How dare the Barnett government in WA implement such a barbaric and cruel policy, as to kill hundrds of sharks in their own territory? This is no better than the whaling by the Japs. Okay, so they want to protect swimmers and tourism, but the facts are that less than 10 people are killed by sharks yearly in Australia. Also, if you are willing to risk your own life by going into a shark's territory, then that's your responsibility.

If sharks started to come to our homes, neigjbourhoods and communities and kiled us, then maybe it would be okay. Until then, however, this cruel and barbaric practice has to stop.

Think of all the shark testicle soup you'll miss out on sweety.

I heard a recent thing about things that kill more people than sharks every year.

One of them was coconuts, and another was vending machines I believe


matty wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 9:13pm:

but the facts are that less than 10 people are killed by sharks yearly in Australia

I think the total number is less than a hundred ever

skippy. wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 9:18pm:

Think of all the shark testicle soup you'll miss out on sweety.

So you make light of such an issue? That actually surprises me.  :-?

I agree, Matty. What’s the policy of the Greens on this issue?

Stratos wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 9:21pm:

I heard a recent thing about things that kill more people than sharks every year. One of them was coconuts, and another was vending machines I believe matty wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 9:13pm: but the facts are that less than 10 people are killed by sharks yearly in Australia I think the total number is less than a hundred ever

That is probably correct. If a shark sees you, it's more than likely going to just turn the other way. The only times that they actually eat humans, so I've heard, is when they are desperately hungry, and/or can't see well and mistake humans for something else.

matty wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 9:22pm:

skippy. wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 9:18pm: Think of all the shark testicle soup you'll miss out on sweety. So you make light of such an issue? That actually surprises me.  :-?

Nothing light about shark testicles. They're very salty. As for the story in general, do I think it's wrong ? Yea. Is it in the wrong board? Yea.

The fish is caught on drum lines, killed then the carcass is dumped out at sea.....If costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and will fail.....And we criticize the Japanese for killing whales to eat!!!

::) ::) ::)

I agree.  If we went around killing everything that wanted a fair feed, we'd all be killed off.

Bizarre reasoning to attach human values and mores to a wild animal with a totally different outlook on life, and 'punish' them in some kind of tribal or corporate punishment - as if the 'fear' induced will cause them to behave differently.

I despair of the human race....

Aren't the sharks they are after endangered too?

Stratos wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

Aren't the sharks they are after endangered too?

Some are even protected like the Great White.....Sharks will not be scared of Barnett's drum lines and still attack people who swim where the sharks are looking for food.....That could be anywhere on the WA coast.....No doubt Barnett will blame SA for rouge sharks and demand they cull their predators as well.....Where will it end???

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

It is a disgusting policy.

I think a few things are causing an upsurge in shark attacks. Firstly, and in no particular order, over-fishing of marine life that would normally be food for sharks has caused them to search further for meals and in doing so, they're being less picky about what they attack. Secondly, there has been a surge in the number of sharks off the coast, probably due to a decline in fishing for sharks that has caused their numbers to swell. Thirdly, more people going in the water, especially on shark dives in cages, etc is making sharks less wary of humans and therefore more likely to attack us. Finally, is there really an increase in shark attacks, or are they just being reported more often?

For any species to swell in numbers means food is in abundance.

As far as I can remember there have all ways been shark attacks in Australia, if the statistics are growing it must be due to the law of averages. Our population has grown by 10 million since the 80's. my guess is the percentage of people taken by sharks to the population number would still be the same through out the last century.

its a pity politicians are not swimming in these areas. 

   

Finally, something Matty and I can agree wholeheartedly on...

Yeah its strange matty caring about sharks though

SOB

.

It all cries out for a personal shark repellent.

People on the moon.

Robots on Mars.

People at the bottom of the Marianna's Trench (Sp)

The boat-people stopped.

Warrigal's got a job.

And yet no effective shark repellent ...

Heads should roll. What has the CSIRO been doing all these years on taxpayer money?

