A fishermans perspective on shark culling?

[metalhead666]

So recently i have been asked to do this assignment for my SOSE class, and the topic i chose to cover was shark culling, and i chose to go about it from a fisherman's perspective. I am strongly anti-cull, and i was just wondering what the general perspective of shark culling is in the fishing community, partially because it would be good to use in my assignment and partially because i am interested in the range of opinions out there. So, pro or anti cull and why? Cheers guys.

Here is the video i made for my class if anyone is interested in checking it out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EzH3nUW4c

[Just_chips]

I'm with you mate, very much anti shark culling. I fish offshore in a kayak. I've only had a few experiences with sharks, nothing threatening at all though, mostly they are just stealing my catch as you would expect as it is an easy feed for them. Very rarely you actually get to see them, but I know they are always there and am respectful of that as we are the intruder in their environment.

My closest and most recent encounter with a shark was when kayak fishing off Fraser Island in May earlier this year, we were 5klm east of Indian Head and 4m of tiger shark materialised next to the kayak within arms reach. This animal had a quick look at the yak and then moved over to the other two guys I was with, checking both of them out briefly also before disappearing into the depths again. It was more interested in the baits that I had dangling from the rod tip just into the water and when these were removed it lost interest quickly. It was a very cool experience at the time and all I wanted to do was get my go pro into the water to try and get some footage but by the time I got it out and recording it had gone.

Good luck with your assignment, you should do well because you are obviously passionate about it.

Kev

[metalhead666]

Cheers Kev, appreciate that mate!

[Lucky_Phill]

Interesting subject.

I will find the details, but this is on over-view of recent studies.

Bare with me while I get to the point.

AS we know, Trees on our planet are known as the lungs whereby they absorb CO2. Not well known is that Seagrasses store significantly more carbon than land forests, in fact some studies show up to 40 times as much per square kilometer.

As we also know, forests are in huge decline as are Seagrasses. There are a number of factors pertaining to the decline of the Seagrass and that is a population increase in animals that feed on said grasses, along with a huge reduction in areas the grass grows sustainably.. The increase in grass feeding animals was due to huge numbers of sharks being hunted by humans, which brought about their decline and allowed the Dugongs, Turtles etc to flourish. This put pressure on existing seagrass forests..

Now, with many countries signing on to ban shark fishing, shark numbers are increasing rapidly and with this increase comes ( eventually ) , a problem of food.

Here is Australia, you have no doubt noticed the increase of shark attacks on humans. Many are asking why and I suppose there is no definitive answer.

We have congregated areas of Seagrass and that attracts the grass feeders which in turn attracts the sharks. These grass areas are very close to land, bays, estuaries etc. It is well documented that sharks travel great distances and we suspect this is to obtain food from various sources, which include migratory baitfish and specific area feeders like Dugong.

Obviously, things went out of balance with the huge shark hunting events over the last 20 - 50 years, but more importantly, in recent years.

With the above observations in mind, one can draw a conclusion that reduced numbers of " shark food " will entice sharks to seek out alternatives. The reduction of " shark food " seems to be a man made problem, but way of reducing seagrass areas through dredging, pollution, run-off and habitat destruction.

Should we cull sharks ? Good question and both sides of the debate have valid points.

It should also be noted that the GNS ( Grey Nurse Shark ) protection debacle is another example of doing something based on no knowledge or research, just a whim.

Ask any pro Pelagic Fisher about his or her anecdotal evidence over the last 10 years of their experience with shark populations. Numbers are on the increase , whether it be in specific waters / habitats and or, overall, but they are increasing, significantly.

Can we go down the path of water salinity, water temperatures and the old chestnut ( global warming ) ?

Personally, I am on the fence with culling. I think there is an option for fishers to take more shark as part of their recreational catch, as treated carefully, they taste good.

cheers LP

[McKnight]

Very strongly anti-cull, I have never had an encounter with a shark. Removing a predator from an ecosystem has a drastic knock on effects. In the USA/Canada ( I can't remember exactly), Grey Wolves were hunted out of an area. this area then became over-run with Elk and other normal prey for the wolves. A consequence of that is the land suffered erosion and water quality in creeks and rivers declined. Once they re-introduced Grey Wolves, they noticed improved environmental conditions; less erosion, thicker scrub, fewer invasive weeds.

