Shark Politics On The East Coast
Twelve years ago the Dunedin council in New Zealand made the controversial decision to remove shark nets from three beaches. They were installed after three men lost their lives to shark attacks in the 1960s which led to widespread panic among the locals.
Ditching them was a sensitive issue, with veteran surfer Gary Burton telling local media someone would soon be "munched up". But since their removal in 2011, not one person has been attacked by a shark at these beaches.
Some conservationists were hopeful this success story could be replicated in New South Wales this summer but Premier Chris Minns has now struck that possibility out. His government has decided to put the nets back from September 1 — they are removed every winter as whales migrate along Sydney's coastline.
There was significant pressure on Mr Minns to ditch the nets, which are considered to be archaic by some marine biologists, and a recent government report about their marine by-catch was not favourable.
It found almost 90 per cent of animals caught in the 51 shark nets along NSW in 2022/23 were "non-target" animals; such as turtles, dolphins, seals and threatened species such as the grey nurse shark. Many of these animals died as contractors only check the nets every three days.
Common dolphin found caught and drowned in NSW shark net (Photo Humane Society International)
But the premier is playing it safe. He says he doesn't have confidence that alternative shark detection technology (drones, listening stations and drum lines) is ready to replace nets.
"I'm not going to get rushed into it, I mean this is an important decision," he said last week.
His decision ruffled many feathers on the all-important crossbench, which the Minns government relies on to pass legislation, and a number of MPs from the left and right united in opposition to nets.
"This is lazy government. At the very least, they could have committed to some trials where the councils have been calling for these nets to be removed," Animal Justice Party MLC Emma Hurst said. "Labor had an election commitment about shark nets and around a phase out and the use of alternatives."
Emma Hurst fronts an alliance of politicians fighting against shark nets (Photo AAP / Bianca de Marchi)
Liberal MP for Terrigal Adam Crouch has pleaded with the government to trial the removal of nets at Killcare, Lakes, and Ocean Beaches on the Central Coast, describing them as "walls of death". But he says they won't commit to providing the three extra drum lines to replace the nets.
So why is the government sticking to the status quo?
Going net-free is considered a huge political gamble, says shark policy expert Christopher Pepin-Neff. No government wants to remove the nets and then see the dreaded headline 'surfer dies at previously netted beach in Australia'.
"They think they will have blood on their hands if someone dies" Dr Pepin-Neff said. "They are afraid of the media and the beating they might get. This is despite there being no scientific evidence nets do anything."
Christopher Pepin-Neff says reluctance to ditch shark nets comes down to fear (Photo: University of Sydney)
Timing is very sensitive for any decision making in this space. In fact, when nets were introduced in 1937 it was because Australia's 150th anniversary was coming up and politicians were worried there would be a shark attack during the celebration.
The NSW government was worried about any shark interactions during the 150th anniversary of Australia (National Museum of Australia)
Shark attacks are rare so receive plenty of media attention. Just last Friday a man in his forties was bitten by a shark near Lighthouse Beach at Port Macquarie. He survived but sustained serious leg injuries. There are no shark nets at Lightnouse Beach, as the government hasn't installed any north of Newcastle, but drum lines are in place.
Shark politics is 'fraught'
Roi Fine surfs every day but nets aren't on his mind when he's out amongst the waves. "To me it's more important to know how close the hospital is if something happens because a lot of shark deaths are caused by loss of blood," he said. "Nets don't seem effective, I still see huge fish and dolphins this side of the net."
Roi Fine says shark nets kill too much marine life (Photo ABC News / Paige Cockburn)
Mr Fine says he thinks the government should conduct a trial where nets are removed at a limited number of beaches for a year.
"If it works, remove more."
Bondi surfer Peter Connor wants them to stay.
"If they save one life it's worth it," he said. "I think it's understandable the government is being cautious. I think they're really needed at popular spots like Bondi where there's many surfers and swimmers.
"The other kinds of shark technology needs to be up to the task."
Peter Connor says he feels safer in the ocean with shark nets (Photo ABC News / Paige Cockburn)
The government's own SharkSmart program has concluded drum lines are the "most effective tool" for catching target sharks and reducing marine by-catch. It says nets don't provide any guarantees but have been "effective in greatly reducing the potential number of interactions".
However, it acknowledges there have been 36 shark interactions at netted beaches since they were introduced, including one fatality in 1951, and sharks can swim over, under and around the 150 metre long nets.
In fact, 40 per cent of sharks caught by the nets are found on the beach side.
The catch alert drumline system (Queensland government)
Professor Pepin-Neff says the government is somewhat hamstrung if the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) stands by shark nets in any way.
"They have to take the leash off DPI," he said. "I'm not pretending it's easy, shark politics is fraught, but it requires really strong leadership."
Although governments might fear being blamed for any attacks if nets were abandoned, research doesn't support this. Earlier this year, the University of Sydney found 70 per cent of residents in Sydney's beachside council of Waverley would not blame the government if nets were removed and there was a subsequent shark attack.
Over 70 per cent of respondents also believed "no-one" was to blame for shark attacks and they would return to a beach where nets had been removed.
Waiting it out
The previous NSW Coalition government indicated their willingness to shift away from shark nets. In December 2022 they made an $85 million commitment over four years in "modern" technology such as drum lines, listening stations, and drone trials.
This came around eleven months after the death of diving instructor Simon Nellist, who was fatally attacked at Sydney's Little Bay by a great white shark.
Shark attack victim Simon Nellist (Photo Facebook / Simon Nellist)
The following summer was the first time drum lines, drones, and shark listening stations were used at beaches that also have shark nets. Minister for Agriculture Tara Moriarty said the government wanted to continue all four measures for one more summer season to have more thorough data.
Shark researcher Daryl McPhee from Bond University thinks the government is right to wait it out.
"I think he [Chris Minns] is on the money," Dr McPhee said. "I just don't think [the technology] is there yet."
He said while drones had shown good early results in parts of NSW and personal shark deterrents had their place, there was no "silver bullet".
"It's always going to be a range of approaches."
However, he said even if the governments did nothing, the number of bites would still be incredibly low.
"You're twenty times more likely to drown at an Australian beach than you are to be killed by a shark."
On this, Professor Pepin-Neff agrees.
"Are sharks really a governable issue? Lightning strikes aren't, floods aren't."
// PAIGE COCKBURN
© Australian Broadcasting Corporation. All rights reserved.
Comments
Sigh- advocacy, not journalism.
Pepin-Neff: "This is despite there being no scientific evidence nets do anything"
CSIRO published Marine and Freshwater Research, 2011. By Dudley and Cliff.
Abstract. Large-scale shark-control programs at popular beaches in New South Wales and Queensland, Australia, and KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), South Africa, provide protection against shark attack. In KZN, the introduction of shark nets reduced the incidence of shark attack at protected beaches by over 90% (Dudley 1997).
1 fatality at netted beaches in NSW since 1937, vs how many fatalities at non-netted beaches?
Surely we can acknowledge that the by-catch is horrific while at the same time grounding the debate in reality.
Shark nets are incredibly effective.
To argue otherwise is just fairy-land stuff.
"Are sharks really a governable issue" Pepin-neff.
Look around you, they have been for almost a hundred years.
"1 fatality at netted beaches in NSW since 1937, vs how many fatalities at non-netted beaches?"
And not just any beaches but the most popular beaches in the state where, all things being equal, you'd expect to see a greater number of interactions.
+1 FR.
Ditto FR
+2. Psycho activists.
"Almost 90 percent of global marine fish stocks are now fully exploited or overfished"
Reference The World Bank
https://datatopics.worldbank.org/sdgatlas/archive/2017/SDG-14-life-below...
So, fish populations are declining world wide, including sharks.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274433160_Reducing_the_environm...
"Long-term data are available for shark control programs and game-fishing records. In all cases, significant declines in catches have been recorded. Catch rates declined by approximately 75% since the 1960s and by 50% since the 1950s in the Qld and the NSW shark control programs respectively. Mean size at capture has also declined in the NSW program, although this is not evident in the Qld data. "
Reference A review of the biology and status of white sharks in Australian waters 2001
https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=procite:1d0d13e5-7a60-4e6...
"It's easy to imagine that us Australasians have really made a secure future for ourselves here, but ever since the time the first Europeans arrived we've altered nature so much that we've become an exterminator species the third and most damaging wave of the people I call the future eaters."
Prof of Science Tim Flannery: OA
https://www.abc.net.au/science/future/ep3/trans3.htm
"Here on Earth" Long Term Thinking
https://longnow.org/seminars/02011/may/03/here-earth/
I assume that the contractors only check the nets every three days in NSW because that's the frequency that is funded by the government. If that's right, and if the government are fair dinkum about reducing by-catch deaths, then why can't the funding be increased so that the nets are checked daily? That's not going to eliminate by-catch deaths, but surely it would help.
Good point. Pretty sure it's daily on the Goldy.
Yep Daily.
Haha that is literally the answer right there
The only natural deterrent the great white currently has is an attack from an Orca.
As far as I know this led to GWS disappearance from the Neptune Islands SA for a period of time. Is it because of the sounds or the scent(combination)left by a bleeding GWS?
Surely science could trial GWS blood /synthetic version or Orca sounds. I am inclined to listen to the local fishermen and surfers who have had generations of saltwater experience. Now deceased lifetime Boat builder,shark and crayfisher in Victoria told me sharks are like dogs sometimes you see angry ones. They used to attack his timber trawlers and craypots..
Our kids and future ocean uses deserve to be protected from physical threats by a combination of methods not woke politics.
Spot on. Seems to be something about the Neptune Island dissapearance that warrants more investigation. Instead of a Shark Net, just Anchor a fake Orca to the bottom (the scarecrow effect) ?
Too much Shark research is on Tagging the shark to see where it goes v actual testing of deterrents.
This needs to be done by a Government body (not a commercial one) as it may involve the sacrifice of some GWS. Also commercial interest are only in play to develop individual deterrents for sale to consumers. Yet this may not be the answer
PS: Im OK to cull Bull Sharks. Look what happened at reunion island.
Why must a choice be made about what aspect of shark attacks we need to research?. Surly truly valuable knowledge can only come from learning lessons from all aspects of a topic.
Don't call me Surly! :P
Another person just chucking around the term 'woke' to mean whatever they want it to mean.
Freeride is there some science behind why the nets have that effect? It seems to be just an empirical correlation?
Withthe DPI Smart Drums there was a general observation that where they have been operated there have been no shark attacks. Until last week.
If the Great White numbers were lower historically then the net data could be skewed. An increase in Great White numbers may now make the nets less effective. Snapper Rocks was presumably netted when the fatal attack occurred in2020.