Disgraceful.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1zKLrG-S3Oc/UfsV2TVWijI/AAAAAAAAA2Q/moU7REvvYwQ/s1600/625611_556777854343230_870722042_n.jpg

Simple really, if it bothers you, stay out of the water.

matty wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 9:24pm:

Stratos wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 9:21pm: I heard a recent thing about things that kill more people than sharks every year. One of them was coconuts, and another was vending machines I believe matty wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 9:13pm: but the facts are that less than 10 people are killed by sharks yearly in Australia I think the total number is less than a hundred ever That is probably correct. If a shark sees you, it's more than likely going to just turn the other way. The only times that they actually eat humans, so I've heard, is when they are desperately hungry, and/or can't see well and mistake humans for something else.

From below, a person lying on a surfboard looks a lot like a seal, the shark's preferred prey.

How do sharks tell the difference? Chomp. Sharks use their jaws in much the same way we use our hands. Most of the time a shark takes one bite and swims away. Sometimes this bite does enough damage to be fatal. Is that the shark's fault?

California surfer killed in shark attack may have been mistaken for prey, experts say
(excerpts)

Quote:

A shark that bit and killed a surfer off of California's central coast probably was a great white and may have mistaken the boarder for prey, experts said Wednesday.

Quote:

Great white sharks are found from tropical to polar regions and are not uncommon up and down the California coast, experts said. However, they do not attack humans as a rule, experts said. "If white sharks were going to target humans for prey, I would never talk to any survivors," Collier said. "Because there's no way you or I could ever survive an attack by a 17-foot shark that weighs 4,000 pounds."

Quote:

It is likely that the shark that bit Solorio failed to identify the surfer and "struck out at this shape assuming it was a natural prey," Collier said. "The way it investigates is by taking a gentle bite but unfortunately, what seems like a gentle bite to a shark can cause a devastating injury to a human," Nosal said.

The shark in this picture is ... smiling.

And it's not because the cameraman had told him to say "CHEEESE!"

Very strong currents had swept him MILES up the coast away from Seal Island where he was intending to chow-down on a few baby offerings.

But then this lucky break ...

The Oceanic white-tip is the most dangerous shark for humans.

link

The claim by 'experts' that shark attacks on people off beaches is a case of mistaken identity, is needless to say, rabid nonsense motivated by ~ yes, you guessed it ~ a leftwing-luvvie need to avoid stigmatising a creature as being hostile to man.

Correct ~ sharks do take a bite to test for skin-toxicity and to authenticate a prospective meal, but they then return to consume the person when their senses give them the 'all-clear'.

Unfamiliarity with the initial taste may make some sharks a little cautious, but they inevitably return to fill their bellies.

It's one of the most absurd examples of political correctness when you hear 'experts' trying to peddle the fiction that sharks don't like human meat.

Utter nonsense.

***

And a quick diversion ...


Quote:

A strange S-shaped formation which appeared on weather bureau radar off the West Australian coast was not caused by cloud, the bureau says. The shape was spotted on the weather bureau's radar map on Wednesday about 30 kilometres west of Rottnest. After checking the satellite, the bureau's Neil Bennett ruled out the phenomenon being caused by cloud. "There's no cloud, there's nothing to produce a rain echo, ... which we do see a lot, but not this particular shape," he said.

link

And yes ~ of course it's an 'S' shape.

What do they want ... an 'H' shape?

tsk, some people.  ::)

It's no mystery of course. It's well-known to marine biologists that there is a type of water-borne colony crustacean that hold onto one another and form long 'conga-lines' as they drift on the ocean's surface.

I can't find one person who agrees with this cull.

On who's behalf is he acting on? Tourism?

Kat wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 7:00am:

Finally, something Matty and I can agree wholeheartedly on...

http://allfacebook.com/files/2011/03/plus-one-like.jpg


I can't believe Barnett actually posed for this picture:


http://images.watoday.com.au/2013/12/27/5037811/colin-353-300x0.jpg

FriYAY wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 10:08am:

I can't find one person who agrees with this cull. On who's behalf is he acting on? Tourism?

Check this out.....

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greg-hunt-grants-wa-exemption-for-shark-cull-plan-20140121-315zk.html

>:( >:( >:( >:(

methinks Barnett saw too many jaws movies.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 10:23am:

methinks Barnett saw too many jaws movies.