If you can find that article/paper it would be a really good reference. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_reintroduction)

[beerhunter]

I don't really have a problem with strategic culling of dangerous sharks in areas they are posing a real threat to people.

sent from the beerhunter

[Noelm]

I guess in a way, more and more restrictions have been placed on catching sharks, both rec and pro, so, shark numbers MUST increase, as the numbers increase over the years, sharks will still need to eat, so, might have to look for an easier available meal, and a surfer/diver/anyone in the water could just be that easy meal?? Possible? Maybe!

[Triple]

I'm on the fence.. Lot of other animals are a greater risk to humans than sharks that we never suggest culling.
Is there any correlation with an increase shark attacks in areas where cage divers regularly chum the water to attract sharks and sharks linking the human presence with a food source?
I'm aware the reason they dive at certain places due to known locations of seeing sharks but are the cage boats bringing the sharks in closer to areas where there are more people in the water?

[Lucky_Phill]

I think you'll find shark cage diving is undertaken at known shark locations, habitats or spawning areas...

[Triple]

As I stated I'm aware of that, but are they drawing in more sharks from a larger area due to the burley and are the Sharks linking humans to a food source at the cages?

[Lucky_Phill]

As I stated I'm aware of that, but are they drawing in more sharks from a larger area due to the burley and are the Sharks linking humans to a food source at the cages?

Good question...... as I understand it, more sharks are coming to the " cage " areas, due to increase in population, more-so than bringing in sharks from different areas.

With some recent satellite tracking, it appears sharks have a good memory and will travel great distances to re-visit known food habitats. This would seem to coincide with natural events, like Turtle hatching and Seal colony movements.

I would not discount the sharks seeing humans ( in cages ) being a food source ( albeit, burley attractant ) ... as you state above.


LP

[SkullJug]

I'm totally opposed to shark culling. They are an Apex predator and we have seen time and again that the loss of apex predators can cause a cascade of other issues (glad the yellowstone wolves was mentioned above).

We have no way of gauging the possible effects from doing this. Effectively we would just be cutting the blue wire with our eyes closed.

The increase in attacks could be caused by any number of reasons, it could be a sign of increased shark numbers, it could be a sign of changing conditions in deeper waters pushing sharks closer. Hell, it could be because humans that eat kale taste wonderful... we simply do not know.

Something I am curious about is the profile of the beaches when these attacks occur. Are they near some sweet gutters? Most attacks happen to surfers, not swimmers. This could be because the surfers are seeking out good waves and that draws them to fish holding sand banks while the swimmers tend to choose the flatter areas for a dip. But then again it could be simply that surfers spend more time in deeper water.

Fraser island is a great example though, amazing surf fishing but you would be insane to swim there. Maybe these beaches where the attacks occur are the good fishing grounds?

I would love to see a trial of the gov tracking all the best gutters and beach profiles to provide advise for what areas swimmers and surfers should avoid because there are deep gutters at thr location (see what I did there?)

[scottar]

Good question...... as I understand it, more sharks are coming to the " cage " areas, due to increase in population, more-so than bringing in sharks from different areas.




That will be one "experts" interpretation of the data. Like all statistically driven research, these assumptions are formulated to typically suit a particular stake holder groups agenda. Ultimately most are just guessing to suit themselves. From the information made public it would certainly seem that shark numbers are "on the rise" but as to the reason - who knows. Maybe there are more, maybe they are simply returning to areas as part of a larger global cycle we have no hope of understanding, maybe at their last AGM someone let the cat out of the bag about the free and easy feeds. We can keep guessing till the cows come home.

I suspect that the reasons are compounding. There are more sharks courtesy of protection measures. There are more people in the water. There is less natural food due to their being more sharks, habitat loss and human pressure/interaction on food species. I don't think sharks necessarily target people in the water. If it's in the water it's fair game to these apex predators - period, IMO. Like most fish they are opportunistic feeders and if something presents that doesn't swim away at a million miles an hour, they are going to try and eat it.

As for a "cull" - on one hand, We don't have to go into the water. It is a choice that we make. On the other, we didn't climb to the top of the evolutionary tree by simply letting things eat us. It's funny that the "it's their environment" attitude doesn't get put forward anywhere near as often when a terrestrial predator kills a human. If crocs started coming on the beach and grabbing people up north as regularly as sharks have been biting people do we think they would be left alone because "it's their environment" - they've been here a lot longer than we have.