Yeah. Nothing complicated. Standard fishing effect.
Dudley: "This is achieved by fishing for sharks directly off the beaches, using large-mesh gill-nets or baited lines or both, thereby reducing the likelihood of a dangerous shark coming into contact with humans".
It's also likely that nets just outside the surf zone disrupt white shark cruising patterns, and reduce habitat preferences for netted beaches.
Shark nets on the Gold Coast are absolutely useless. Get rid of all nets.
Burleigh I've seen a family of about 15 humpbacks on a flat, crystal clear day cruising the coast from Kirra up past greeny and back out to sea at Snapper, all inside the shark nets. 15! Was pretty awesome actually.
They obviously found the gaps pretty easy, so yep, agreed, pretty useless as far as gatekeeping goes, on that particular stretch of coast anyway.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/video-footage-captures-orcas-k...
As an aside it’s good to see an ever effervescent Hunter, I hope that he’s still surfing.
As another aside, the land sharks on the east coast have always been the biggest issue in surfing.
Shar
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/video-footage-captures-orcas-k...
As an aside it’s good to see an ever effervescent Hunter, I hope that he’s still surfing.
As another aside, the land sharks on the east coast have always been the biggest issue in surfing.
those orcas needs to be prosecuted and put in jail, don't they know that killing white sharks in australia is illegal. bloody stupid mobs.
Interesting how the drum lines at Cronulla are placed in the water after sunrise and removed late afternoon every day. No drum lines overnight, dawn or dusk when sharks are said to be frequenting/feeding the most is stupid. The use of drum lines needs to be 24 hours a day if they are to be used as a deterrent not just a look at me approach/cost saving form of beach protection
Remove all nets and drum lines; sharks are not things at our disposal to do with as we see fit, the essence of their existence is for the shark...
Agree, people thinking that we as a species are more important than the entire environment we're a part of is really silly.
We are a part of a system, we start changing things to suit us then things go sideways.
Look at, introduced species wrecking havoc on environments, draining floodplains for agriculture (which then get flooded as intended and destroy ppls farms/homes), clearing forests for agriculture and timber (less carbon storage/habitat increasing temperatures and major climate events).
Need to consider things in a "systems thinking" approach.
If i die by shark attack that sucks but my life isn't worth more than the environment, because if we kill all the stuff in the ocean we're doomed.
I appreciate that line of thinking- at least as far as it is noble and well intentioned.
But I assume, you feel more important than say, bacteria (the most common by far element of the Earths biomass) or arachnids (ticks etc etc).
You'll take antibiotics without hesitation so a bacterial infection doesn't kill you and freeze a tick off without a seconds thought.
This idea that humans will exist without protecting themselves from predators or threats is really a kind of nonsense. It's a pure luxury belief. Disney movie stuff.
And in that sense we are no different from any other biological organism alive- from bacteria, fungi, protozoa to plants and animals.
All attempt to protect themselves from predation.
We just have bigger brains and thus better tools at our disposal.
All attempt to protect themselves from predation.
We are not marine creatures and our entry into a marine environment is for recreation only. If we wish to protect ourselves from predation we have the option of using our bigger brain and not entering the predators environment.
Also, could you please provide an example of any non human organism that erects an artificial barrier to predation.
Thats another very weak argument (IMO).
Humans have inhabited coastal environments at least since we became modern (Homo sapiens) and that habitation involves fishing, diving, using the inshore environment.
Our evolution is very much tied up with utilising marine environments.
Non human organisms don't erect artificial barriers because they don't have big brains that use tools (with few exceptions).
Animals, plants, bacteria use movements, teeth, claws, toxins, etc etc to avoid predation.
Humans are weak and vulnerable and our success as a species relied on our development of tools to protect us from predations, infections etc etc.
To suggest we would abandon that and voluntarily increase our vulnerability to predation is really a luxury belief.
True, but sharks don't have a choice, they have to live in the water.
We can survive, especially in this modern age, without being in the water.
Beaver dams?
Hermit crab
bang on
Should say i respect others opinions completely on this topic. And you're right i do feel (marginally) more important than a tick haha.
However, i would say the metaphor regarding antibiotics doesn't really translate properly.
I actually avoid antibiotics if possible, as the more of that stuff we take, the more resistant they become (which itself is a much bigger issue than shark attacks).
As its our choice to go and surf in the water and the risk of being eaten is very small. I think our protection from predation by sharks is simply, not entering the water.
Can understand priorities would be different if you have children who surf and dive etc, but I do think we need to start thinking about things from the perspective of being part of this world and not in control of it.
Likewise Adsi.
I think (personally) a deeper understanding of biology and ecology shows human play to be as fundamental to our existence as any other higher primate or cetacean.
Therefore, this idea, that we should default to don't go in the water, seems completely inane and unrealistic to me.
What? Coastal towns that have surfing at their core, are going to stop or move inland as white shark populations continue to recover?
Or just accept an increased injury/death toll?
Yeah, nah.
No biological organism accepts that, especially big brained ones like us.
My thoughts on the topic have been posted a few times before. I'm 100% with you Adsi.
A line I used to enjoy was one from the retired Blowin: 'we want to kill sharks so we can go play 'splish splash' in the ocean'.
Who do we think we are?
Yeah ok, surfing means a great deal to many of us, but it's just surfing, a bit of fun..............at the heart of it, that's all it is (for the record I'd be devastated not the be able to do it).....however, If we wiped surfing out tomorrow, we'd be ok. We'd do different things, people would find new jobs, the sun would come up. Any thought that we are entitled to be safe going for a surf is kind of like saying 'life is meant to be fair'.
Why should sharks and other marine life die just so you can get half a dozen fun ones?
I think an injury / death toll is a very unfortunate given for this thing we do in wild spaces. Why is this unreasonable to accept?
It's not unreasonable to accept.
Everyone accepts it.
But we also try and reduce it, if we can.
Because that is what human beings do.
my mates were out with Mani-Hart Deville a couple hrs down the coast on July 2020. Dozen or so in the water, half of them kids, enjoying fun little 2ft lefts in paradise.
A white shark picked him out from within that pack. And hit him hard. Full ambush hit.
Then circled around and came for him again and had to be fought off him by others.
They got him to the beach quickly but he bled out in front of his Mum, who was there watching.
He was 15, just a great kid by all accounts.
Rest of his life in front of him.
All present deeply traumatised by the experience.
Would you not want to try and reduce the risk of that happening if you could?
As a founding principle?
Would so be so cavalier about it if it was your kid, your mates?
I've commented on this before also, we only seek safety in very very small portions of the far inshore zone of our coastline, in most cases these are shallow areas with high water visibility. These areas are not the typical or preferred habitat of large predators as typically there's not much prey and not really any cover for them.
I believe that these portions of the inshore zone are far more a part of our habitat/lives/well-being as humans in comparison to large sharks.
I think that its a reasonable argument to suggest that we as humans have a right to protect ourselves in these limited inshore zones. Why shouldn't we be able to protect ourselves/reduce the risk of death when we are in these zones given the value they add to our lives, economies etc.?
We're not like we're sticking nets or drum lines at the mouths of estuaries, at deep rock shelf drops offs or offshore reefs or any other environment where you'd expect to find large sharks.
I don't agree a blanket "its their environment, don't go in the water" that's crap, certain inshore zones are as much our environment as theirs (if not more).
I don't believe that the loss of a very small number of large predators from very small portions of our coastline is going to cause any ecosystem to collapse.
If there were more sensible people out there like you Smorto this wouldn't be a conversation, we as humans would be allowed to deal with this situation the way it should be dealt with, and that is MANAGEMENT of a species, just like we do to terrestrial animals that can become problematic to our lives at times. To say a shark has equal or greater value than a human is utter rubbish. What happens when the GWS population reaches a point where it is no longer safe to enter the water, because their numbers are increasing and it might not be that far off? What will you shark lovers say then?
Govt needs to reintroduce shark fishing licences so their numbers can be managed in a controlled way with quota's.
What gives you the right to "manage" a species or play god to particular species?
Oh the faux outrage.
Try kangaroos for a start when it comes to over grazing and animal well being.
Next have a look at biodiversity snd managing invasive and pest species. Cats toads pigs deer goat camel horse etc. did I mention cats?
Choose a better hill to die on.
Kangaroos? You mean the native marsupial that has lived on this land for 20 million years are now a pest? Or is it possible that animals have been pushed out of their natural habitats due to humans and are now being labeled a pest? What did you say about hills to die on? Be better than that bonza
Lol should’ve read a bit first burls before you shot that one off. Anyways I expect that from a guy who surfs with literally hundreds of people every session any time of the day protected by shark nets with an açai blueberry shake greeting him at every possible exit point chauffeured out by jetskis.
The only species you mentioned there that wasn't introduced BECAUSE of human "management" is the kangaroo and we only want to manage them because it interferes with profit.
Sometimes but Managing roos has as much to do with environmental health and animal wellbeing . Read up on it.
The point is humans have been managing animals on this country since we existed. To say otherwise ignores 60 odd thousand years of indigenous culture. Yes white fellas have sucked at it but we are learning / what are ya gunna do turn back time? Nature ain’t natural
Kangaroo populations were in "balance" up until European settlement. Hunting by the indigenous people but more importantly the natural environment ensured that.
Post European settlement, water, for much of the time became more available, as farming took hold and with that kangaroo populations exploded. Subsequent droughts reduced populations but over time numbers increased.
In addition to that we had an expanding population which reduced their natural habitat. As a result we have a kangaroo "problem" now in need of "management".
It's the same story repeated over and over again, human interference in nature results in an animal problem in need of "management".
Sigh. Wish it all you want mate but those days are gone. What’s your plan for now with this mess we have made.
Kangaroos would be completely fine without as white folk coming in and taking over.
They lived here for 20 million years. Us humans are taking their land. Who’s the real pest here?
If you're saying humans are the pest then that includes you, interesting take.
of course it does.
BTW, I would count Aboriginals (I'll probably get shot down for calling them that) hunting Roos as a form of management. They are not being left to simply proliferate, which is what GWS's are being left to do at the minute.
I'd hazard a guess and say the roos were primarily a food source for the indigenous population.
I doubt "management" was a consideration for them. They only took what they needed to survive.
Of course they managed their resources.
Have a read of Bill Gammage's The Biggest Estate on Earth.
They may have "managed" their resources by use of long established practices such as burning forests etc, but I doubt they did population counts to establish an optimum carrying capacity for their food sources such as roos etc.
Take what you need to survive, treat your environment and it's inhabitants with respect and you'll be fine. And they did that for 60000 years.