Indeed.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RSR4vRx5j6o/UCQ2BGwLbQI/AAAAAAAAIq0/bYr3XIbY7uY/s400/Jaws-mayor-dreyfuss-scheider.jpg

Alinta wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 10:22am:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 10:08am: I can't find one person who agrees with this cull. On who's behalf is he acting on? Tourism? Check this out..... http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greg-hunt-grants-wa-exemption-for-shark-cull-plan-20140121-315zk.html >:( >:( >:( >:(

Useless prick.


http://images.smh.com.au/2013/12/22/5030018/art-353-sa-antiwhaling-20131222191755253109-300x0.jpg

I agree, but is anyone else as shocked as I am at who started this thread?

bring back flake at the fish shops, it sure as hell tastes better then what they make fish cocktails out of now days

Fisherman ordered to pay $18k for bashing great white shark to death at Sussex Inlet on NSW south coast (ABC Online)

Quote:

A man has been ordered to pay nearly $20,000 over the death of a juvenile great white shark on the south coast of New South Wales. Justin Adam Clark was prosecuted by the state's Department of Primary Industries (DPI) over the shark's death at Sussex Inlet in January 2012. He was found guilty of harming a threatened species in Wollongong Local Court. Great white sharks are protected throughout Australian waters, though the Federal Government has granted an exemption for the Western Australian Government to cull large sharks. Witnesses told DPI officials the 40-year-old man, from Glenbrook in Sydney's west, pursued the shark in his boat after it was seen in the area. He herded the animal into shallow water, deliberately using his boat to hit the shark several times. DPI says the main injuries to the shark were caused by the boat's propeller. A rope was tied to the shark's tail and it was towed back to a boat ramp with help from a second boat. The department says the shark was then bludgeoned to death with a metal pole. The magistrate ordered Clark to pay a fine of $8,000, plus costs of $10,103. The man in charge of the second boat that helped drag the shark to shore also pleaded guilty to harming a threatened species and was put on a six-month good behaviour bond. The DPI's director of fisheries compliance, Glenn Tritton, says ignorance is no excuse for harming a protected species. "This conviction sends a strong message that harming of our threatened species will not be tolerated," he said. "The low population numbers following historical exploitation, plus their low reproductive rate, long gestation and late age at sexual maturity lead to slow recovery of the great white shark population and demonstrate the need for its protection."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5257184-3x2-340x227.jpg
The juvenile shark was dragged up a boat ramp before being beaten in the head with a metal pole. (NSW Department of Primary Industries)

Here's why it's a bad idea. It brings out the ratbags. The fine is not enough IMO.

matty wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 9:13pm:

How dare the Barnett government in WA implement such a barbaric and cruel policy, as to kill hundrds of sharks in their own territory? This is no better than the whaling by the Japs.

... and this exemption of protection to an endangered species was authorised and signed off by the - so called - "environment minister" Greg Hunt

Bam wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 11:08am:

Here's why it's a bad idea. It brings out the ratbags. The fine is not enough IMO.

If that was a black shark there would have been a lynchin', with plenty of helpers.

TBH I was initially a bit shocked by a few posters who have articulated their opposition, however, that subsided and I am now mightily impressed to see that many can put aside their political ideals over something as important as this. On the other hand, it is more than a little disappointing to see some cannot do this and seem to think it appropriate to still attempt some political stoush with posters, that's a bit sad.

As to the shark cull, for my part I see it as an inhumane and ridiculous measure and an extreme over reaction.

It is without doubt horrific for those who have been attacked (both fatally and otherwise). However, as has been clearly articulated, we (humans) have ventured into the sharks territory, I cannot stress the point enough that for Sharks, they do not have choice, they are Marine dwelling animals and, arguably, masters of that domain. Humans on the other hand are considerably out of their zone, despite our ability to be able to swim, we can only at best be temporary interlopers in a Marine environment. Being temporary interlopers of course means, we are on the menu. We are not normal food for sharks though obviously, hence the "testing" behaviour that Sharks demonstrate and, as opposed to what a poster has suggested, Sharks do not often come back to finish up after a "Test" bite if the taste, texture etc are too unfamiliar. I would not say sharks do not like human flesh, however, it is not a regular taste for them and, consequently often times the test bite is all that will happen.

As has also been pointed out, food sources have been reduced, in part by overfishing by humans. How remarkable that we (people) may actually have created a potential increase in risk ourselves, how arrogantly ignorant of us to then come up with a plan to kill stuff.

