Large Shark catch and kill order WA.

Pastavore

Pastavore

Eats Squid
Opsi, I think the issue with the stats is that the numbers are so low that what has happened since 2011 might just be a statistically insignificant blib. Its a bit like looking at rates of alcohol consumption in australia, taking data from new years eve only, and then claiming that 95% of australian adults are pissed all the time.
 
johnny

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
* Edit - actually, I'm going to back right out of the stats debate again as I hadn't read the last 8 posts before I wrote that....
 
Last edited:
DeBloot

DeBloot

Feeling old
I don't get the statistics
And i don't get them in so far as who gives a flying fuck what they are
Life is risky, but us humans just have to mitigate risks to ridiculous degrees in order to continue our fluffy lives

And i saw Vic He's slop mentioned
It's turds like him that need to be culled
But no - not in our civilised society could we do such a thing

Dear o dear
The older i get the more i need to go and live on an isolated island with a bike and a pump track
And if I went for a swim and got taken by a shark, it would be the same as a coconut falling on my head and cracking my skull open
Just my time to go - unlucky
 
pink poodle

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
For a fee I can come to your island and cut down those coconut trees to make I safe? I'll put up some signs while I am at it. Likely I will need to bulldoze your pump track while I am at it....you know to keep it safe.

Our society is filled with stupid people who want the illusion of being safe. And they will destroy your fun to achieve it.

In a east vs west twist of fate...a game fisherman was recently photographed in the local paper with a 300+kg shark. The community seems outraged by such an act. Yet a few months ago an old guy caught a large shark in the. Nearby lake and he was a hero....
 
Hamsta

Hamsta

Likes Bikes and Dirt
The way I view the shark situation is possibly a little too simple for many but I like the simplicity. More people in the water, more seals in the seal colonies and maybe more large sharks cruising past due to historical measures to protect the species. It is really pretty straight forward. Like a lot of situations in life, if an individual perceives there to be too much risk involved with a pastime, he or she doesn't participate. No-one is forced at gun point to enter the ocean so if the anxiety provoked by recent attacks is unsettling then perhaps it is time to find another pastime. People have control of their destiny...not the sharks.
 
mxracer92

mxracer92

Likes Dirt
what about the poor chickens, sheep , pigs , cow , etc we cull for food .. they did us no harm ..

humans are all bad .. unless ur a hippie eating vegan

i dont wanna see sharks culled no matter what the stats .. we all have a choice .. u dont wanna get eaten , dont go to the beach .

cycle of life is tough game no matter what angle you look at it .. we consume the planet and all its resources.

lets just hope the targeted sharks are just going to be part of ya fish n chip menu .
 
H

houli77

Likes Dirt
i wonder what would happen if the same number of people were killed by bears riding bikes in whistler in the summer?
 
johnny

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
How would a bear be able to ride a bike and eat some one at the same time.

That's just stupid.
 
johnny

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
I haven't read these but they seem relevant.

Also there's a lot of graphics, video and source links that haven't transferred over, find it here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-22/can-governments-protect-people-from-killer-sharks/5158880
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-22/fact-file-protecting-people-from-shark-attacks/5164882



Fact File: Protecting people from shark attacks

Updated Wed 15 Jan 2014, 4:58pm AEDT
Swimming prohibited sign at Avalon Beach Photo: Swimmers warned at a Sydney beach after a 15-year-old boy was mauled by a shark while surfing, 2009. (AAP: Jack Atley)
Map: Australia

As the weather warms up, many Australians head to the beach and into the water. They share the sea with a variety of creatures, including sharks.

ABC Fact Check has taken a look at the WA Government's new policy to control sharks. Now Fact Check examines some of the contested issues about attempts to protect swimmers and surfers from attack.
Are shark attacks a real problem?

While every fatal shark attack is a tragedy for the families and friends involved, the number of shark attacks worldwide every year is quite low.

Incidents involving sharks are usually grouped into "provoked" and "unprovoked" encounters. A provoked attack occurs "when a human purposely or accidently attracts a shark or initiates physical contact with a shark", such as when a fisherman is bitten while unhooking a shark. An unprovoked attack occurs when "a shark is in its natural habitat and has made a determined attempt to bite a human without the human provoking the shark". Public talk of shark attack usually relates to unprovoked attacks.