Can we keep harvesting the oceans at a lower level on the biomass pyramid and not reduce numbers further up the food chain to keep the ecosystem in balance. If we do what are the flow on effects with species evolving to target previously unexplored prey species. Are we as fisherman partly to blame for the increase in attacks


Plenty to think about and make guesses on with this sort of topic.

[ashh]

It would be a waste of time and money.
they deserve to live and be in the ocean, just as much as we do. They were here long before us and most likely long after us.

[goona]

Leave them alone I say. I dive (Spearfish) and I fish. I enjoy watching them when I spear. They are tolerable and when they get aggressive we move to a new location. They are awesome to watch in action and I actually get disappointed if I don't see one. I have had 14ft tigers swim to within a meter of me. Pretty freaky stuff at the time but he wasn't interested in me more interested in the wahoo we were shooting. They are good for the ocean as they clean up the weak and dead fish etc.

[Noelm]

We seem to have a lot of "greens"

[mitc69]

no shark more fishes maybe lola lot of people have different view on this, and i for one, +1 to culling or rather control them moving them outside of bay zone...
when your a victim you want it gone, and when you not, you could care less... the feeling is different and the possible outcome and view are all pending on victims and bystanders whether there great for the marine life or not, it wouldnt have much effect... as we human destroy more of the marine life then nature itself so.... if culling were to occur, minor consequences

in the end it no different from thieves breaking into your house while your asleep, u wake up to kiling them... in the eye one, some will say it self defence, others or the law, will mostly jail you for doing it, this is as good as the recent shooting police did with a women using a knife on the street... out of all the weapon choice they have and so call training, they choose a gun... a lot of ways to handle it... so you would think!

so when your swimming or driving you want a safe feeling, if there sharks, u feel unsafe.. and what do we do when we feel unsafe? we kill it or we run from it... and most will kill it... as running away wont help cuz it'll come back and bite you in the ass sadly... face the problem and get rid of it once and for all lol but likewise this is just my perspective

[Blackened]

Very strongly anti-cull, I have never had an encounter with a shark. Removing a predator from an ecosystem has a drastic knock on effects. In the USA/Canada ( I can't remember exactly), Grey Wolves were hunted out of an area. this area then became over-run with Elk and other normal prey for the wolves. A consequence of that is the land suffered erosion and water quality in creeks and rivers declined. Once they re-introduced Grey Wolves, they noticed improved environmental conditions; less erosion, thicker scrub, fewer invasive weeds.

If you can find that article/paper it would be a really good reference. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_reintroduction)

G'day

This was yellowstone national park. They reintroduced the apex predator (Grey Wolves) and everything re balanced itself, even the rives started flowing again as the beaver population had been reduced back to sustainable levels and the little buggers weren't able to dam the whole out up. There were an incredible amount of positives and some changes that people never saw coming. Apex predators, sharks included are there for a reason. leave them be. I'm anti cull iin this instance. If anything needs to be culled, IMO it's us homo sapiens that need to be culled first, view this as you may but the fact is we've overpopulated this planet and nothing will stop us from getting worse.

Dave

[Daveje]

Dave, more sharks should thin our numbers out a bit

[scottar]

G'day

This was yellowstone national park. They reintroduced the apex predator (Grey Wolves) and everything re balanced itself, even the rives started flowing again as the beaver population had been reduced back to sustainable levels and the little buggers weren't able to dam the whole out up. There were an incredible amount of positives and some changes that people never saw coming. Apex predators, sharks included are there for a reason. leave them be. I'm anti cull iin this instance. If anything needs to be culled, IMO it's us homo sapiens that need to be culled first, view this as you may but the fact is we've overpopulated this planet and nothing will stop us from getting worse.

Dave

There are some differences with this situation though Dave. One would assume that being a national park, the other species were not having direct population control applied. For a parallel to be drawn - ALL fishing would need to be banned so the system can balance. The outcome otherwise may see a biomass pyramid that becomes top heavy with no chance of sustaining itself with who knows what repercussions. I definitely don't want to see that happen. The issue is that due to the nature of the animals in question, any guestimate of population levels can at best be a localised one limited to areas that researchers can readily access - there is a lot more of the ocean that we can't get to than that we can so accurate figures as I see it are a pipedream. I certainly wouldn't like to see wholesale mass slaughter but certainly don't have an issue with winding back measures like " over 1.5 metres is protected" or removal of large animals that frequently return to recognised swimming/surfing areas either. It would be interesting to see if any accurate figures were utilised in the reasoning behind the introduction of the 1.5 metre rule or whether it was just for the greenies.