Another issue that seems to be under recognised of course is that combining reduced food sources out to see (thus pushing sharks to more coastal regions) there is also the increase in easy food source provided by the failures of live export trade. It is not uncommon for carcasses to be thrown overboard....

Lines about protecting tourism are just that, lines, with no substance or for that matter veracity. If tourism was of any concern, particularly on a federal level, then plans to dump waste on the barrier reef would not have been approved.

Killing off these sharks is a blatant act of environmental vandalism.

Thanks to those of you who have voiced your opposition to this issue too.

Phemanderac wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 5:29pm:

Killing off these sharks is a blatant act of environmental vandalism.

Let's hope Barnett is eventually made to answer for his crimes.

Phemanderac wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 5:29pm:

TBH I was initially a bit shocked by a few posters who have articulated their opposition, however, that subsided and I am now mightily impressed to see that many can put aside their political ideals over something as important as this. On the other hand, it is more than a little disappointing to see some cannot do this and seem to think it appropriate to still attempt some political stoush with posters, that's a bit sad. As to the shark cull, for my part I see it as an inhumane and ridiculous measure and an extreme over reaction. It is without doubt horrific for those who have been attacked (both fatally and otherwise). However, as has been clearly articulated, we (humans) have ventured into the sharks territory, I cannot stress the point enough that for Sharks, they do not have choice, they are Marine dwelling animals and, arguably, masters of that domain. Humans on the other hand are considerably out of their zone, despite our ability to be able to swim, we can only at best be temporary interlopers in a Marine environment. Being temporary interlopers of course means, we are on the menu. We are not normal food for sharks though obviously, hence the "testing" behaviour that Sharks demonstrate and, as opposed to what a poster has suggested, Sharks do not often come back to finish up after a "Test" bite if the taste, texture etc are too unfamiliar. I would not say sharks do not like human flesh, however, it is not a regular taste for them and, consequently often times the test bite is all that will happen. As has also been pointed out, food sources have been reduced, in part by overfishing by humans. How remarkable that we (people) may actually have created a potential increase in risk ourselves, how arrogantly ignorant of us to then come up with a plan to kill stuff. Another issue that seems to be under recognised of course is that combining reduced food sources out to see (thus pushing sharks to more coastal regions) there is also the increase in easy food source provided by the failures of live export trade. It is not uncommon for carcasses to be thrown overboard.... Lines about protecting tourism are just that, lines, with no substance or for that matter veracity. If tourism was of any concern, particularly on a federal level, then plans to dump waste on the barrier reef would not have been approved. Killing off these sharks is a blatant act of environmental vandalism. Thanks to those of you who have voiced your opposition to this issue too.

Post of the Day, without a doubt.

How about a Poll

That should be fun?

I'll start it off!

This thread should be on the general forum where most of the intelligent post mostly......  :)

Sharks are merciless cold blooded killers and protecting the public from merciless cold blooded killers is the Government's job.

The Sharks have the whole ocean to do their killing, so for the few that venture into waters where the public swim that's tough.

I have no problem with the cull.

Stratos wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

Aren't the sharks they are after endangered too?

INDEED !

Imagine Australia's ourtage and condemnation if Indonesia started a cull of endangered Sumatran tigers - because some idiot had been eaten by one - after wandering off into the middle of the tiger's jungle habitat

So if a bunch of Sumatran tigers were prowling the playground in your local town eating the occasional person you'd be outraged if they were culled?

Swagman wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 8:43pm:

Sharks are merciless cold blooded killers

Sharks are apex predators. They kill that they may eat. Would you have all the sharks eating tofu?


Quote:

and protecting the public from merciless cold blooded killers is the Government's job.

Only if those killers are human. Mercy - or the lack of it - is purely a human trait. Animals do not have such concepts as mercy.


Quote:

The Sharks have the whole ocean to do their killing, so for the few that venture into waters where the public swim that's tough.

Then the public should keep clear of the sharks. The ocean is THEIR home, not ours.


Quote:

I have no problem with the cull.

You're very much in the minority on this.

Swagman wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 9:39pm:

So if a bunch of Sumatran tigers were prowling the playground in your local town eating the occasional person you'd be outraged if they were culled?

Your analogy is flawed. Whose home is it?