According to the International Shark Attack File maintained by the Florida Museum of Natural History, there were 118 shark attacks on people in 2012, 80 of which were unprovoked. Forty-two attacks were in the United States, 14 in Australia, four in South Africa and three in the small French island territory of Reunion. Of the 118 attacks, only seven were fatal: three in South Africa, two in Australia and one each in the US and Reunion. The long-term trend indicates an increasing number of shark attacks, possibly due to an increasing number of people going into the water, the museum says.
People wearing tee shirts saying protect our children from sharks Photo: People wearing tee-shirts reading "protect our children" after a shark attack on the French Indian Ocean island of Reunion on October 27, 2013. (AFP: Richard Bouhet )

As noted in the fact check on the new Western Australian shark control measures, there have been very few fatal attacks at beaches protected by shark nets and drumlines. For example, in Durban, South Africa there have been no fatal shark attacks since nets were installed in the 1950s, compared with seven deaths in the preceding 10 years.

The relatively small number of shark attacks is often illustrated by comparing the chance of a shark attack with other causes of death or injury. For example, it has been reported that "more Americans were killed by collapsing sinkholes (16) than sharks (11) between 1990 and 2006, and more by tornadoes (125) than sharks (6) in Florida between 1985 and 2010". Surf Life Saving South Australia suggests that there is a "much higher risk of drowning at the beach (121 average a year - with 300 drownings around Australia in all aquatic venues) than from being bitten or killed by a shark". Perhaps the sharpest contrast is in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa where a well-organised shark control program has reduced fatalities from shark attack at Durban beaches to zero. By contrast, according to the Crimestats SA website, in 2013 alone there were 58 reported murders in the precincts that include Durban's main beaches.

Of course, comparative statistics are of no comfort to those affected by an attack or businesses that suffer because people are scared of going into the water. The government of the tourism-focused island Reunion appear to take the view that five shark attacks since 2011 is too many and a real problem. This year they announced a cull of 90 sharks.
Are nets meant to act as a protective barrier?

Shark nets in place in NSW, Queensland and South Africa are not intended to act as a barrier or fence, preventing sharks from coming close to shore. It is sometimes suggested that they do not work because sharks can swim over or under them.

The purpose of these nets is to kill dangerous sharks, thereby reducing shark numbers and the chance of an attack. According to the KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board, nets "may have a limited barrier effect as well, but the fact that about one-third of the catch is caught on the shoreward side of the nets is evidence that such an effect is only partial".
Shark prevention net in Hong Kong's Repulse Bay Photo: A shark prevention net in Hong Kong's Repulse Bay on November 8, 2013. (AFP: Philippe Lopez)

There is another shark control measure known as a "shark enclosure" or "shark barrier". The point of these is to provide a "complete physical barrier that [prevents] sharks entering an area without killing the sharks or other species". According to several shark experts (including South Africans Alison Kock and Dr Sheldon Dudley) writing in a book on the risks of white shark attack, these enclosures are usually made up of either small mesh nets that do not capture animals or concrete, steel or wood pylons. In Australia, there are barriers installed at areas including Sydney Harbour beaches (made up of small mesh and/or vertical steel bars) and Gold Coast canals.

A prominent user of enclosures is Hong Kong, which calls them shark prevention nets (SPNs). The Hong Kong Leisure and Cultural Services Department tells Fact Check that SPNs are installed at 37 public beaches during the summer season, with four beaches having them in place all year round. The department says that there have been no injuries or fatalities from shark attack since the nets were introduced in 1995 and therefore its view is that "installation of SPNs is an effective shark prevention measure to protect swimming safety at our public beaches".

Ms Kock, of Cape Town's Shark Spotters organisation, tells Fact Check that her organisation is trialling a shark exclusion net at a local Cape Town beach. Unlike the Hong Kong net, it will be deployed and retrieved on a daily basis to minimise environmental impacts. Ms Kock says it is too soon to conclude that the net has been effective.

Shark enclosures are not used more widely because they usually disintegrate in surf beaches, and so are normally constructed only around sheltered areas such as harbour beaches. Dr Dudley has noted that where there are surf conditions at Hong Kong beaches, the swell is "typically small". Even if they were in place at surf beaches, they would not protect surfers who go some distance from shore.
Are there any other ways to protect beachgoers?

While shark nets and drumlines have been shown to be an effective way of protecting beachgoers against shark attack, other methods have been used with varying degrees of success.

One of the less successful was tried in South Africa in the late 1950s following a number of attacks that were affecting the Natal tourism industry. According to the KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board, the South African Navy decided to set off a series of explosions in the ocean. While this measure killed at least eight sharks, it "probably attracted more sharks to the area to feed on dead fish," the board says.