[Lovey80]

I have absolutely no problem with Shark culling as long as the animals are eaten. A lot of the anti-cull arguments seem to have at least sub consciously an element of declining shark numbers to it. But that couldn't be further from the truth. Shark numbers by my experience are exploding since recent regs were put in place.

i think if those regs could be relaxed a little the needs for culls would be greatly reduced.

[Da-Jew-Man]

Didn't realize the joke of the day thread had a new heading.
Humans ( perhaps the Apex predator on the planet) should be able to swim , surf or whatever safely.
If a surfer ( and this is where the discussions are originating from ) decides to surf early morning or close to dark, beside a river mouth, where baitfish are or in dirty water then I am sorry but this is plain stupid. Recently there was TV footage of surfers beside a bait ball at Duranbah and the bait ball was being hit by unknown predators !!!!!!!!!.
Most surfers feel its a big ocean and the chance of being attacked is small. Mostly they are right but to surf at high risk times is yes risky.
Now coming back to the attacks on the North Coast of NSW. Whales yes whales have increased in numbers and the great whites follow them to feed on calves and sick whales. That's nature working, however the sharks may enter into surf spots and find surfers etc as easy prey, again just nature.
( I know the recent attack was not a great white).
HOW MANY ATTACKS HAVE BEEN ON THE GOLD COAST. Why because of netting, drumlines etc.
The sharks work out very quickly that these areas are high risk for them and steer clear. Yes some come in ( bait balls etc).
Note this is not culling but deterring the sharks from entering a habitat where humans are.
For me to go out and cull sharks willy nilly seems to be irrational, but to deter sharks by netting or drum lines is sensible. This is backed up by the low number of attacks in such areas.
I might point out if a child or woman was taken there may be a different debate.
To all those people who say it is there environment etc etc then:
A brown snake in their backyard where their children play is its environment
Termites in their yard is their environment
Redback, funnelweb spiders is their environment.

My feeling any way. I await to be shot down.

[rtp1984]

I find the idea ridiculous.
If you don't want to be eaten buy a shark, don't dress up as a seal, and jump into a sharks kitchen.
If you shark culling sharks, do we then ban cars from the road so the cyclist don't get hit, or blow up all the icebergs so that ships don't sink, fence all the rivers so no one drowns??

I think people need to start taking responsibility for the own actions.

Cheers Rob.

[Just_chips]

http://www.bobinoz.com/blog/12250/australias-most-dangerous-animals-a-decade-of-death/

[Just_chips]

Didn't realize the joke of the day thread had a new heading.
Humans ( perhaps the Apex predator on the planet) should be able to swim , surf or whatever safely.
If a surfer ( and this is where the discussions are originating from ) decides to surf early morning or close to dark, beside a river mouth, where baitfish are or in dirty water then I am sorry but this is plain stupid. Recently there was TV footage of surfers beside a bait ball at Duranbah and the bait ball was being hit by unknown predators !!!!!!!!!.
Most surfers feel its a big ocean and the chance of being attacked is small. Mostly they are right but to surf at high risk times is yes risky.
Now coming back to the attacks on the North Coast of NSW. Whales yes whales have increased in numbers and the great whites follow them to feed on calves and sick whales. That's nature working, however the sharks may enter into surf spots and find surfers etc as easy prey, again just nature.
( I know the recent attack was not a great white).
HOW MANY ATTACKS HAVE BEEN ON THE GOLD COAST. Why because of netting, drumlines etc.
The sharks work out very quickly that these areas are high risk for them and steer clear. Yes some come in ( bait balls etc).
Note this is not culling but deterring the sharks from entering a habitat where humans are.
For me to go out and cull sharks willy nilly seems to be irrational, but to deter sharks by netting or drum lines is sensible. This is backed up by the low number of attacks in such areas.
I might point out if a child or woman was taken there may be a different debate.
To all those people who say it is there environment etc etc then:
A brown snake in their backyard where their children play is its environment
Termites in their yard is their environment
Redback, funnelweb spiders is their environment.

My feeling any way. I await to be shot down.


No need for anybody to be shot down, it is an emotive topic and no matter what an individuals point of view on the matter respect needs to be given to differing opinions.