For a more accurate analogy: Humans sometimes venture into crocodile-filled rivers. Occasionally someone is taken. Do we then start an indiscriminate culling of as many crocodiles as we can find? No, we do not.

Bam wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 9:51pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 9:39pm: So if a bunch of Sumatran tigers were prowling the playground in your local town eating the occasional person you'd be outraged if they were culled? Your analogy is flawed. Whose home is it? For a more accurate analogy: Humans sometimes venture into crocodile-filled rivers. Occasionally someone is taken. Do we then start an indiscriminate culling of as many crocodiles as we can find? No, we do not.

Govt's don't allow man eating Crocodiles in suburban areas any more than they should ignore man eating sharks at suburban beaches.

Wild dogs are culled, feral pigs and horses are culled.  Where there is a danger to the public from a wild animal they are culled.


Bam wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 9:46pm:

Sharks are apex predators. They kill that they may eat. Would you have all the sharks eating tofu?

Sharks can kill and eat as much as they want as long as it's not near suburban beaches.  It's a damned big ocean.


Bam wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 9:46pm:

Only if those killers are human. Mercy - or the lack of it - is purely a human trait. Animals do not have such concepts as mercy.

Oh garbage.  Dangerous animals are culled all the time.


Bam wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 9:46pm:

Then the public should keep clear of the sharks. The ocean is THEIR home, not ours.

You should apply that logic to the illegal boats


Bam wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 9:46pm:

You're very much in the minority on this

So what? Challenging the collective is a good thing.  We maybe ruled by a tyranny of the mob and gagged by political correctness but a little bit of individual opinion still survives.

Bam wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 9:51pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 9:39pm: So if a bunch of Sumatran tigers were prowling the playground in your local town eating the occasional person you'd be outraged if they were culled? Your analogy is flawed. Whose home is it? For a more accurate analogy: Humans sometimes venture into crocodile-filled rivers. Occasionally someone is taken. Do we then start an indiscriminate culling of as many crocodiles as we can find? No, we do not.

I think you are wrong there




A third crocodile has been shot in the search for a missing 12-year-old boy in the Northern Territory which police said had now turned into a body recovery mission.

Two crocodiles, measuring more than 4m, have been killed in the search but police and park rangers now believe the crocodile who took the boy from a billabong in Kakadu national park was about 2.5m after an expert inspected the bite marks on his friend.

The 12-year-old was swimming with a group of friends on Sunday afternoon when the crocodile attacked his cousin, Jayden Djandjul, who police say is 12 years old but some media reports have said is 15.

Djandjul fought off the crocodile before it took the other boy.

Police and park rangers launched a search on Sunday night, shooting 4.3m and 4.7m crocodiles and cutting their stomachs open to look for human remains.

An examination of Djandjul’s wounds on Monday found the crocodile was likely to be 2.5m long, and another one was shot on Monday night but it sank before it could be recovered, police said.

A spokesman confirmed the search had turned into a body recovery mission.

The search was taking place near Mudginberri outstation, 20km from Jabiru, and helicopters as well as airboats are being used with shooted being airlifted to a billabong where two crocodiles were spotted on Tuesday morning.

The attack has sparked a debate about culling crocodiles

Swagman wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 8:43pm:

[highlight]Sharks are merciless cold blooded killers [/highlight]and protecting the public from merciless cold blooded killers is the Government's job. .

actually not all sharks are cold blooded, some such as the white Pointer are partially warm blooded. Also sharks act purely on instinct.

Bam wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 9:46pm:

Then the public should keep clear of the sharks. The ocean is THEIR home, not ours.

An oft-repeated fallacy.

We're talking about people venturing into coastal waters ~ a legitimate zone for humans to source their food since the beginning of time.

It's why humans are bereft of fur. The coastal waters are our home just as the land is. Amphibious creatures we are.

Coastal waters used for gathering food are just as much the right of humans as they are for any ocean dwelling species.

***

There's no reason why WA's popular swimming and surfing beaches can't be netted against shark attack.

Two boats with a steel-mesh net between them stretches this to form a semi-circular under-water barrier that protects the swimmers. At the end of the day, the net is wound up on capstans for storage.

Or ... a sonar buoy is dropped off the beach that sends off an ASDIC pulse that bounces off any large body entering the area, and telegraphs the presence of the intruder to the life-guards of just the swimmers themselves with an alarm.

