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



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

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


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.

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





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

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


"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:


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:


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 

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


Ditto 


 

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


Sorry Peccary but when arguing with Morons one has to use their own language.......  

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


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.....

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



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.

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



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.