It's a pity modern humanity can't learn from that.
The indigenous Australians were a lot smarter than we were led to believe. Dark Emu is a great read.
however i don't believe for one second that they "managed" the number of roos. Which makes them even more intelligent. They were all living in harmony.
Mate they even call themselves Aboriginals so you can bring yourself to do it to. You've missed the point, killing animals for whatever reason, as a food source or to cap numbers, is managing a population.
Yep you've got a valid point. So who/what manages GWS numbers now they are no longer endangered?
A lot of talk about kangaroos and aboriginals but nothing in reference to my comment about the value of certain inshore zones as human habitat and our right to reduce the risk of death whilst in this habitat.
All I can say is imagine the political shytestorm if a 7 year old on holidays is riding his boogey between the flags and gets chomped in half by a great white one week after the nets are removed.
Unlikely yes, but no politician wants to be accused of having blood on their hands, except maybe for the Greens - they don't live in the real world.
I'm with you re the inshore zone being as much ours as the aquatic animals'.
you're what? this is the funniest thing ive read in ages. It's like saying the sharks area is also in the sand dunes
This is a very good comment smorto
"These areas are not the typical or preferred habitat of large predators as typically there's not much prey and not really any cover for them.
I believe that these portions of the inshore zone are far more a part of our habitat/lives/well-being as humans in comparison to large sharks"
Not having a go because i think this is a good post, but is this above statement evidence based?
Over here it's pretty common to see large sharks cruising in close to shore at certain times of year,(usually early autumn through to winter) especially on the small crisp clear clean sunny offshore days.
Plenty of prey for them too.
As far as i know, it's been like that for eons.
Not having a go either, but you're asking me for evidence to back up a statement I made then go on to conclude that what you're saying has been occurring for "eons".
Not sure where you live and what the 'plenty of prey' for large sharks is available in the surf zone there, but its definitely not common to see large whites cruising the inshore zones here. Sure maybe the odd bronzie here and there in autumn/winter chasing the bait balls, but large whites or tigers in the shallow surf zone is very rare. I have no idea if its been like this for eons.
Yes mate, with a caveat of 'as far as i know',
Which was my point of your post. That the main point you made isn't backed up by any actual data that you've provided. If you have it, would be good to see it to know exactly the scientific data to back up that statement.
Or even your own observations of populations you've seen out to sea as opposed to inshore. Just seems a pretty sweeping statement without any factual evidence to back it up, to base your argument on that we should just net all beaches because it's not the natural habitat for sharks anyway. I disagree, based on my own observations.
Is it different on the East Coast to the S and SW coasts? Possibly, but how. Probably alot more complexities than we both know.
Southern Ocean. Lots of migratory fish, salmon. Seal colonies all along the coast here, seals seen often in the surf, along headlands. Lots of different types of sharks, white, bronze, black, stripey. Mostly large.
Have seen a huge pointer coming into an inshore gutter on one occasion after it spooked me out of the surf. The sort of inshore gutter you'd see little kiddies swimming in. No one around but was quite a surreal sight. Could have thrown a rock and hit it from the sand. Cruised in one end and out the other.
@ Freeride:
It's clear your passionate opinion is formed off the back of personal close experience and is emotive for you. Fair enough.
Of course I'd love to see effective and ethical means of reducing the risk, however I'm not convinced there are any out there at this point.
As such out of all the things I choose to put my emotional energy towards, this is usually not one of them. I've made that mistake on this thread (putting energy into something out of my control), so as I usually do out in the ocean, I'll just paddle on from this one.
Happy surfing all.
British nuclear weapons testing in Australia from 1952 to 1963
https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/sources-radiation/mor...
One can protect one's will without asserting it on another.
.
Absolutely stunning video bbbird, what a find!
Courageous caring woman! Cristina Zenato! Beautiful visuals, acts of kindness. She says just to “Make the shark's lives a little bit better” As she suits up and literally goes to the depths to make a difference for these creatures and removing a hook that is painful to them.
What an example how one can act, displaying that if you put the trust into a situation, if you believe in it, you can do it and make a difference.
Hooks in mouths of any shark, fish or any sea creature is torturous for them. Same for us, imagine if we were to do our everyday business with a hook dug into the roof of our mouth or jagged through the lip that’s been yanked at by an unsuspecting fisherman, and without having the convenience of visiting the local medical centre to remove the f..ing thing. How sad! Again, sorry but….like nets on the beaches..it’s again us humans interfering yet again!
As displayed here, sharks are sentient beings with feelings, physically and emotionally. These animals are beguiled by our interfering presence in their space, their ocean, their wonderland and their innocent living domain of survival.
Probably said numerous times already here…Shark nets trap and kill sharks, they kill dolphins, rays, turtles, dugongs, whales even. If I was responsible for a single animal getting killed in a net. I’d say right “I don’t want this anymore!" and rip the things back out of the water.
Is it possible for electronic detection of the potentially dangerous sharks via live satellite imagery with on ground monitors that warns ocean goers perhaps? I could inform myself hey, certainly interested, Thanks
Sometimes when you take antibiotics they kill the bacteria that keeps you alive (primarily in the gut) and this can make you sick - usually diarrhea. You've disrupted the balance in your body. Bacterial cells outnumber your own cells after all. GWS and the by catch (which outnumbers the sharks) are an integral part of the ecology. They are not in numbers comparable to bacteria or arachnids. Our oceans (in particular) are at a tipping point and any further disruption holds unknown risks as we really don't know that much about the ocean. Shark shields, while cumbersome, are effective in deterring sharks (I've seen white sharks bolt when they're turned on spearing off Rottnest) for commercial divers. Otherwise getting in the ocean is a CHOICE.
As an ocean goer, you'd have to take the stats of shark attack possibility with a grain of salt....given that 80-90% of the population wouldn't be in the water as frequently as surfers, it would be interesting to see stats on surfers being attacked vs the total population of frequent surfers.....possibly a stat I wouldn't want to see :-)
I agree with the need to remove nets, given the by-catch, and apparent ineffectiveness and then redirect that funding to at least trialling something more effective.
The orca phenomenon surely needs further investigation, e.g. a rotation of a variety of orca calls across broadcasting stations in trouble areas, populated areas, or even one to shove in the leggy.
Can't dismiss the horrific nature of the injuries and associated trauma, of course, though something more effective is surely available.
Given the white population is back to a healthy position (possibly too healthy), the job is done, its now a little imbalanced and public policy should offset that, driving change to rectify. Don't ask me what that looks like, but the landscape has changed dramatically.
Or is it just the way it is...time to innovate with orca leggy speakers and chain mail wetties.
Generally surfing solo or with just a couple of mates, it's on my mind occasionally, but I have the opinion I cant really change the outcome, so fug it.
The by catch concern advocates studiously ignore a much larger issue of by catch from commercial fishing:
"Wherever there is fishing, there is bycatch—the incidental capture of non-target species such as dolphins, marine turtles and seabirds. Thousands of miles of nets and lines are set in the world's oceans each day. Modern fishing gear, often undetectable by sight and extremely strong, is very efficient at catching the desired fish species—as well as anything else in its path. A staggering amount of marine life—including turtles, dolphins and juvenile fish—is hauled up with the catch, and then discarded overboard dead or dying."
Small numbers of nets across a tiny % of Australian beaches is pretty low impact in the broader scheme of things. There are much bigger environmental issues to put energy into than shark nets.
Suggesting that nets don't work is just twisted opinion to suit a predetermined position.
You can overstate the impact of commercial fishing too Frog. In Australia recreational boaters and fishers outstrip commercial fishers by 2 orders of magnitude (i.e. millions vs thousands). What about the turtles, whales, dolphins, dugong etc being caught and struck by recreational fishers/boaters and their gear?
I do agree - shark nets are a minor contributor to the detriment of important species' (including sharks themselves!) in the grand scheme of things. These warriors are barking up the wrong bush.
There's definitely strong evidence for the rec catch being orders of magnitude greater than commercial for some species Andrew but there is a very big difference in gear and fishing method used and thus bycatch.
Rec fishers won't be getting turtle, whale and dolphin bycatch.
Whereas commercial fishers can, even if rarely.
Boat strike for turtles, dugong and whales are a likelihood for all boaties. Ghost fishing from "liberated" crab pots have been shown to trap and kill turtles on the east coast, and there are many more rec crab pots than commercial. If you are referring to trawling and gill nets being the most destructive of gears for Threatened, Endangered and Protected Species (TEPs) then in the last 3 decades significant advancement in bycatch reduction devices in trawl (Australia is the world leader) and rules for attendance of gill nets while fishing have substantially reduced the number of interactions and deaths over this period. Simply put - commercial fishers do not want to interact with TEPs as they damage their gear, reduce their catch, cost them money and look really bad if they do. They are also required to report their interactions to the Federal government. So the evidence that commercial fishers are responsible for these great losses is an easy assumption to make but completely untrue.
Shark nets are effective at killing marine animals as they are designed to catch and kill marine animals and are placed in areas where they inhabit and transit. There are no attendance rules (as seen in the article - only have to be checked every 3 days) which means that by the time they are checked the captured fish is more often than not, dead. Very different from a commercial fishing operation.
Agree with this position and FRs take above. Unless there's evidence showing that the nets are having a marked detrimental impact on marine life, I don't see why the status quo needs to be changed, especially when considering bycatch in the wider context of commercial fishing.
I think the context is, that shark nets are ineffective and have detrimental results to wildlife. So the argument is, why do we do it....seemingly unnecessarily?
Commercial fishing is effective in its function, yet has a multitude of detrimental side effects, though arguably, a necessary primary resource.
Do we need the shark nets, I don't think so.
"I think the context is, that shark nets are ineffective and have detrimental results to wildlife."
The problem is shark nets are effective. It's just a disingenuous position to claim otherwise.
But agreed, they definitely catch and kill too many other marine creatures.
How are they effective?
I'm with you, how are they proven effective?
By catching or disrupting large sharks close to shore and thus reducing risk of shark/human encounters.
I would've agreed with you on that, until there was a white shark on the inside of the Rockpool net at Tuncurry Beach last year with all the oldies and peanut gallery in shock on the sand and breakwall watching.
Any chance of you reposting that Fantastic Vid of the White Shark in River Hunting the Fish Frame ?
There you go mate. And here's the clip of the GWS on the wrong side of the net at the Rockpool in Tuncurry
https://dai.ly/x87r8vt
And while on the topic of nets, this clip's pretty wild. Multiple GWS patrolling the shore after the commercial guys did a mullet haul and a white manages to get inside the mullet shot and had to be freed.