University departments should have come up with a buoy such as this, decades ago.

Swagman wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 8:43pm:

is the Sharks are merciless cold blooded killers and protecting the public from merciless cold blooded killersGovernment's job. The Sharks have the whole ocean to do their killing, so for the few that venture into waters where the public swim that's tough. I have no problem with the cull.

oh yes... and the sharks put a lot of thought into their killing...  ;D

you are delusional

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 8:53pm:

Stratos wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 9:36pm: Aren't the sharks they are after endangered too? INDEED ! Imagine Australia's outrage and condemnation if Indonesia started a cull of endangered Sumatran tigers - because some idiot had been eaten by one - after wandering off into the middle of the tiger's jungle habitat

Swagman wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 9:39pm:

So if a bunch of Sumatran tigers were prowling the playground in your local town eating the occasional person you'd be outraged if they were culled?

Your post was not just lightweight IRRELEVENT - but borderline MORONIC

Swagman wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 9:39pm:

So if a bunch of Sumatran tigers were prowling the playground in your local town eating the occasional person you'd be outraged if they were culled?

Firstly that is very much an apples and oranges comparison.

Sharks, for example, only have Marine environments to "prowl" in.

Sumatran tigers would be well and truly out of the native territory if they were in a local play ground. Further, I would suggest (respectfully) that, if some idiot human moved a Sumatran tiger to a local play ground;
a) The tiger would most likely be tranquilised and moved on safely.

b) The idiot human responsible would presumably face a few charges....

So what's your point again?

Phemanderac wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 7:23am:

Swagman wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 9:39pm: So if a bunch of Sumatran tigers were prowling the playground in your local town eating the occasional person you'd be outraged if they were culled? Firstly that is very much an apples and oranges comparison. Sharks, for example, only have Marine environments to "prowl" in. Sumatran tigers would be well and truly out of the native territory if they were in a local play ground. Further, I would suggest (respectfully) that, if some idiot human moved a Sumatran tiger to a local play ground; a) The tiger would most likely be tranquilised and moved on safely. b) The idiot human responsible would presumably face a few charges.... So what's your point again?

"My 'point' again" is that it's the Govt's job to protect the public from dangerous people and dangerous animals. 

Regarding your 'point' about the Sumartran tiger, don't you think there are parks in Sumartra that 'used' to be the Tiger's "native territory"?


Phemanderac wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 7:23am:

Firstly that is very much an apples and oranges comparison

It was the Buzzbrain that introduced the Sumartran Tiger but it matters not as any dangerous animal could be used as a comparrison.


True Blue... wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 6:43am:

Swagman wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 8:43pm: is the Sharks are merciless cold blooded killers and protecting the public from merciless cold blooded killersGovernment's job. The Sharks have the whole ocean to do their killing, so for the few that venture into waters where the public swim that's tough. I have no problem with the cull. oh yes... and the sharks put a lot of thought into their killing...  ;D you are delusional

Delusional?  :-?  About what?  :-? You don't agree that sharks are "merciless cold blooded killers"?

This greeny argument against the cull is pretty much the same argument the Treehuggers use against hazard burns in the bush to lower the risk of bush fires.  A D O P E Y one  ;D


buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 6:50am:

Your post was not just lightweight IRRELEVENT- but borderline MORONIC

Ditto  ;D


 

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 6:50am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 8:53pm: Stratos wrote on Feb 12th, 2014 at 9:36pm: Aren't the sharks they are after endangered too? INDEED ! Imagine Australia's outrage and condemnation if Indonesia started a cull of endangered Sumatran tigers - because some idiot had been eaten by one - after wandering off into the middle of the tiger's jungle habitat Swagman wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 9:39pm: So if a bunch of Sumatran tigers were prowling the playground in your local town eating the occasional person you'd be outraged if they were culled? Your post was not just lightweight IRRELEVENT - but borderline MORONIC

Nothing "borderline" about it.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 9:51am:

Nothing "borderline" about it.

Sorry Peccary but when arguing with Morons one has to use their own language....... ;D  :P

Swagman wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 10:36am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 9:51am: Nothing "borderline" about it. Sorry Peccary but when arguing with Morons one has to use their own language.......

