A fishermans perspective on shark culling?

[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.

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/au...cade-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/O...er-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.