FYI, this sin't my work so please don't crucify me for the appalling music choice!
https://dai.ly/x87r8t1
Yes , hit mute immediately. Cool vid though, thx, I've experienced that situation before. Wasn't surprised it went straight back to the bag of fish.
It gets pretty spooky if you're one of the guys in the water sectioning off the bags.
But are they Steve?
IMO the data doesn't suggest that they are effective, but more of a feel good barrier to give a little reassurance that something is being done that was implemented however many decades ago a few hundred metres off iconic metro, heavily populated beaches.
Just because there's been little to no attacks/interactions with humans in those spots doesn't mean that's the case for the rest of the coastline. Surely you don't think if they placed a 150m long net that has no sides but runs parallel to shore at Tuncurry Beach that it would stop/drastically reduce the presence of sharks in a known nursery close to shore?? I do agree it disrupts them for sure, as well as a shitload of other marine life that get caught up.
And what evidence is there that sharks actually approach a net and decide "I'm sticking ocean side of this thing"
Only last week Bondi (a netted beach) had a mako swim within 300m of the shoreline, inside the net distance (can find it on dronesharkapp FB page). Bondi is almost 1km long with 150m long net. What is it really doing?
Very strong causal link between the number of deaths prior to 1937 - thirteen in ten years - and the sole death after the nets went in.
If it wasn't the nets, what was it?
Sure, nature is always changing, but no-one's proposed a sound alternative to why the fatalities went down to near zero.
Also, the exact same thing happened in Durban, South Africa, when they netted their beaches.
I mean, we were also slaughtering heaps of sharks and whales and stuff then. Hard to draw any hard conclusions from the history. Its interesting that nearly 50% of sharks are found on the wrong side of the net, maybe they were initially confused but not have learned to avoid the nets on the way in ? dunno
Not confusing. The nets don't work like, say, the nets for a swimming area, which are top to bottom and all the way around.
Shark nets interfere with behaviour, stopping them from cruising along beyond the surf zone, and forcing them to move along.
Do you know the distance between each net on the Gold Coast?
https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/business-priorities/fisheries/shark-control-p...
The Orca approach is being researched and gets a mention towards the end of this article
"...he plays the sound of orcas and it seems to scare the bejeebers out of everything — dolphins, whales, the whole shebang."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2023-06-24/when-it-comes-to-shark-de...
if you're afraid of the wildlife then maybe going in the ocean isn't for you, less people surfing and less dolphins and whales getting snared in ocean junk is a win win
Free rides says "1 fatality at netted beaches in NSW since 1937"........
Lets delve into this sweeping statement.
Netted beaches have LIFE SAVERS on LOOKOUT , jet skis, life saver boats, flags, planes, helicopters, and sirens to get people out whena shark is spotted. To insinuate that nets are responsible is a disingenuous argument. If the more remote beaches without nets had life saver lookouts etc, THEN you could honestly compare the 2.
So does Ballina Sheepy.
So does Tuncurry.
So does Kingscliff.
These aren't remote beaches mate.
Lifesavers haven't done jack to prevent white shark attacks, with all due respect.
I agree, we should look for confounding factors, but the simple fact of one fatality since 1937 compared to numerous fatalities and near fatalities away from the nets will need very strong evidence to overturn.
Re the last sentence, wouldn't that be more linked to the availability of fish stocks, whale migration patterns and resting etc? Ie that's where the sharks are more likely to be closer in shore.
It would be great to get the shark tag data to see if there is an increase in shark traffic in shore to the north, as I'd believe compared down here in Sydney.
There hasn't been any evidence I've seen that inshore marine biota and white shark prey species (Aus salmon, snapper, stingrays, cetaceans for eg) in Central NSW waters would be sufficiently impoverished compared to Northern or Southern NSW such that white sharks would not aggregate there or inhabit the area for hunting prey.
They are highly mobile species, we've seen that from tagging data. Some of that movement is seasonal, for sure.
There's no evidence Central NSW is "immune" from that seasonal movement of white sharks.
In fact the evidence suggests a reason nets have such a prophylactic effect. Seems like white shark movements are primarily through the region (Spring into Summer) when nets are set.
If we understood more about this seasonal movement or even temporary aggregations then we could reduce the fishing effort from nets (set them less frequently) and reduce marine bycatch.
They are already doing that in KZN (Durban).
It's interesting, bait balls are hardly seen in and around the Sydney region, but become more prevalent from the Central Coast north.
Is this because of commercial fishing in and around the big cities etc? Just doesn't seem as alive down here.
Probably a range of environmental and behavioural factors Craig, not just one sector.
I would suspect that the biggest factor would be the number and types of rivers nearby. Northern rivers would be most lively, which coincides with the most shark attacks. When the rivers flooded out in Sydney a couple of years ago there were bait balls all over the northern beaches.
+1 FR
Your quoting of "no fatalities at netted beaches" is disingenuous at best mate. My point, is as kids, we all heard the life savers shark siren at our local netted beach. And as you can see with the map I provide, ALL NSW NETTED AREAS also have HELICOPTER surveillance, and have had air surveillance with cessna's back in the day. There are nets at greenmount/ coolie yeah? a man made invisible line saved NSW from a stat.
Another disingenuous part of this debate is the recent shark attack off Little bay in sydney. Nets to the north, nets to the south. Technically , the dude wasn't swimming at a "netted zone". But that's pure semantics.
As you know, I live in South Oz now, Steve, before that Tassie for a few years. We take ocean knowledge seriously down here. But I always have taken it seriously. If I was to pull up at Tallows, and the birds are diving, the bait fish are on, the whales are out the back, I aint jumping in. And I DONT want you to net the beach just for some spoiled fuck who needs some endorphins,
The reason IMO the earth is FUCKED, is because we think we are owed everything. We have been affected by the abrahamic teaching that everything on this planet was put here for US to use and abuse.
I once wrote a detailed essay here on how to BEST avoid shark attack. I was laughed at. I wont post it again. But I see idiots jumping in the water in certain set ups, and think "that guy is an idiot". There were days as a kid in the 1970s when the tailor were running, the surf was beautiful late winter 3 foot , westerlies, but u just wouldnt go in. However the sheer narcissistic arrogance of instagram society has people putting themselves in harms way, and you want me to instead of backing education, build an underwater trump sea wall, killing millions of animals?
It's a big yeah nahhhhh from me, mate
https://www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/1240814/ns...
That some humans feel fish should be protected over other human beings...speaks volumes.
Protest fish and chip shops if you care about fish. Or those types of fish are ok to be killed en masse? I can't keep up.
Fark
Where's me pop corn ...?
Where's my net?
I remember Shaun Thompson commented on one of these articles.
Its simple I've surf in snarky waters all over the world.
Want safer waters
Nets / drum lines
Want wilder sessions
Surf the waves without nets.
People you have to remember how gnarly it was for free ride and his mates 7 years ago.
Surf with mates!
Lots of big river systems on the central north and far north coast NSW must be better habitat for all species especially bait etc last time I was in Forster you saw all types of sharks on your walk around the breakwall
I've got a good idea. Leave animals the fuck alone.
Your opinion is clear and I don't mean to challenge it outside the fact that you're denigrating humans as solely animals. I believe Freud and others point out that humans are animals AND gods and that's the source of our discontent.
It's disingenuous to state that humans are only animals or somehow on par with a basic cold blooded creature like a shark.
lol. which ones? some or all? the hollow bearing dependent ones that need healthy landscapes to survive but are knocked down to grow crops or build houses cities and workplaces for you and yours. Maybe the critters that depend on healthy near shore ecosystems but whose habitat is a nutrient rich soup thanks to fruit and veggies you feed on. where does it start and end? we could go on and on about holier than thou vegos and vegans on their pulpits
as a human you kill shit loads of living animals all the time. like it or not. like FR said - the best available evidence we have - and it a very good longitudinal data source - is that nets appear to work. Doesn't make it right - it's just what it is. doesn't mean you can't oppose it. but using the "don't kill animals" or its their environment" or "it's wild" is just not a rational argument.
I’m well aware that we all contribute to animals deaths intentional or not.
We should be trying to do the least amount of harm to animals and leave them alone.
At what point do they reclassify the various apex predator sharks from being endangered species and stop their protection? There’s obviously a lot more of them now than there was 20 years ago and logically when there's too many sharks at the top of the food chain they will threaten the existence of a lot of other marine life (and ocean users).
In May this year New Caledonia closed beaches until 30 November (or until shark nets are installed?) because of the risk of shark attack. Another attack or two around Port Macquarie or Ballina/Byron and that might become their reality.
I'm a fan of the shark nets. Back in the early days of kitesurfing we'd have to go halfway out to the horizon just to tack our way back upwind. My reality check was the number of sharks I’d see a few hundred metres out from shore. You don't notice them moving on a boat but when you're kiteboarding (slower) you can easily look down and see sharks snaking along about a metre and a half or so underwater. They are out there.
At the risk of being unpopular I think it’s time to post recipes for shark fin soup on #Insta and spread the rumour that soup made from Tiger, Bull and White Pointer fins is the ultimate aphrodisiac. With a bit of luck this could solve our problem in a few weeks.
Hmmm I think I’ll call it Surfers Delight or perhaps The Thruster . . . . after all it does have three fins.
Always interested in these articles and following responses but have never weighed in on comments. However the articles opposing shark nets and some of the associated comments are infuriating.
As has been mentioned ( stuntet and freeride ) if you drill down on the data and compare attacks pre and post nets their effectiveness at preventing attacks is irrefutable. To suggest otherwise is just wilful ignorance to support your position. Or you are unaware of the timeline of attacks relative to the inception of nets. ( if you plot attacks on a timeline, noting the date nets were installed their effectiveness is plainly obvious )
If you oppose the use of shark nets that’s your prerogative. Just don’t base your opposition on the misunderstanding that they don’t prevent serious injury or loss of life to humans.
No one likes to see the bye catch in shark nets. It’s emotive stuff.
However if you think that’s emotive wait till you fall somewhere on that ripple effect of trauma from victim , witnesses and first responders, immediate family and finally wider community.. As per the attack on 15 year old Mani at Minni waters, as Freeride recounts.
I guess another way to look at this, and i say this with the deepest respect to those that have suffered the effects of shark attacks, .....
....is, sharks, as far as we are aware, bite humans, purely for their own survival.
Alot of humans want to cull sharks and their numbers because it affects our recreational pursuits.
Sharks, if they so wanted to, could decide, there's too many humans, they're fucking the planet and ruining our oceans, lets start culling them. Can you imagine if they started attacking humans for retribution/dominance/because they just don't like us? You'd never be able to go in the water again.
