100.
Half for me and half for my groms
basesix wrote:Bees??
Australian Institute of Marine Science....
'More people each year are killed by elephants, crocodiles, bees, and wars and many other dangers that confront us, than by sharks.'
Sure thing. If you live in a landlocked town or burb and dip your toes in the shallows annually, shit yeah, bees are an issue.
https://www.aims.gov.au/docs/projectnet/sharks-02.html
btw i'm glad an Australian marine institute put elephants on that list....because that makes alot of sense in Australia too.
farknell.. like the drowning stats.. surfers really, REALLY need their own stats, hey?
basesix wrote:farknell.. like the drowning stats.. surfers really, REALLY need their own stats, hey?
Yep! It's laughable until you realise it's the actual number 1 government agency of marine science peddling this shit.
southernraw wrote:basesix wrote:Bees??
Australian Institute of Marine Science....
'More people each year are killed by elephants, crocodiles, bees, and wars and many other dangers that confront us, than by sharks.'
Sure thing. If you live in a landlocked town or burb and dip your toes in the shallows annually, shit yeah, bees are an issue.
https://www.aims.gov.au/docs/projectnet/sharks-02.html
btw i'm glad an Australian marine institute put elephants on that list....because that makes alot of sense in Australia too.
Well you could live next door to Werribee zoo.
FR - I'd chip in. Do the research, please.
southernraw wrote:Just a thought, and i hate to tempt fate but the South of WA has all the big dog sharks swimming past here (they have to...most southerly point etc)...yet minimal increase if any in sightings etc.
You'd imagine if the pointers were increasing in numbers so dramatically, this would be reflected here. Victoria also. Hence why i believe it's possibly more reflective of a population re distribution rather than a dramatic increase in numbers of pointers in the ocean.
It's certainly being reflected in the Esperance area. But that's a little while away from the Gt Southern.
A few interesting stories on shark attacks and near misses on the Shark Shield report so I thought I would start this thread. Don't want to trivialize the subject as people have had their lives taken or changed forever by what can happen. I thought it might serve as an educational purpose by hearing others experiences so we may all learn from them and hopefully avoid it happening to us.
One of them was a mate of mine named Hazey.
He had been surfing at Castles, a notoriously sharky wave in the bay at Cactus.
Several hundred metres offshore the wave breaks before reforming into Inside Castles making a long left with several sections. The wave has been the scene of several attacks and near misses over the years including the local known as "Sharkbait" who had been attacked more than once.
Gerry Lopez is another who came very close to being attacked out there and vowed to never surf Cactus again after his near miss.
Well Hazey was surfing out the back with another bloke named Steve when out of the blue he was launched into the air still on his board by a huge force from below.
A shark had rammed him with a direct hit straight up into the air! In a moment it was gone but soon returned to the stunned Hazey and started biting him and his board. Hazey instinctively put his arms out to protect himself but both his arms ended up in its mouth. As the jaws closed down his arms could have easily been severed, but several teeth on the sharks lower jaw had become dislodged and imbedded in the board leaving his upper arms with massive injuries, but the vital inner arms where major arteries run were not majorly damaged. This probably saved his life.
By this time Steve had reacted and in a rush of adrenalin and pure ballsy courage he threw himself onto the sharks back and started gouging at the sharks eyeballs, eventually feeling one pop and the shark departed.
Steve got the two surfboards together and got himself and Hazey on and started the long paddle to shore.
Then they were both thrown into the air as the shark rammed them a third time before disappearing again. They continued to make their way closer to shore and the shark nudged them again. Steve told me he thought he really must of pissed it off when he popped its eye.
Finally they we're just a metre from shore when the shark made its fifth and final appearance. It beelined towards them and the shore while they stood in waist deep water with their boards. The sharks mouth was just rapidly opening and closing like one of those wind up sets of false teeth. The boys separated and put their hands on either side of it's body and held it on a 90 degree angle to the beach as they made the final steps to the safety of the sand.
Hazey was rushed to Ceduna hospital and then flown to Adelaide for micro surgery on his shredded arms.
Steve ended up receiving a bravery award and they both sold their story to 60 minutes and made $50,000 each out of it!
It was quite a story!