A more conventional approach adopted in Australian states to varying degrees is the use of aerial patrols to search for sharks that are near the shoreline of popular beaches. For example, in South Australia patrols by fixed-wing aircraft cover the metropolitan coastline during the summer. According to the SA Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, "[w]hen a shark is seen near the shore or swimmers, the fixed wing aircraft will start a circular flying pattern and sound a siren to warn swimmers to leave the water as quickly as possible". The effectiveness of aerial shark patrols has been questioned. A 2012 report funded by the NSW Department of Primary Industries found that while "aerial patrols will detect some coastal sharks, the rates of such detections are inconsistent with that required for an effective early detection system", concluding that "aerial patrols are extremely limited in detecting sharks in coastal NSW waters, while giving the public an inflated sense of protection against shark attack".
Shark warning flag at Fish Hoek beach in Cape Town Photo: A black shark warning flag indicating poor visibility on Cape Town's Muizenberg beach, 2012. (Reuters: Mike Hutchings)

In Cape Town, the Shark Spotters program, introduced in 2004, works at eight beaches. Ms Kock tells Fact Check it "employs 30 people who spot and record white sharks in the inshore area, warning and evacuating water-users when white sharks are present". The organisation has recorded more than 1,500 shark sightings and Ms Kock says "the Spotters program... has been successful at reducing risk, but of course it isn't a 100 per cent guarantee". There has been one fatality and one major injury since the program began. "The fatality took place when the spotting conditions were very poor," she says. "The major injury took place when we had closed the beach to the public because three white sharks were present and visible at the time. Unfortunately, the victim ignored the warning and was bitten. This highlights the importance of ocean users heeding warning".

Governments and surf life saving organisations also provide some guidelines to the public that may help protect them from attack. For example, the SA Government suggests:

Where possible, swim at a patrolled beach and between the flags

Never swim alone

Avoid swimming at dawn, dusk or night

Never swim in murky water or in the vicinity of the mouth of a river

Avoid swimming near fishing activity or schools of fish

Don't swim while bleeding

Does it matter if shark numbers go down?

Certain sharks such as the white shark are protected endangered species in Australia and many other countries. According to Associate Professor Adam Stow of Macquarie University, some species such as the grey nurse shark may become extinct if the numbers killed are only slightly higher than the species' natural mortality rate. Experts contacted by Fact Check note that a reduction in sharks is likely to have a significant impact on the health of the marine environment and, potentially, the economy.
Tiger shark caught in anti-shark net off Durban Beach Photo: A tiger shark caught in an anti-shark net off Durban Beach, South Africa. (Getty: Jeff Rotman)

Ms Kock tells Fact Check that, while shark nets and other forms of culling may have been acceptable in the past when less was known about sharks, they are no longer reasonable responses to the threat that shark attack poses. "Targeted culling of a threatened species, like the white shark, is especially environmentally irresponsible and may have knock-on effects for local marine ecosystems," she says. In particular, she notes that large sharks "are top predators and predate on a variety of species, from squid and fish, to seals, smaller sharks and even whales. They exert influence on population size, which in some cases can prevent some species from becoming pests. Secondly, the mere presence of sharks in an area impacts when and where their prey are present".

Dr Carl Meyer of the Hawai'i Institute of Marine Biology notes that large scale culling "runs the risk of ecosystem-level cascade effects where a general lack of sharks results in boom or bust in populations of species further down the food chain".

Associate Professor Stow says that the change in ecosystem as a result of a reduced population of sharks has already resulted in a reduction of commercially harvested fish in particular areas. He also points to the booming tourism industry around shark observation that will suffer if shark population declines markedly.


First posted Sun 22 Dec 2013, 6:58pm AEDT
 
johnny

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member

Can governments protect people from killer sharks?

Posted Sun 22 Dec 2013, 6:58pm AEDT
The claim that new shark protection measures in WA do not amount to a cull is misleading. Photo: The claim that new shark protection measures in WA do not amount to a cull is misleading. (Getty: Ryan Pierse)
Related Story: Fact File: Protecting people from shark attacks
Map: Australia

Shark attacks arouse strong emotions in the Australian community. Following recent fatal attacks in New South Wales and Western Australia, there have been calls for tougher control measures, including the culling of sharks that lurk near popular beaches. Others say that sharks are an important part of the ecosystem and we should learn to co-exist with them.

On December 10, the Western Australian Government announced a series of measures that it says will increase safety for swimmers and surfers. WA Minister Troy Buswell says the response "does not represent what you would call a culling" of sharks.