Thankfully, they don't (as far as we know/might be wrong), but occasionally we get caught in the crossfire of their methods of survival...because we're playing in their domain.
Realistically the number of mature sharks that hunt humans is miniscule to the number of humans inhabiting planet earth right at this moment.
But i do understand the other side of the argument, and to be honest, i don't know if i'd be tying myself as a protest to the front of a boat that was going out to cull pointers.
When it's families affected as has happened, it's so hard to take the emotion out of it, because it hits hard.
But deep down, morally, i personally think we need to accept that's the wild out there, and it comes with some very big and very real risks.
Right? Wrong? I don't think the line is that clear which is why conversations like this are good and why actual facts and data are beneficial.
Fark!
https://m.
It's amazing how many jargon lawyers post up here when the net issue gets raised.
Your coming up on 85 years of netting.
I never grew up surfing in netted beaches till I was a teenager.
I found it comforting surfing a beach with more other surfers and nets.
Flake was on the menu
Things weren't so p.c
Yet we survived.
It's real easy to argue netting from behind a computers screen. Get out side and have community meetings about this shit.
Not some shitty article with inland specialist that have 0% water time.
Shark huggers the lot of yah !
Global Shark Stats are now becoming more inclusive of more various encounters.
This is good, as other researchers are requesting & compiling broader behaviour patterns.
Here's why that's essential...
Exampling slightly more inclusive reporting of Paddle / Oar craft riders from 2020 > Now
13 craft deaths (vs) 33 attacks the Shark just wanted to chew on the craft > Riders were unharmed
Sure...many other incidents with horrific injuries in between but...
Maybe for the first time we can now unravel a Shark's primal behaviour.
72% of 'Kill bites' the surfer is spared...the surfcraft is the prime target.
This can be fast moving craft where rider is bumped & the Fin or Propeller is the target
Once we know that as fact...that changes everything...but...
Non Paddle / Oar Craft
23 deaths (vs) 4 attacks where the Shark only wanted to chew on the Swim Fins
tbb has read enough to know that swim fins are also often the target if & where worn.
Meaning Sharks would be stoked if all swimmers wore long fins...
No worries Mr Shark...is 10ft long Fins enough...cool..done!
(2020-Now) Oz (Whole) Paddle Deaths 6 (vs) Oz Non Craft 6
Incidents
Oz (Whole) Paddle Injuries 44 (vs) Oz Non Craft Injuries 44 (vs) Boat / Jet Ski 3
When a shark bites Humans they prefer our Legs (50%)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-16950-5/figures/5
A leg presents as a perfect cure for Shark's ills...but they mean no harm.
If crew can answer why that is & for what reason...
Sure! They get relief by chewing but for wot reason...it's not hunger!
Answer that & tbb will reveal more...until then..none will believe a word tbb says!
Most bumps or biting on a craft that don't harm a Surfer and are seldom reported...
We could be looking at a larger % of Surfcraft / Merch being the target but also legs.
Sounds weird...just the base level!
Now we can add Buoys / Drums / Propellers / Stern / Hull / Cages / Anchor chains & mooring lines.
This reduces the Human Target to being absolute minimum target on Sharks radar!
Meaning Sharks spend most time angrily chewing on Buoys Toyz less so Surfers or Swimmers!
Now don't that ring a bell...geez tbb can rattle on!
Each serve a variation on a common theme that proves very handy for Sharks...they luv this shit!
Pause!
All Govt / Shark data can easily prove that the surfer is of lesser interest to a shark.
Govt laid out an inshore Therapeutic Clinic...that brings the Boys to the Buoys so to speak.
Don't laugh...similar to East Coast Whales & Turtles scratching away at netted beauty Parlours!
Shark playing Wild Thing on a Log harmonica out in the middle of the ocean...but not starving!
Again...not hunger...then What? Answer is obvious...same as yer Leg & yer board & all said!
Outta the Mouths of Babes...Hey! That rings a Bell! Yes cryptic & no apologies for that!
It all makes perfect sense and there is human like trait behind the Shark's innate behaviour!
tbb knows enough to know, not to share such wild theory...people aren't ready!
Happy to let Experts stumble over it...however long we all gotta wait!
Coz people still believe in Experts...until then...you never read this!
tbb shared a little too much as before...Wow! Duck'n'cover!...Once bitten Twice Shy!
Can share it's very real & will never change in a million years & history shows such!
Applies to all off our coastline for whatever & wherever the crew points & other creatures!
tbb is not saying this answers all but to ignore this simple fact that links all...so be it!
This would require an epic independent ongoing forum! Save it for other time & place!
Happy to camp knowing the crew know even more about limiting backwash thanx!
Great to see you post TBB,
Hope your well bro !
Yes I'm reading you loud and clear .
Haha. teething issues eh.
Cheers Lanky Dean + Luv Craig's natural born killer instinct...
Tore right thru tbb's defences...did promise if crew sussed that we'll continue.
Mind you ..this small intro naturally comes with #1 swellnet exclusive...
What the crew read next has not been shared outside this forum...for your eyes only!
Given the topic...tbb is ok to share in a rogue fashion...only coz crew exampled they were ready.
Sounds serious...because it is! Way serious!
Try & keep it to an intro...coz this small lot will flip whatever ya thought ya knew!
Vids show sharks are way more smarter than all long thought...
We're talking periscoping then tracking Humans on land ... for attention or medical assist.
They also feel pain...sure their body & skin is tough but their gums still get sore, like ours...
Dare say their gills as well...so they get irritated & frustrated seeking relief...just as we do!
Only we can stick our finger into babies mouths...Go on..dare you!
Silence! Mothers rarely share that their infants obliterate their 'nipples' like Sharks on us...
Same reason...their teething pain...these babies go rapid but ultra rare for mothers to share!
We're talkin' rippin' thru the flesh blood lust rapid creatures...all about the teeth coming thru.
Sure..Sharks...babies...kids all got self rejuvenating diets...they even put it into Baby Formula.
Can ask tbb what that is...revealed that at length on earlier post.
Teens wean off regenerative diet whereas it co exists with inshore food chain-reptiles-birds.
Shark's diet contains several regenerative species to super power endless sets of teeth
Some are forcefully dislodged due to infection... other chipped teeth are also knocked out.
Blunt teeth are sharpened...
Keeping this to intro length...
The sharks know all the benefits of all inshore Medical Clinics.
They know & track people that can remove their Tracking Tags or Hooks even teeth.
Possibly best to address this by starting from less affected Ocean Deep towards shore...
Timber Logs were once plentiful & offered counterweight + many nooks for dental work...
Walls stopped the logs & floating plastic...this being shit for sharks as they can't dislodge teeth.
Like there is no weight to tug against... It's more likely to stay stuck on their teeth...(Correct!)
Quick Pause! (Backwash!)
Mankind has carpet bombed the seafloor so dominant pest weed & krill species dominate...
Meaning all Creatures need to eat more Junk Krill so they get more pimples (Pest Parasites)
Whales / Dolphin / Rays / Sharks have to get up more speed to gain height to smash these fuckers out.
Yes! Off their Facial bits / Gills but also their innards...
Dolphins can clean inside out with Wave / bow speed surfin' to Leap'n'bash each Session.
Sharks / Rays leap higher & Whales will now come in closer to smash on boats
Whales / Rays / Turtles are attracted to Beauty Parlour Pings ( Shark Nets) exfoliate these barnacles...
Photos & Video > critters entering Nets covered in Barnacles then exiting clean but tangled & dead.
This repeats for every single piece of shit we add...these creatures are using to scratch that itch.
Vids will show each dental technique as flawless...that's the aim...sadly for us...not always!
Metal Buoys / Hulls / Bows > (See scratches) Sharpen the Shark's Teeth
Boat Propellers / Shark Cages > Perfect for knocking out chipped teeth (Vids show the tooth fly off!)
Propellers / Anchors / Fins > Are perfect for ramming Front tooth / Prying out side teeth.
Moving Craft Propellers / fins are targeted to pry most painful side rear teeth...(Otherwise Why risk it!)
When we see the Sharks do this...they must be in immense pain to stick their mouth in moving blades.
No different to us stringing tooth to a swinging door & slamming it shut...(Both the same horrific act!)
Racing Skis : Sharks perfectly match their bite to fit whole jaw
Smaller Jaw targets narrow tail radius of ski (o) > Larger Jaw targets whole centre of larger ski (O)
The idea being to relive pain for entire gums or Shock/rid all teeth to then hasten a whole new set.
These incidents are usually at full paddle / wind speed...so consider this as shock therapy dental work.
Seldom is a Ski Paddler the target as Shark's teeth would be shit after such a high speed hardened bite!
Foam Buoys / craft / Legs : Overbite to remove rear teeth > The Teeth are usually embed in the foam
Same as Skis...Smaller Jaws attack from the side & seldom bite more than needed ( Half the board)
Larger White need a larger Deeper Bite...so attack from rear / front / under.
Under / Direct Front / Rear > Jaws will snap board
Pause!
Weaponized Front / Rear may be used as emergency oral relief surgery (Cut out an infectious parasite)
This explains the Ferocious down bite on Hazardous barbed Fins or Propellers + Thumping action.
Kinda like a Propeller / fin / Board nose as a scalpel to release the parasite from infected gum...
By ramming hard & clamping down fast & hard on the only chance it has...One Shot...Don't blow it!
See once the counterweight is lost the sharp scalpel trick is useless...just hoe into it for good measure.
Sadly also the Rider may be the next or even first target if Shark seeks massive pain relief.
Kinda like us clamping teeth if we got no anesthetic...during a surgery...you'd chew thru anything...True!
(Reason for Victim's Antibiotics)
Basically the Shark is Super Pissed & wants this pesky freeloader out at any cost! Yes! Will kill us!
There are a few vids showing this Rapid chewing on nasty sharp gear as surfer just treads near by!
Flippers are used to tug out front Loose Teeth by pulling against counter weighted swimmer.
Swimmers Legs are targeted for varying diameter ( See Skis) Familiar go to trait.
Here the shark is gauging the depth of bite as to the Ski or board width > really no different.
Recap : The shark gauges Jaw size & depth to Craft / leg contour to half or full bite relief.
This leave Smarty Craig's revalation of Teething..very clever swellnet staff & crew scored this review!
We can end this as we began...
Mooring / Legropes / Logs / Inflatables & even chains > Teething (So we know the pain varies)
Again...clues that show they're more individual than once thought...more like us!
Much like some humans can chomp ice while others freak...same here...some chomp on a chain.
Same as babies...they even have soft / hard corners on Toy Sharks for teething babies...Sick or Wot!