Thanks for the tip, however, I'm not arguing with you.

Here's a tip for you though: when discussing shark culling, it's best to just stick to talking about sharks, and the ocean.  Sumatran tigers, jungles, suburban areas, playgrounds, crocodiles, pigs, and horses are totally irrelevant to the subject matter.

Cheers.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 10:44am:

Swagman wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 10:36am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 9:51am: Nothing "borderline" about it. Sorry Peccary but when arguing with Morons one has to use their own language....... Thanks for the tip, however, I'm not arguing with you. Here's a tip for you though: when discussing shark culling, it's best to just stick to talking about sharks, and the ocean.  Sumatran tigers, jungles, suburban areas, playgrounds, crocodiles, pigs, and horses are totally irrelevant to the subject matter. Cheers.

The Buzzman introduced the Sumartran Tiger actually.

That aside, similar scenarios prompt similar reasonings and similar solutions Greggy.

Having tunnel vision does not help, a dangerous animal is a dangerous animal whatever and where-ever it is, whether it be an overgrown mullet with sharp teeth or a Sumartran tiger and so it's the Govt's job to protect its constituents from them. 

I would have thought hunting and culling sharks as per the WA Govt example would be far more environmentally / ecologically preferable than say shark netting for example.  Shark Netting has been a practice at Sydney beaches for a long time.  The nets are indiscriminate and cause the death of lots of cuddly marine animals but removal aint going to happen.

When little kids and tourists start getting chewed up by sharks at suburban beaches because of stupid greenies there will be a cull of greenies as well as sharks..... :D

Swagman wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 11:12am:

That aside, similar scenarios prompt similar reasonings and similar solutions Greggy.

Exactly.  "similar scenarios".

In this case, the scenarios weren't even close to being similar.

Humans don't live in the ocean, and sharks don't live on the land.

Swagman wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 11:12am:

When little kids and tourists start getting chewed up by sharks at suburban beaches because of stupid greenies there will be a cull of greenies as well as sharks..... :D

It's not the greenies who are stupid: it's the tourists and the parents of the little kids.

Fact: don't let your kids go into the ocean, and they won't be chewed up by sharks.

Crisis over.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 11:19am:

Swagman wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 11:12am: That aside, similar scenarios prompt similar reasonings and similar solutions Greggy. Exactly.  "similar scenarios". In this case, the scenarios weren't even close to being similar. Humans don't live in the ocean, and sharks don't live on the land.

Codswallop....the 'scenarios' are practically equal.

Humans don't live in creeks and rivers either but authorities still cull crocks and dangerous beasts that could potentially or actually have taken human lives.

Humans swim at the beach, the beaches are generally in suburban locations in close proximity to cities, humans are attacked and killed or seriously mauled by sharks at beaches, that is enough to make the scenarios equivalent in nature and to propose otherwise is simply ridiculous.. ::)

Swagman wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 11:27am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 11:19am: Swagman wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 11:12am: That aside, similar scenarios prompt similar reasonings and similar solutions Greggy. Exactly.  "similar scenarios". In this case, the scenarios weren't even close to being similar. Humans don't live in the ocean, and sharks don't live on the land. Codswallop....the 'scenarios' are practically equal.

Nothing like each other.

Humans don't live in the ocean, and sharks don't live on the land.

Don't go in the ocean, and you won't get eaten by a shark.

Crisis over.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 11:32am:

Nothing like each other.

http://www.jonco48.com/blog/horseshitcigarettesdn3.jpg

http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/forum/smileyvault-bump.gif

Swagman wrote on Feb 13^th, 2014 at 10:13pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 9:51pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 9:39pm: So if a bunch of Sumatran tigers were prowling the playground in your local town eating the occasional person you'd be outraged if they were culled? Your analogy is flawed. Whose home is it? For a more accurate analogy: Humans sometimes venture into crocodile-filled rivers. Occasionally someone is taken. Do we then start an indiscriminate culling of as many crocodiles as we can find? No, we do not. Govt's don't allow man eating Crocodiles in suburban areas any more than they should ignore man eating sharks at suburban beaches.

Rubbish argument. We don't build our homes in the water.


Quote:

Wild dogs are culled, feral pigs and horses are culled.  Where there is a danger to the public from a wild animal they are culled.