"It is our view that is a targeted, localised, hazard mitigation strategy... If we are catching sharks that are or are about to be in close proximity of beaches then by extension we are making those beaches safer," he said.

The claim: Troy Buswell says new shark control measures in Western Australia do not represent a cull.
The verdict: The shark control strategy announced by the WA Government amounts to a cull. Evidence suggests drumlines reduce shark attacks, but Mr Buswell downplays the impact on sharks and other marine life.

The main initiatives are the establishment of 'Coastal Shark Management Zones' along popular beaches near Perth and Margaret River, the setting of baited drumlines one kilometre out from the shore, and engaging local fisherman to kill large sharks that venture into the new zones.

ABC Fact Check takes a look at whether Mr Buswell is giving the public the full story about these measures and the trade-offs required to improve beach safety.
What is shark control?

The key measure in the WA package is the use of baited drumlines to catch sharks before they enter the new management zones. While this is a new strategy for WA, drumlines have been used in Queensland and the South African province of KwaZulu-Natal for many years. They have a similar function to the shark nets also used in those regions and in New South Wales. A drumline consists of a large baited hook suspended from a large plastic float, which in turn is anchored to the sea bed.
Video: Watch John Barron present the facts (ABC News)

The Queensland Government's Shark Control Program manager Jeff Krause told Fact Check that in his state, shark nets and drumlines are used in combination along 85 beaches "to catch resident sharks and sharks that move through an area while feeding on bait fish". KwaZulu-Natal similarly uses a combination of nets and drumlines. New South Wales only uses nets, in place on 51 beaches including in Sydney, the Central Coast, Newcastle and the Illawarra.

Nets and drumlines are in place in Queensland and South Africa for most of the year, but NSW runs its program only between September 1 and April 30 and, according to a NSW Department of Primary Industries document, nets "may not be in place on every beach every day" even during that limited period.

The other main component of the new WA shark control program is the targeted killing of all sharks over three metres long that enter the management zones. Experts consulted by Fact Check say this sort of ad hoc shark control is not regularly practised elsewhere, although there was a shark number reduction program that operated on an irregular basis in Hawaii between between 1959 and 1976. In addition, it has been reported that the French Indian Ocean territory of Reunion plans to kill 90 sharks following five fatal attacks since 2011.

According to the Western Australian Department of Fisheries, three types of shark pose a "significant risk to human safety": the white/white pointer/great white; the tiger; and the bull shark. The white shark is said to be the main cause of fatal attacks in WA.
Shark drumline diagram Photo: Drumlines: How they work.

Purpose of nets and drumlines

Contrary to common misconception, nets and drumlines are not meant to be a protective barriers for swimmers. They are meant to kill dangerous sharks.

According to the KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board, the operator of the South African shark control program, the point of nets and drumlines is to reduce "shark numbers in the vicinity of protected beaches, thereby lowering the probability of encounters between sharks and people". Nets and drumlines are cleared out (referred to as "servicing") on a regular basis, sometimes as frequently as once a day.

Efforts are made in both Australia and South Africa to release sharks if they do not pose a threat to people, although the reality is that most sharks that encounter the devices do not survive. Mr Krause of the Queensland program says that if a captured shark is found alive when the nets and drumlines are serviced, it will be euthanased if dangerous or "released alive where possible" if not.
Tiger shark caught in anti-shark net off Durban Beach Photo: A tiger shark caught in an anti-shark net off Durban Beach, South Africa. (Getty: Jeff Rotman)

In the first 11 months of 2013, 633 sharks were captured as part of the Queensland program, of which 297 were considered dangerous. Mr Krause says that of the sharks captured "481 sharks died in shark control equipment, 122 were humanely killed following capture as they were considered dangerous, and 30 were released alive as they were considered non-dangerous". Of the 633 sharks caught in nets, less than 5 per cent survived and were released. The NSW Department of Primary Industries would not comment about the NSW meshing program, but referred Fact Check to the 2011-12 program annual report, which indicates that 158 sharks were found entangled in nets that year, 35 per cent of which (56 sharks) were found alive and then released. In South Africa for the period 2005-2009, an average of 591 sharks a year were caught, with 13 per cent released alive.
Is it a cull?

When announcing the new policy, Mr Buswell was asked repeatedly whether it meant the Government would be culling sharks.

Reporter: Will this reduce shark numbers?

Mr Buswell: Yes.

Reporter: And that's not a cull?

Mr Buswell: No.

Reporter: Is it a passive cull, that's effectively like baiting horses instead of shooting them from a helicopter?