Guess we gotta wrap this up here...tbb has shared more than promised & well enough to mull over,
Again...thank Craig & crew for believing in tbb enough to share these impossible shark secrets...
Sure! Laugh them all off if ya like but tbb can share all this & more is being exampled more so everyday!
The more footage & events recorded present the shark as being more similar to ourselves.
Also involving it's world around ours...was happy munchin' logs...now we Offer Dental / Therapy Clinics
Sure! We can now further debate about Limiting Ocean Weeds / Parasites to keep sharks at bay.
Crew can see that the more we pollute he ocean the more the creatures seek us out for relief.
Yes! There are vids showing them swimming for miles to motion for our help to remove painful shit
We are basically impounding all sea creatures within our competing inshore real estate..
Our land / Rent / Pet crisis is merging as one with Marine / Pet / crisis...Whale / Sharks land in yer boat.
Tasmanian seal > 20kms up Goldie Canals at tbb's local creek...WTF!
Everyone here knows we could equally be talking about dogs / biting / walking / injuries!
Dogs are #1 Emergency incidents...now Dogs on beaches > Dogs (vs) Seals + Sharks (How / Why?)
People luv this shit & bring it on faster than tbb can alert crew to the crisis...Humans invite sharks!
Fugginhell...interesting stuff .
Agree! Very much so udo...it's ever changing and amazing...
tbb is ever aside craft therefore sees them as marine creatures do.
At sea level or under always trailing & sniffing out sweet spots / Temp / Leggie - fin trails
This is why tbb can share more Surfer info here right now...that will further advance these theories...
Here's how this works...toss a slice of bread into a pond...bingo! Gets smashed in seconds!
Folks lose a hat off a bridge & instantly see shark devour it...that's how fast critters react to humans.
These events hasten as more pond life or canal sharks are pooled into ...say Golf Course Lakes.
Ultimate wild predator takes Minutes / Hours / Days / Weeks / Years Longer to seek us!
If top predator was seeking out human blood...it takes seconds at most minutes...all be gone!
We could focus on wot all encompassing attraction / conditions brings the Boys to the yard.
Each surfer's Legrope trawls the richest life resource back to the exact same meeting place.
One could argue the same as Rowing Club' s routine oar action would redirect resource.
Now the legrope loops down to extend the depth of a newborn reef attraction from shore to surfer.
Surfers transport (burley) inshore tidal line-up eco system to encompass as a #1 Resourceful Reef.
The more surfers conveying world's #1 giving paylode, the more attraction to other larger critters.
Adding more fins looping leggies pools more marine life beneath surfers instant massive lush reef.
Now add Tail Pad aquariums for fish to dart in/out nibbling on micro algae within each tail cave.
The millions of Tasty Wax globules & cozy warmth of ankle strap & Wetties.
Studies show that sewage outfall surfers pool & harbour 3x more antibiotic resistant superbugs.
Surfers as World's # 1 Richest Resourceful sea harvesters...Deluxe ultra tasty fish sticks.
Surfers may not see it as a complex reef habitat but tbb and critters instantly feel the effects.
Heavy tbb feels Surf Craft change > temp , spray, smell, drift & gets looped & trawled.
If it moves tbb then a surfboard would boss all line up lifeforms...to critters this would be massive!
Each'n'every day surfer's merch is netting & harbouring more #1 Earth resource.
Ask! Who or what sea critter wouldn't be attracted to #1 Lil' Lisa's slurry.
Also consider the back of a high or wot engaging wave lineup to each pooling.
Meaning it may only take one surfer to trawl the exact combo that a trophy fish seeks > Hi Bruce.
Recommend surfers get up to speed with exactly what burley they be spreadin' where & when.
Sure! None wanna be that Trailing swimmer...(Swim Faster! Kick harder...bummer!)
tbb advises shark paranoid surf craft users / ocean swimmers to conduct tidal dye tests.
Kinda like bioluminescence or Covid aerosol tests.
Run first tests in a wave pool to save time & product...then hone in on technique for larger line-up.
Meaning...dispersal technique is vital & it needs to be natural for test to be effective.
Apple watches or drones'n'shit will likely feature in trials.
This way a UV can gauge the extent of pooling on craft / leggies / fins / pads / wetties / toes.
Then time in tide effects on growing expanse of surfer's artificial Reef.
Why is this important?
We need to locate hot spots for solo attacks + adventurer or Pack attacks.
There is more than enough timely tidal footage so we just need to isolate hot spots as to # - Craft.
Why Shark bypasses nearest surfer to prefer another...is it resource driven or merch driven or fish?
Yes! Like repeated overlays seeking out hot spots by Swimmer / Craft x Time / tide...
Sure it's difficult to get rolling to peak data but then it comes together faster for more valued reward.
Every ecosystem has patterns & even anomalies find a place & rare habitats are then included.
We know more of nurseries with each migration.
Hodad scoring system a Cashed up Kook would rate high & a cruiser low. (Sure: Add green credits!)
None know this...that's the whole point...stats cold flip in different seas!
One only needs to see the sharing of Shark intel is massive...we just gotta advance as town planners.
Most of what tbb shared is only possible thru Geeks & Boyz Toy'z & family blooper reels.
Experts don't buy into it & laugh it off then offer up an even more absurd reason...like WTF.
Never laugh at a Kook (Just Joking)...coz they got the Go Pros / Drones that collect this data!
As we welcome more sharks into our world then our tests become easier & faster & more efficient.
No, not a joke...now an industry...all see that it's a career...maybe for some of the crew!
It's not as if we have a choice...just get on with it..the more stranger the anomaly the next life is saved.
Perfect example being how this Goldie seal survived in Shark City for a Month...
So long, that us locals gave it a name...up until that...100% would say it's impossible...it's shark bait!
PS: Other Wild Beasts of Same Time & Place also thought impossible.
A little further up Reedy Creek Wildlife Corridor but more impossible to swim up...need legs!
Central isolated generous section pools deep during dry spells between 2 sets of 5x 7ft high drains.
As tbb approached within 10m of this mostly inaccessible branch of our wild overgrown creek bank...
"Giant fast rushed Whoosh followed by a giant deep Splash!" (Like Holy Shit!)
First thought it was human or of similar body core size (Without extended limbs)
Had to be very strong & muscular as it rustled fast & plunged like a leapin' croc!
Never saw it swim off so it must reside within a deep holed creek bank / burrow.
Could reckon it has a about a 20m keep that ya wouldn't breach...why would ya!
Can also share it's clever...coz no way can humans get a look or access it without risk.
Can only think it's a king sized 1m Rakali or The Reedy Creek Bunyip!
Up equal distance the Creeks about here are home 1.5m Barras.
Video : Reckon it's a Rakali half this size again & very similar in estimated strength / shape / speed
Only glad it never turned to hunt tbb.
Just saying that tbb would still struggle to believe such a recent telling from another local...
As few believe the 1.5m Barras or Seal or 2 Fatal Shark Attacks all 15-20km from the Ocean.
Like who believes that...yet tbb was shocked twice over last 2 months just in our local creek.
Ok! Cleared out the trolleys & shit in above [M1] Drains then logged off this Creek bank access.
If any crew know where...tbb logged it off at 20m distance for a reason...no need to breach it's keep!
Critter freaked out as it was...
Not sharing with locals as wildlife sanctuaries would luv to exhibit this giant Aussie monster freak.
Beast seems more than healthy & free...let it be, it's no bother to you & me!
loving this angle tbb - sharks looking to get rid of loose teeth and maintain a youthful grin. maybe we could anchor some floating logs in hotspots and see what happens.
(the below seems a lot of effort for what could have been an easy chomp for a big apex predator.. shark wanting opposing pressure for hard-shell dental work?):
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oDT5zRdyFQg
Thanx & you're also very insightful basesix...reckon the crew know more about this!
Thanx for driving on the research angles...this is exactly why tbb shared...
Yeah! Agree that shit hot vid drives on research heaps...another time...
But sure, can see these critters know how to dance just as well as the crew or better.
Highly skilled & intelligent critters on a higher level the lot of them...blows ya away!
Again as promised basesix will also be rewarded...with exactly wot you requested!
We can play on that turtle roll as a log roll...
tbb will exhibit similar 3D effect for equally clever shark moves.
Yes! It's very much a dance!
Sharks do prefer logs because of their weight & length...
They can run their full set of teeth along it...loving it like a punk on a mouth organ.
They also twist body shape along entire log length as if they waltz with it...poetry in motion.
Each time sourcing any sweet spots to massage any ills...
These Vids also show their intelligence & dance.
Not as silly as it sounds...it's just we can't example this enough to date.
That's why tbb seeks out the latest kook vids for cutting edge behaviour.
Lost the rabid Teething log vid ~ Can share rare footage of the Shark's loving scratch Log.
Instantly see the Shark prefers waltzing with messed up logs to dull smooth surfboards...
Considering tbb can't bring up the Timber Teething log...
Can share a very similar Foam teething Log (Same!)
Exactly as you requested basesix...puttin' yer theory into practice for better than perfect result!
Perfectly examples how sharks seek out these rounded soft 'Dental / scratch Logs'
Well worth studying that the lack of logs frustration drives sharks inshore for next best therapy.
That being the "Log Shape" Kayaks & Boat Hulls / bows.
Anyhow! Check this out! Can see Chipped teeth (One more than the other) are embedded...
Usually ya see infected gum line but these are just recently chipped > Out they go!
https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/shark-bites-leaves-teeth-in-n-b-fisherman-s-...
unbelievable stuff tbb, Like a cow on a tree (or limestone block down my way)
This is big stuff you're doing, cross-species xenpohobia makes sense, we humans would identify wolves and bears as sentient, but think of sharks as 'other' - add the current trend of anti-anthropomorphism of animals, classic baby-with-bathwater stuff.
bbbird's amazing hook-removal video may be just seen as something quirky but dismissible to many. (Great short story Octopussy by Ian Fleming - you can love a cephalopod on their terms, but you ain't their friend in a human sense).
Apex predators have bigger issues than bobbing for people. Talk about human-centric thinking. Big, scarred, alpha-society, plastic-chewing, heavy-metal deranged, migratory, 'old wisdom' animals with a part to play, but with no hands to scratch their ugly arses.
But we don't think about it. Human interest in isopods for example, the kiddie-book Wikipedia page suggests there is little, cymothoids, epicaridians and gnathiids not much better. Your reminding us of daily fish 'pain' tbb (not just caught-in-net drama), is marvelous, we (myself included) have blunted ourselves to it through years of fishing, and feeling good about moderate pescatarian hunting (no mammals for us, how evolved!). Hope you keep this research up tbb, and crew contribute, great line of thought-processing. Bunyips and all ; )
Smart Shark thread continues...tbb tracked long & hard & found the WA Tagged Shark Vid.