All your points are all valid, I get where you're coming from particularly in relation to other dangerous critters within their own/our environment. But I feel the key in these instances is education. For example, if there were funnel webs / redbacks in your area, then you'd teach your kids what to look out for and avoid it, I know this is what I did with my kids as my house was plagued with bloody redbacks when they were little. Or if you have snakes then you teach your kids to leave them alone because lets face it, 99% of people bitten by snakes are trying to kill them first.

So a few key points in your notes include entering the water at dangerous times, such as when it is dirty and vis is poor, low light, in the presence of other prey items etc. Excellent points that are sadly consistent with a number of the attacks on the NNSW coast including the most recent with dirty water freely flowing out of the nearby river mouth. Now I'm not saying that it is the fault of the guys that have been attacked, but they have not done themselves any great favours. Sadly most surfers know this and still take risks anyway, mostly because they are simply struggling to achieve that work / life balance and surf when they can, rather than when conditions are best.

I agree also with your notes re: the netting and drum lines of QLD beaches, it certainly is an interesting set of stats and your angle of "deterrent" rather than culling makes it a much more palatable proposal, spins like this could place you well in politics if you wanted to go that way.

I'm not taking the piss with this image, but it does highlight why maybe a few extra precautions on behalf of the people in the water could help them in the long run. Looking at it from this point of view is sobering.

[Blackened]

There are some differences with this situation though Dave. One would assume that being a national park, the other species were not having direct population control applied. For a parallel to be drawn - ALL fishing would need to be banned so the system can balance. The outcome otherwise may see a biomass pyramid that becomes top heavy with no chance of sustaining itself with who knows what repercussions. I definitely don't want to see that happen. The issue is that due to the nature of the animals in question, any guestimate of population levels can at best be a localised one limited to areas that researchers can readily access - there is a lot more of the ocean that we can't get to than that we can so accurate figures as I see it are a pipedream. I certainly wouldn't like to see wholesale mass slaughter but certainly don't have an issue with winding back measures like " over 1.5 metres is protected" or removal of large animals that frequently return to recognised swimming/surfing areas either. It would be interesting to see if any accurate figures were utilised in the reasoning behind the introduction of the 1.5 metre rule or whether it was just for the greenies.

Granted, what you say is very true, however my general train of thought is that there can only be so many apex predators around, it will balance itself out naturally, has been for millions of years, due to their available food source, territories etc. Kangaroo numbers explode after times of wet, and the mobs will adjust their breeding cycles to cope with the droughts that inevitably come so they they're not massive numbers dying of starvation as the grasses fail to germinate. Either way, without human intervention (I really do think we should just let nature take it course in many aspects) numbers will always re balance to their happy medium.

Dave

[SkullJug]

We seem to have a lot of "greens"

Oh come on. Labels like this only serve to massively simplify very complex issues.

[Noelm]

No, I don't think so, on one hand "we" berate the Greens and their ideals, but then, when it suits us, we can put on our green hats and call things like culling barbaric, whatever needs to be done just has to be done, what that is will be hotly debated for years, there has been more and more pressure to remove shark nets on beaches, more and more restrictions on catching sharks, the end result just has to be more sharks, couple that to removal of tonnes of bait fish from the Oceans, some to feed Tuna farms, some to feed us, and some for bait, then competition for food becomes more intense?

[scottar]

Granted, what you say is very true, however my general train of thought is that there can only be so many apex predators around, it will balance itself out naturally, has been for millions of years, due to their available food source, territories etc. Kangaroo numbers explode after times of wet, and the mobs will adjust their breeding cycles to cope with the droughts that inevitably come so they they're not massive numbers dying of starvation as the grasses fail to germinate. Either way, without human intervention (I really do think we should just let nature take it course in many aspects) numbers will always re balance to their happy medium.

Dave

The million dollar question is whether it will, or whether, as has happened with other species, they will merely adapt to a different source of prey. Animals are extremely resourceful and with things like sharks - in my opinion creatures of repetitive habit. It is not beyond the realms of thought that if numbers are allowed to flourish, and traditional prey is in short supply, that they will adapt in their patterns to deliberately chase those "slow moving seals" at the local surf beach. This is not new behaviour - there have been reports of Orcas changing dietary habits due to suspected overfishing of traditional target species - http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Orcas-Gobbling-Alaskan-Otters-Change-in-Killer-2984307.php
and many terrestrial species have adapted through necessity to cope with urbanisation quite well - mountain lions preying on domestic animals, foxes living and flourishing in urbanised areas etc. Just when we thought it was safe to go back into the water hey LOL.