Again, rubbish. These animals are not protected species. Great white sharks are.


Quote:

Bam wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 9:46pm: Sharks are apex predators. They kill that they may eat. Would you have all the sharks eating tofu? Sharks can kill and eat as much as they want as long as it's not near suburban beaches.

That is a matter of opinion. Why not use shark nets or other barriers to keep them away?


Quote:

Bam wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 9:46pm: Only if those killers are human. Mercy - or the lack of it - is purely a human trait. Animals do not have such concepts as mercy. Oh garbage.  Dangerous animals are culled all the time.

And what animals are these, exactly?


Quote:

Bam wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 9:46pm: Then the public should keep clear of the sharks. The ocean is THEIR home, not ours. You should apply that logic to the illegal boats

Non sequitur.


Quote:

Bam wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 9:46pm: You're very much in the minority on this So what? Challenging the collective is a good thing.  We maybe ruled by a tyranny of the mob and gagged by political correctness but a little bit of individual opinion still survives.

So you would go around killing protected species just because you're too cheap to build exclusion barriers?

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 6:39am:

Bam wrote on Feb 13th, 2014 at 9:46pm: Then the public should keep clear of the sharks. The ocean is THEIR home, not ours. An oft-repeated fallacy.

You don't even know what a fallacy is.

Frankly getting taken by a Shark, maimed or eaten is not one of my favourite choices of how to die.
We take a risk every time we enter the open water, it would appear some think we shouldn't. Ever.

Grendel wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

Frankly getting taken by a Shark, maimed or eaten is not one of my favourite choices of how to die. We take a risk every time we enter the open water, it would appear some think we shouldn't. Ever.

....and it's the Govt's job to reduce that risk by culling the man eaters that are prowling in the proximity of suburban beaches.


Bam wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:42pm:

Rubbish argument. We don't build our homes in the water.

Speaking of rubbish arguments....WTF has that got to do with it?

::)

There's one other factor that, so far at least, does not appear to have been mentioned.

Now, people have mentioned the families of those lost to shark attacks before I admit, but, usually from the emotive stand point of "imagine if you were one of the family members..."

The family of one of the most recent Shark attack victims, I believe it was the 28 year old teacher from SA who was spear fishing un-categorically stated that they did not support any kind of cull as a response to his death and, further, that the actual victim would be mortified at a kill shark response. Namely, he knew and accepted the risks of his chosen activity...

I am a frequent user of our costal waters and absolutely concur with and support this position. I have no desire to be eaten or even bitten for that matter, however, I accept that this is a reasonable risk if I choose to swim, dive, spear fish or surf these waters. By the way, statistically I am still at higher risk of death or serious injury every day I choose to drive or even walk near public roads.

Killing off an apex predator only has long term negative consequences for all other species. That is why I see this "cull idea" as just a dumb, ill conceived nanny state type over reaction.

As to the moronic "it's the Governments responsibility to protect us" - it is the Government's responsibility to educate us, that should afford it's own level of protection through awareness. Now if you as an individual don't want to learn or improve your awareness, that is not the Sharks problem so please refrain from punishing this species over your own ignorance....

.

Swagman wrote on Feb 15^th, 2014 at 10:12am:

Bam wrote on Feb 14th, 2014 at 12:42pm: Rubbish argument. We don't build our homes in the water. Speaking of rubbish arguments....WTF has that got to do with it? ::)

Says the poster who was claiming that

Quote:

Govt's don't allow man eating Crocodiles in suburban areas

as if crocodiles (which can take food on land) is somehow an equivalent example to sharks (which are exclusively marine).

Of course, I don't expect you to appreciate the difference.

Phemanderac wrote on Feb 15^th, 2014 at 12:59pm:

Killing off an apex predator only has long term negative consequences for all other species

It's not killing off an apex predator at all.  That argument is bull schitt.  The sharks have the vastness of the ocean to prowl and kill. 


Phemanderac wrote on Feb 15^th, 2014 at 12:59pm:

The family of one of the most recent Shark attack victims, I believe it was the 28 year old teacher from SA who was spear fishing un-categorically stated that they did not support any kind of cull as a response to his death

If it was anyone from my family or a mate that was killed by a shark I would spend the rest of my days hunting and killing them.