2014 Again it's just an innocent Pom's Holiday Vid ...but unlocks a whole new world.
Most remarkable GWS Vid...truly amazing high tech symbiosis with some onshore tourists.
Maybe basesix can translate for the crew...
Prelude :
GWS (Skyhopping)
To scan & scent surrounding sea & shoreline > GWS can track onshore night fishermen.
Both sight & smell from afar & up to the shoreline...(Wouldn't wanna wade in past yer ankles!)
Further onto this > Bull Shark nurseries are often beneath Bat Hangs...
Add new meaning to low hanging Sky Hopping >
Large sharks can track & pluck migrating birds to Tree Bats + any birds casting shadows.
Note Sharks can & very much track Dogs on paths & leap also...
Never assume yer safe at night while walking on land or up tree or in the Sky..
tbb is just sharing how astute, relaxed, artistic, cunning, clever & agile Large Sharks are!
Now hold that thought to build a complete picture of hours leading up to this remarkable event.
But also one must view this Storyboard as an hour/s long Mercy Mission
More likely than not, the Shark was waiting hours / days to scout human contact to rescue it's life.
Shark was also was clever enough to know that Humans were responsible for it's illness.
Why Humans & why it sought Contact?...that's easy...simply watch & listen to the Show!
{Menu}
1. The Beach crew clock GWS coming toward shore from an isolated ocean.
2. Note the perfect timing of the shark to meet it's chosen Beach Party
3. First spotting from afar now Tracking the Beach Crew
4. Shark perfectly turns to showcase it's Infected Tracker to it's Human Helpers!
5. Shark gets agitated as Humans delay or refuse to remove their Poisonous infected Dart.
6. Finally! Posh Chick says ..." See that thing in it's side!"
7. Bloke says : "He's not real happy!" (Shark violently motions for relief!)
8. GWS is now right up tight on the Shallow bank...Fire-hosing Wash over the Humans...'FFS!'
9. Finally! Some Comic Relief ~ Better some engagement than none! (Success!)
10. Chick says : "A tag ya say...is that wot it is! Looks like it's tryin' to get it out...
(Bingo...Winner!)
Exhausted Shark just gives up :
GWS : "Like wot ya gotta do to remove these rusty pussy poisonous darts!"
There is some talk of this or another Shark beaching days later..
&t=4sSeemingly unable to chew & swallow a seal...
[0:53] Rib Dart is unusual (Illegal?) & nasty...Looks like a dart shot from a distance!
Any crew or GWS would have been in immense pain & would've had trouble eating...
Like a child swallowing them batteries...burn yer guts out
https://www.whitesharkvideo.com/fin-damage.html
phenomenal. you have a kindred spirit in that lady on the beach tbb.
Got me thinking.. 100% of sharks that have been caught by humans off the beach, would associate humans getting the hook out (or at least seem to be tryin!) and exfoliating them in the shell grit while getting them back out (those kept/killed exit the think-tank). Fin damage link - full-on.
More kindness earns more credits...more Sharky observations.
Dental Hygiene via GWS Dental Lab
Cue & play the Vid of Maneater tryin' to chew the crew alive...
Wot did the crew think they just saw?
Let's try that again...
Now slow it down to [0.25] Speed to see wot is actually goin' down.
You'll be surprised just how much you missed during the frenzy!
A whole new World & why there is no need to panic...easy for dry docked tbb to say!
Ok...We're all geared down...now start the Vid & watch this time...with eyes open.
[0:12] GWS Anchors / Grips lower Jaw to coated Pillar...very fussy...needs a sure hold!
Now GWS is locked in for Dental Procedure.
[0:20] Counter-levers the Main front 'Holed' tooth over the Reo Bar...
See the other 2 side teeth counter from behind..
(Note) GWS will charge a Chipped tooth out on these Shark Cages...not this Shark!
This GWS is merely trying to loosen it, to relieve pain of infected holed gum.
Possibly too painful to knock it out...could risk damaging the gum further!
GWS seems intent on hastening it to drop out & can painlessly regrow a newbie.
Cont...
We see shark loosen anchor & seek another hold for 2nd Phase of dental procedure...
Now please watch again...
[0:29] GWS utilizes the same Reo Bar but now stresses the same tooth sideways.
Exactly! Just like a proper Dentist in a proper Dental Clinic! (GWS has Med Certificate!)
Ok! Wanna see that again...
[0:39] Phase 3
GWS wants both 'Gum Holed' front teeth out by countering against solid side tooth.
Can't quite see but we can assume the Lower Jaw is still flexi-anchoring the procedure.
Again...
[0:48] Phase 4
Repeats stressing of next front tooth sideways as Tooth 1.(Wants both loosened!)
For all we know the GS was trying to release Parasites from Gums.
Or simply loosening front teeth.
Either to relieve pain or to fast track growing a new set.
As tbb said...
GWS can much easier knock them out but chose this delicate skilled dental procedure!
Sure! If crew wish to add to the technique...by all means...
Whole point of sharing new observations!
This Vid is a perfect example of breakthru behaviour that stares back at us like cartoons.
So many answers...right there...we just gotta see Sharks in new light...
All can clearly see how clever they are, but only if we choose to see!
seriously, tbb, I reckon we can re-watch every shark vid with new eyes, and at least question previous assumptions about what we are watching. I could, anyway. kudos, brother.
basesix is doing the crew a favour...
Just scored another #1 swellnet exclusive anomaly for boardriders!
Again..it takes a nearby observer looking from the outside in...
Recapping :
2020 > Equal amounts of craft / swim attack and fatalities of recent time.
So are boardriders right to feel under attack more than any other group?
Then if so, then why do we all feel the same way about that...
The feeling is real..& tbb is about to justify yer belief.
tbb exampled how clever sharks are by putting on a song & dance.
Exampling precision DIY dentistry or pleading for life saving surgery!
When tbb shared they pluck birds from the sky...looks easy!
tbb mean't they seasonally track a dozen Songbird migrations!
Young Sharks Map & timetable where these birds tire. (Baby Food)
Nutrition comes from the Bone Marrow.
Anyhow! Let's see if we can answer the age old Surfie Question...
The Shark confuses the Surfer / Surfboard as prey.
Now given wot we know & how smart & precise the Shark's Skill set?
Using this logic we then accept or excuse Juvenile Sharks are Learners.
We all know teenagers are prone to make mistakes while learning.
So that's it then...easily sorted...
Pause!
This is where the Theory comes unstuck!
Please! Any or All surf boardriders [search] Small Shark bites on Surfboards.
Correct! Try all ya like...Ain't no learner sharks mistaking Surfers as prey!
Ok! Where to from here! Coz that flips this shit on it's head!
Coz now we're excusing on point 100% highly skilled Sharks!
Why only skilled sharks make mistakes & Gromz are model sharks?
2020 Research claims Young - Tiger / GWS hunt Boned fish on seabeds.
Seldom engaging with the big fast surface prey!
All now agree that only when Sharks grow to 3m.
Will they sink their teeth into more sizeable prey!
Parasites, shocked, chipped teeth, infected gums!
As tbb alluded to...now they need regular inshore dental checks.
Pause!
Surfers may now check their Surfboards & wot do ya see...
tbb don't have to ask...giant sets of Bite Marks.
Made from mature powerful Sharks at least 3m long.
Recapping : Junior don't need the dental Clinic.
Only 3m + Sharks are chomping on Skis / Surfboards.
Wait! Verses Sharks of any size will bite swimmers / waders!
Back to the beginning...
Now ya know why Surfboard riders have a heightened fear!
They're (Confronted) by larger agitated Sharks seeking relief.
Now check the size of the bite & that embedded infected tooth.
One can also link this theory with the Jaw sized proportioned hull bite theory!
There's no doubt we can grade proportioned Shark size to Craft > Board bites.
Yes...for sure we can learn from which size / type of shark for each location on craft.
PS : tbb is also checking on Nutritious Bone Marrow!
Not yet saying it's a thing but most attacks on humans are postmortem.
Meaning sharks aren't after flesh & blood > Maybe nutritious Bone Marrow?
Kinda like their acid breaks it down > then a power boost like a drug!
Anyhow it ties in with the birds...Baby Sharks don't want feathers!
Trying hard to unlock this bone marrow angle...real tricky work!
You know...one of them contrary to popular belief, just as all this is!
That's why it takes forever to swim against tide of public opinion!
Experts say Sharks luv Flesh Pots but...maybe also need rich bone marrow!
Saw photos of 6 whole seals in just one GWS...Amazing!
So none ever lay out the answers...same as today's exclusive!
tbb keeps sayin'...last few years the research keeps flipping all we know!
Just as quick as tbb is sharing new observations...don't care if ya think it's goofy.
In fact! tbb begs to be proved wrong if only to unlock a more precise theory.
It all helps boardriders more than any...so go for it! Crew will thank you!
Luv it if crew could share how/where/why a baby shark bit a Hard Surfboard!
Possibly a booger...cool with that also...coz we can grade engagement level
Whoever can share that...shares another exclusive Shark Anomaly...Stoked!
So here we are again can we justify killing or disrupting the environment for the sake of recreation?
Just my observation's, between 2010 to 2020 the far North Coast seemed to be the epicentre of attack's and since then it seem's to be heading in a more southerly direction between Coff's to Forster. Not sure if there's a connection between ocean temp's and migration pattern's for fish or something like that?
When the sharkshield's first came out I went and bought one.... figured it was a way to keep safe and not kill shark's etc etc, win win situation. Only problem was that electricity and water aren't a good mix, and the unit's fail over time.Ended up getting 2 replacement unit's that both failed, so gave up on that idea. Since then I've just gone with the shark eye's deterrent, how good would it be if there was just a simple deterrent that worked.... the smart drum line's are only monitoring a small percentage of shark's and where they move. Maybe more government money should be spent on creating a deterrent instead of monitoring movement's?
After you drop your nets, ask and question why the number of "incidents" specifically regarding GWS, since the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, has increased, particularly in SW WA and Northern NSW.
Emma looked hot in the CFMs too.
If Darwin suddenly had a Desert Point on it's doorstep overnight what would we do then???
Cull the crocs of course.
100%. They already kill problem crocs without a blink of an eye. Again an apex predator that has not been managed properly and numbers are now at a problematic level.
I don't understand why the greenies have latched onto sharks so hard. You don't see them protesting about killing crocs.