[Reel Blue]

The only culling required is nets and drum lines. These do not prevent sharks coming into the beach but effectively do stop them setting up permanent residence in the area.

Human 'overpopulation' is not the issue as the human impact on the environment is not directly linked to the total number of people, but rather to the practices employed in a particular area. An example is the river Thames in England. It is in pristine condition compared to a century ago.

Unlike sharks, there are more kangaroos now than in 1770 due to the widespread availability of water provided through dams and artesian bores. Culling is necessary to maintain populations at more consistent and manageable levels. Even with culling, massive numbers of kangaroos still perish during drought as can be seen recently in the Barcalinine and Longreach areas.

[beerhunter]

I tend to agree Dogtooth but don't hold your breath this country is too weak to do anything about it. hell we let pedophiles out of prison to rape more kids what hope do we have.

sent from the beerhunter

[tunaticer]

I don't begrudge a guy for keeping sharks for food.
I do not support culling programs of sharks.
I do not support glory hunting anf killing of sharks.
I don't mind catch and release.

[rtp1984]

.


i think you miss the point completely mate.
the Sharks are not coming into our play ground, we are going into theirs!
and I don't think that we have more of a problem now than we did in the 80's or 90's. We just have more people doing unsafe activities, at unsafe times.

Why Is it that it is mostly surfers that are bitten?
if it was a case of sharks on the hunt for human blood, wouldn't theg be taking all the foreign tourists that can't swim and splash around the shallows advertising a free feed?

and why are most attacks just a single bite, or "maul" as it is reported, it they wanted to eat them. Why didn't they.

[Lovey80]

I think it's also a problem of our continued (but well regulated) competition with Sharks for their food source and not the accompanying reduction in sharks. Quite the opposite I think. We are continuing the "mow the lawn" as far as their food source but since Sharks were put on the "threatened species" list the number of large sharks has grown. They then need to look for other food sources as the number of sharks increases and the resultant biomass in their food sources doesn't.

Think of it the same way as the cane toad problem. The cane toads exploded once introduced and once the numbers of cane beetles reduced to nothing the toads simply moved onto other insects such as honey bees etc. If the number of sharks is increasing due to protection by their only apex predator (humans) and the food source isn't growing with it, of course they are going to look for alternatives.

[scottar]

We need to breed more Orcas to kill the sharks - what could possibly go wrong:oops:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC8Wxfn5xFw

[Dogtoooth]

i think you miss the point completely mate.
the Sharks are not coming into our play ground, we are going into theirs!
and I don't think that we have more of a problem now than we did in the 80's or 90's. We just have more people doing unsafe activities, at unsafe times.

Why Is it that it is mostly surfers that are bitten?
if it was a case of sharks on the hunt for human blood, wouldn't theg be taking all the foreign tourists that can't swim and splash around the shallows advertising a free feed?

and why are most attacks just a single bite, or "maul" as it is reported, it they wanted to eat them. Why didn't they.

Not much beats going to the beach for a swim. Australian's love swimming on our public beaches it's free and refreshing and a tradition. A 4m Tiger, White, Whaler or Bull shark doesn't belong on beaches while people are swimming or surfing. Let's get that straight for some simple people out there. Since " 1962 " Queensland started the drum line program, from Cairns to the Gold Coast peppering baited lines along the coast just offshore near popular beaches. The average rate of shark attacks hasn't dropped or risen since 1962 when the program started, killing thousands of man eating sharks in the progress. The population in Queensland has now exploded on our populated beaches but the attacks haven't risen much since 1962. So that tells you the program is working. We need a cull now purely because of mass population growth on our beaches, it is just crazy and the recent spike of shark attacks in summer on our beaches is out of control. Commercial shark fishermen need to concentrate culling offshore near heavy populated beached area's. So everyone after a swim or surf can get out of the water with no blood loss and go home safe to their loved ones.

[Noelm]

I guess it might be prudent to get an idea on what people think a culling might mean! It does not mean every shark needs to be killed, regardless of size or species, and some sort of wholesale eradication will take place. Any sort of culling that could be undertaken would have to be controlled and scientifically accounted for, not just a free for all.

[banshee]

I guess it boils down to wether or not we want the ocean as our private swimming hole.If so,then by all means cull away.If not,then exercise some common sense and live with the risk.