Mr Buswell: No, I don't agree with that... I have no doubt that this will lead to the capture of sharks, but it's not a widespread, fear-driven hunt for predators. It's a localised hazard mitigation strategy.

Mr Buswell also referred to the practice of commercial fishing operators who use demersal, or deep sea, gillnets to catch small school sharks. Large sharks are sometimes caught in the nets and released.

"If we wanted a cull we would be... seeking to encourage an expansion of demersal gillnetting activity and we are simply not doing that," he said.
Video: Troy Buswell announces new shark control measures for WA (ABC News)

Given the purpose of nets and drumlines is to reduce the population of sharks in a particular area so there is less chance a human would encounter one, it is unsurprising that experts contacted by Fact Check agree their use constitutes a culling of sharks.

Professor Colin Buxton of the Institute for Marine & Antarctic Studies at the University of Tasmania says irrespective of the method used, a cull involves "the capture and killing of a large number of sharks". Similarly, Associate Professor Adam Stow of Macquarie University says he has "no doubt" that the WA plans constitute a culling of sharks. "The whole point of using nets and drumlines near popular beaches is to reduce the population of sharks so there are fewer sharks that can attack people," he said. "Given that potentially dangerous sharks have been observed moving several thousands of kilometres, the effect of killing sharks at one beach is not confined to that particular beach. The fact that only certain areas are targeted does not change the fact that it is a cull to reduce shark numbers."
Fact file: Protecting people from sharks

Did you know more people die each year from sinkholes, tornados and drownings than shark attacks?

Effectiveness of shark control

Historical shark attack figures suggest that the use of shark nets and drumlines does markedly reduce the incidence of shark attack when implemented on a regular and consistent basis.

In Queensland, there has been only one fatal attack on a controlled beach since 1962, compared to 27 fatal attacks between 1919 and 1961.Statistics from the NSW Department of Primary Industries indicate that before nets were introduced in NSW in 1936 there was an average of one fatal shark attack every year. There has been only one fatal attack on a protected beach since then and that was in 1951. Similarly, between 1943 and 1951 the South African city of Durban experienced seven fatal attacks but there have been none since nets were introduced in 1952. A more recent comparison shows that in South Africa there were three shark attacks, none fatal, at protected beaches in KwaZulu-Natal between 1990 and 2011, while there were 20 fatal attacks in the same period at unprotected beaches in the Eastern and Western Cape Provinces.

Experts tell Fact Check that culling needs to be undertaken consistently to be effective. Alison Kock, a marine biologist and the research manager at Shark Spotters (responsible for the shark safety program at Cape Town, South Africa) says that "culling on an opportunistic and irregular basis, such as culling following an attack, does not seem to be very effective in reducing risk". An example given by Ms Kock is the Hawaiian program that ran off and on over two decades. Dr Carl Meyer of the Hawai’i Institute of Marine Biology told Fact Check the culling program in that instance was ineffective in reducing shark numbers and shark bite incidents. "White sharks and tiger sharks are both highly mobile species, so limited culling is unlikely to demonstrably change the already incredibly low risk of being bitten by them," he said.
What are the other impacts of the policy?

While the statistics appear to back up the use of nets and lines to protect humans, the impact of these measures on the marine environment is something that was not made clear by Mr Buswell.

Associate Professor Stow believes shark control measures such as those planned in WA have a significant impact on the marine environment. He told Fact Check that "some shark species, such as the grey nurse shark that does not attack humans, are already critically endangered". Killing sharks also risks disruption to the ecology of the ocean, one result of which is a reduced population of commercially harvested fish in certain areas, he says. Ms Kock says that "sharks are vital in the structure and function of marine ecosystems, and indicators of good ecosystem health".

There is also more direct collateral damage. Apart from sharks, other marine life such as rays, turtles, dolphins and even whales are caught by nets. For example, in South Africa, an average of 42 dolphins a year were caught in shark nets between 2005 and 2009. Drumlines are less likely to catch non-shark marine life, but sharks that pose no threat to humans are still caught.

Shark control measures involve a judgment call on behalf of people and policymakers, as improved safety comes at an environmental cost. Professor Buxton says "the use of shark nets and drumlines is a proven way of reducing shark attack, however the public need to understand and acknowledge that this works by killing sharks".
The verdict

The shark control strategy announced by the Western Australian Government, along with the existing nets and drumlines used in Queensland and New South Wales, can accurately be described as a cull.

The evidence suggests that the WA plans for drumlines will reduce the incidence of shark attack, however Mr Buswell downplays the impact on sharks and other marine life.

Mr Buswell's statement is misleading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top