Good read about the effectiveness of the nets
https://qldsharkdata.wordpress.com/
Yeah, kind of.
It was advocacy to reduce marine bycatch and he succeeded at that.
As far as the effectiveness of the shark control program in QLD (nets and drumlines) he also (inadvertently) demonstrated that as well.
The aim of the program: reduce the risk of shark bites in Queensland’s coastal waters by catching sharks near popular swimming and surfing beaches.
His first conclusion: The program catches mostly sharks, especially Tiger Sharks and Bull Sharks.
He spends one sentence on the question of effectiveness at reducing risk: "So do shark control programs really reduce shark attack risk? Unfortunately none of the numbers in this dataset can reveal the answer to this question, but one thing is sure – nets and drumlines result in less sharks and other marine animals in the ocean".
That is indeed a good read Shaka
Was not aware that they killed all they caught of the target species, outside the GBR park....that gives an insight into what they (QLD DAF) have researched and decided upon as the proper action as a government body. Not that I agree, but there it is.
Then this....“The science [behind the Queensland program] has not been that strong, to be honest, it’s more a measure to keep the public happy”
Richard Fitzpatrick, Shark Researcher, James Cook University.
Apparently, nobody knows what the hell is going on....and of course, there is a political element to this, which muddies the waters completely.
Just go surfing I say :-)
From Shakabro’s link
Queensland Shark Control Program : 12,217 dead marine animals in 23 years (2000-2022) from nets along 86 beaches.
That’s an average of 6.18 dead marine animals per beach per year. I’m surprised it’s not a higher figure.
Yep that’s what I reckon. I also look at the listed threatened species numbers impacted. I’m not advocating for new nets but reckon based on the data removing exiting ones at urban breaks ( rarely do I surf them) is a difficult argument given a number of factors of which freeride has argued time and time again.
I’m also for sustainable fishing especially Commercial fisheries in Australia being best practice. If GW populations are deemed recovered then catch those fish I’ll eat those young ones. I also understand the importance of keystone species in food chains but to argue we live in a natural world is naive. Humans manage the land. It’s what we have always done. To say otherwise despite modern man failures is insulting to our ancestors and traditional owners. it’s ignorant.
Quokka has been pretty consistent in this since day 1. Reckon he is on the money. Reckon I also vehemently disagreed with him at points.
That all said humans are a funny bunch and I’m one of them. I love the wild. as much as it’s a human wild altered place and as much as I shit myself these days most days before paddling out by myself which is always, I dig it.
I don’t want a theme park gold coast as my break.
Couldn’t be bothered wading through all of the comments. Thought I’d throw in my ten cents anyway.
I personally think that when I go in the ocean it’s at my own peril and for that reason am against any measure but particularly nets due to by-catch.
However besides doing nothing which I support, I think the next most logical solution would just be a straight up selective cull of whites which at least prevents off-target species dying and keeps everyone ‘save’.
Anyways going to keep living my life either way.
Sharks are scary. You should all stop surfing. Especially at the Victorian reefs.
I may have mentioned this once before. As an exercise I like to jump onto satellite view in google maps and go check out set-ups along the coast: perv at old favourites, mind surf new ones. Pretty sure we all do this from time to time.
Zoom in to check out a break, zoom out a gazillion metres to survey the whole coast and spot the next break or outcrop, drag the mouse over then zoom right in on that one. Zoom out again...
Few things you quickly realise:
(1) despite its popularity humans still only reside next to a very VERY small percentage of the coastline;
(2) we surf an even smaller percentage of that coastline;
(3) even if you netted every popular surf spot or swimming beach in Australia, there is an e n o r m o u s amount of coastline and open ocean readily available for sharks of every size and persuasion to eat, sleep, cruise, fight, root, play and do whatever other things sharks like to do without EVER being bothered by a human. Same goes for every other species.
So the con of nets, drumlines or other like measures near those relatively few areas where humans play has never stacked up for me.
It is possible to use our superior brain to protect ourselves AND allow sharks to happily go about their shark business. I really don't see it as an either or argument.
Why does it have to be a net ? Why can't it be a vinyl barrier like the side wall of those gazebo things ? That way the animals would just bounce off. Maybe make it reflective ? Stick some of those wind flap things in it to allow the current to flow through. Just wondering if any research has been done into a different design other than baiting and catching.
Just to add some more factual information to the debate on nets, in NSW at least.
This is from NSW DPI Shark Smart website.
"These beaches are netted by contractors using specially designed meshing nets to reduce the chances of shark encounters.
The nets do not create a total barrier between swimmers and sharks. They are designed to intercept sharks near meshed beaches, which reduces the chance of a shark interaction.
While the nets cannot provide a guarantee that a shark interaction will never happen, we believe they have been effective in greatly reducing the potential number of interactions.
Since the introduction of the shark meshing program in 1937, there have been 36 unprovoked shark interactions at meshed beaches:
1 fatality;
24 serious or minor injuries; and
11 incidents where the person was not bitten.
In the majority of interactions (13) the species was not identified; 10 were attributed to Wobbegong sharks; seven to White sharks; four to unidentified Whaler sharks; one to a Bull shark; and one to a Tiger shark.
So in almost a hundred years if we take someone standing on a poor old wobbegong out of the stats we have one fatality and 14 injuries.
Thats an incredibly successful program, when you consider the rest of the NSW area and the fact this is NSW most densely populated coastal region.
Thats the problem that needs solving - replacing a highly successful mitigation program with something else.
It's very hard to push uphill against facts like those and until reality is reckoned with, academics like Pepin-Neff who use fraudulent arguments are going to deepen divisions and discredit their positions.
All commercial gill netting is about to be stopped in GBRMPA which is only a handfull of small private operators which already operate under strict management and a quota system ..Due to a deal with federal labour and unesco no consultation no licence buy back or compensation yet no no prior notice or consultation . The reason is a potential interaction with endangered species but the feds can keep there gillnets in which kill a lot of endangered animals .What a mob of hypocritical mthrfkrs ..There about to take poeples livlihood and access to healthy sustainable australian seafood away from poeple but happy to import from over fished poorly managed fisheries to keep WWF happy and want to continue to keep government shark nets in killing a lot of endangered species and sharks ..Just typical government hypocritical bullshit ..And WTF does drumlining or tagging do for peoples safety ?? I supose when you get back to your car after a surf you chk your app and find out you have been surfing with sharks ..Heres a thought stop wasting money and build and staff some hospitals at least if you get attacked you might be able to get a bed
Hey monkeyboy ...current or tidal flow wave movement just wont allow it you will never keep it in positon which is why is why they use large mesh nett ..
Here is the logic behind shark nets.
1. Terratorial sharks who choose to make a netted beach zone their prime habitat tend to get caught more often than those who do not.
2. Migrating sharks who choose to revisit a particular netted beach each year tend to get caught more often than those who do not.
3. Sharks who develop a preference for exploring beach zones rather than offshore food zones tend to get caught more often than those who do not.
4. Sharks experiencing entanglement in nets but who escape might avoid netted areas.
5. Sharks are known to be repelled by dead sharks.
6. Predators are by nature cautious and, in every species, avoid danger or hints of danger in its many forms.
Netted beaches are logically a dangerous places to be avoided by more sharks than unnetted beaches.
8. Fewer sharks become overly familiar with humans in a netted locality as those who hang around are more likely to get caught. Predators tend to be wary of unfamiliar large species.
Some of the above mechanisms are backed by research and others just by logic. But ultimately logic must be at the forefront of making judgements where it is manifestly difficult to prove a logical suppositon through research.
So don't let the "lack of evidence", "'prove it" or "where is the research" argument used so often these days switch off your logical brain. Humans survived and prospered for tens of thousands of years using logic and judgment.
British nuclear weapons testing in Australia from 1952 to 1963
https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/sources-radiation/mor...
Logic and judgement....?
My partner's father was sent to the Monte's as part of national service the year after the test. He passed away from cancer over 30 years ago.
we need more shark nets on all beaches and stretches.
"Almost 90 percent of global marine fish stocks are now fully exploited or overfished"
Reference The World Bank 2017
https://datatopics.worldbank.org/sdgatlas/archive/2017/SDG-14-life-below...
So, fish populations are declining world wide, including sharks. Less fatalities near highly populated, overfished areas? (refer to graphs in link below)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274433160_Reducing_the_environm...
"Long-term data are available for shark control programs and game-fishing records. In all cases, significant declines in catches have been recorded. Catch rates declined by approximately 75% since the 1960s and by 50% since the 1950s in the Qld and the NSW shark control programs respectively. Mean size at capture has also declined in the NSW program, although this is not evident in the Qld data. "
Reference A review of the biology and status of white sharks in Australian waters 2001
https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=procite:1d0d13e5-7a60-4e6...
"It's easy to imagine that us Australasians have really made a secure future for ourselves here, but ever since the time the first Europeans arrived we've altered nature so much that we've become an exterminator species the third and most damaging wave of the people I call the future eaters."
Prof of Science Tim Flannery: OA
https://www.abc.net.au/science/future/ep3/trans3.htm
"Here on Earth" Long Term Thinking..... 2030- 2050 - 2100?
https://longnow.org/seminars/02011/may/03/here-earth/
Bigger sharks eat smaller sharks... references below
we have killed the bigger sharks near populated areas world wide & killed their food source; seals and fish... buried the dead whales .... so we have hungry teenagers, leaving their nurseries, though not wanting to venture too far into the predatory ocean depths.....
Eg (Nursery Port Stevens NSW) https://goo.gl/maps/8QM6dR9pamNFkTSr6
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/super-predator-that...
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird-science/what-could-eat-big-shark-b...
Heres a theory i have on whites........whites will swim under a boogy board rider to get to a surfboard rider as i recon they see a booger as a large turtle where as the surfboard looks more like a dolphin or similar which is what they would eat.......large whites come in close this time of year to 'drop the kids off ' somewhere in close and hence are hungry before heading back out to deep water.......so more chance to be attacked......only a theory atm
17th Aug 2023 ~ Floridian Fear Factor 11 (Real Life Jaws Flick)
I think attitude towards shark attacks and possible mitigation measures changes based on where you surf. Victoria hasn’t had a fatal shark in about 40 years and sharks probably aren’t such an issue when you jump in the water.
Port Macquarie on the NSW Mid North Coast has had three serious shark attacks in the last eight years. Each one probably should have been fatal if it wasn’t for the efforts of trained medical professionals on the beach at the time. Amazing effort by these guys from the recent attack.
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/102822026
Hard to think about going for a surf at a spot like that where there is likely to be another attack in the next two years based on recent frequency, next time possibly fatal.