[Noelm]

Banshee, I can see where you are coming from, but, there are times when we need protection, the Ocean is not our own private swimming hole, but it is a valuable recreational resource, and as such, it is open to use to all people, if that means we need protection, then so be it, if that entails culling/netting/drum lines, then it has to be done.

[Dogtoooth]

I tend to agree Dogtooth but don't hold your breath this country is too weak to do anything about it. hell we let pedophiles out of prison to rape more kids what hope do we have.

sent from the beerhunter

They cut out my 1st comment beer hunter. What happened to freedom of speech in Australia. I'm sure they call this AUSFISH forum, AUS standing for Australia. I guess I offended some MEN on here. I just want to apologise to all the Men who got upset about my 1st comment. I agree Beer Hunter what hope do we have??

[beerhunter]

They cut out my 1st comment beer hunter. What happened to freedom of speech in Australia. I'm sure they call this AUSFISH forum, AUS standing for Australia. I guess I offended some MEN on here. I just want to apologise to all the Men who got upset about my 1st comment. I agree Beer Hunter what hope do we have??
I'm not sure what you said that was offensive. I would like to know though just for interest sake.

sent from the beerhunter

[TroyVIS]

I’ve been spearing for over 20 years and have seen my fair share of sharks in the water. While it still gets the heart pumping I wouldn’t want that to change. I don’t believe shark numbers are on the increase world wide, far from it.


Sharks serve an important role in our lives and I don’t believe a handful of events should cause their death.


If you haven’t seen the documentary Shark Water, I can highly recommend it.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0856008/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1


Here's a few excerpts from some articles..

The global picture is important, as we share 'our' great white sharks in Australia with the rest of the world, with sharks tracked travelling between South Africa and Australia and back. With such a precipitous decline, and the very slow growth and breeding rates of sharks, it is simply not possible for shark numbers to have increased dramatically since Australia protected them only 12 years ago. A female great white shark born in 1999 will only just be reaching maturity now and starting to breed in the coming years, and that is only if she and her mate have dodged numerous threats, such as those posed by commercial and recreational fishing and shark control nets on our east coast.
Despite all this, you may still be asking why we should save sharks. As apex predators, great white sharks sit at the top of the food chain and help (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37144)to regulate the balance of life in the waters all around them. Research shows this massive depletion of sharks has negative and cascading effects throughout ocean ecosystems.
The oceans are the great white shark's environment and as humans continue to exploit this environment more and more, it often results in tragedy. As sharks' and man's worlds collide, we need to respect these events as rarities, in the full knowledge of their infrequency. Surely a healthy ocean is something we all want and that means we need to protect our great white sharks.




As the apex predators of the oceans, the role of sharks is to keep other marine life in healthy balance and to regulate the oceans.
The prospect of a food chain minus its apex predators may mean the end of the line for many more species.
Sharks have widespread global distribution, are highly migratory and play a vital role in maintaining the health of ocean ecosystems.
Sharks are a critical component in an ecosystem that provides 1/3 of our world with food, produces more oxygen than all the rainforests combined, removes half of the atmosphere’s manmade carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas), and controls our planet’s temperature and weather.
The oceans are the most important ecosystem on the planet, and our best defense against global warming, containing life that absorbs most of the carbon dioxide (global warming gas) that we put into the atmosphere, converting it into a large percentage of the oxygen we breathe.
Sharks play a vital role at the top of the food chain by maintaining balance in the oceans. Destroying shark populations could destroy our oceans and our life support system.
We have already witnessed localized collapses of fisheries and ecosystems due to the removal of sharks, including the scallop fisheries in Chesapeake Bay, the coral reefs in Belize and the cod in New England.

[ifishcq1]

Very strongly anti-cull, I have never had an encounter with a shark. Removing a predator from an ecosystem has a drastic knock on effects. In the USA/Canada ( I can't remember exactly), Grey Wolves were hunted out of an area. this area then became over-run with Elk and other normal prey for the wolves. A consequence of that is the land suffered erosion and water quality in creeks and rivers declined. Once they re-introduced Grey Wolves, they noticed improved environmental conditions; less erosion, thicker scrub, fewer invasive weeds.

If you can find that article/paper it would be a really good reference. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_reintroduction) the wolves of yellowstone

[tunaticer]

I am very anti culling sharks.
I haven't killed a shark in 30 years.
I do not think they are more numerous now than before.

To be honest if I was taken by a shark, so be it, i don't give a shit, but I sure as hell don't want one shark harmed in revenge over another death.