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.

[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.

[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.