The risk of a shark attack when diving inshore waters of Western Australia

[Foxfish]

I understand this forum is to discuss recent incidents and fatalities associated with diving. In this case, the diver was fatally attacked by a shark likely to be a white pointer.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e-takes-teacher/story-e6frg6nf-1226822011707#

It should be noted that fatal attack occurred a week after a prominent fisherman in the area issued a warning regarding the large increase in the number of white pointers in the region.

PORT Lincoln tuna baron Hagen Stehr has warned that it is just a matter of time before another South Australian dies from a shark attack following an unprecedented build-up of white pointer sharks around the coast.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...ulling-is-a-must/story-fni6uo1m-1226820051425

It is widely accepted that white pointers follow the salmon and whale migrations along our coast from South Australia along the south coast and then to regions around Perth and further north. That means there is a strong correlation between an increase in shark numbers in either of these regions. My comments will deal mostly with the risk of an attack along the south west and southern coast of this state.

I have personally spoken to tourist divers who dive off our charter boats who are oblivious to the risks involved. That is partly due to ignorance but also partly due to these risks being played down. There have been two fatal shark attacks on scuba divers along our coast in recent years. Both were attributed to white pointers.

-April 1, 2012: Father-of-two Peter Kurmann, 32, taken by a 4m white pointer shark after a morning dive off Geographe Bay with his brother.

-October 23, 2011: American George Thomas Wainwright, 32, died after a great white attacked him while scuba diving off Rottnest Island.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wes...in-wa-since-2000/story-fnhocxo3-1226766905476

It is ironic that people on this forum on the one hand decry divers who enter our swim throughs and caverns without the proper training even though I'm aware of no fatalities in doing this. At the same time the risk of a shark attack and how to mitigate the risks is rarely discussed. These fatal attacks clearly shows the risk is significant and steps need to be taken to mitigate those risks.

As noted above, Fisheries WA continues to play down this risk and has failed to provide any effective way of reducing the drastic increase in the number of fatal shark attacks in recent years in this state.

There has been a growing unease with the lack of effective action from both Fisheries WA and the state government of WA. I, like many other people with whom I've spoken, believe the this lack of action has been largely related to the ideological position held by greenies that the ocean is a sharks domain (ie. it has some inherent right to ownership of the ocean) and that therefore it is morally wrong to kill sharks to protect people who swim in the ocean.

This has become popular among some sections of the community and it wasn't that long ago that our state premier publicly stated was telling people that the ocean was the sharks domain and people should enter the water at their own risk.

Premier Colin Barnett has ruled out starting air shark patrols earlier after what is believed to be the second fatal attack in WA waters in six weeks, saying swimmers entered the domain of marine life at their own risk.

The state's Shark Hazard Committee manager of strategic compliance, Tina Thorne, said more funding was needed to allow helicopter patrols to start on October 1, in line with the start of the Surf Life Saving season, rather than November 1.

"If we had the funding available, yes, we'd like them to start as early as they possibly can," Ms Thorne said.

"But at this point in time the first of November is what they've decided and that's what we're sticking with and that's what the funding provides for."

Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/b...ir-own-risk-20111011-1lioa.html#ixzz2tB6LwXlX
​

And this after the death of scuba diver Peter Kermann:

But Western Australia Premier Colin Barnett ruled it out, saying it was impossible to protect all people at all times.
"While it's still a rare occurrence, the ocean is the domain of the shark and we go there with a risk always," he said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.36b504330b5e04f62129815e2c3c58d1.201

This is in spite of the big increase in fatal shark attacks since the white pointers were protected as indicated by the records in the "shark attack files".

As the number of attacks continued to mount the premiers rhetoric changed to the point where he is now advocating targeted culling and saying that the safety of people entering the water takes priority.

"When you have sharks that are three, four, five metres long of known aggressive varieties, swimming in the water very close to beachgoers, that is an imminent danger," Mr Barnett said.

"I get no pleasure out of seeing sharks killed but I have an overriding responsibility to protect the people of Western Australia."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-26/first-shark-killed/5219492

And:

Premier Colin Barnett said the public wanted stronger action against the shark threat, while also conceding that "some people will be critical and have a different view".
"However, the safety of human life, and the safety of beachgoers and people using the marine environment, must come first," Mr Barnett said.

Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/w...-kill-zones-20131210-2z3m0.html#ixzz2tBWRGndL
​

The number of white pointers are drastically increasing along our SA/WA coast line since they were first protected about fifteen years ago as indicated in the 'shark attack files' and a corresponding increase in the number of fatalities. There is clearly a strong correlation between these two factors. The numbers have increased to a point where they now pose a significant threat to divers and anyone else who enters our inshore water. The evidence for this is discussed below in detail.

For a start, one of their leading shark researchers presented the following data at a national shark summit.

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/as...om-the-Scientific-Shark-Protection-Summit.pdf

In the report data is tabled of shark sightings while undertaking aerial surveillance to spot the presence of sharks and provide warnings to the public. This represents hundreds of hours of flying time in a year and the data was collected over a number of years.

In drawing conclusions from the data, the researcher noted the following:

Only 3 large (>2.5m) sharks seen in 5 years (N.B. little concern for bull sharks off metro beaches)

In recent years the number of sharks seen is now reported on the following website:

https://twitter.com/SLSWA

There have been occasions in recent months where I've observed that number of man eating sharks have been sighted and flagged on the website within a period of a few weeks.

That clearly contradicts the statements made above by Fisheries WA.

I dive regularly along the coast and keep an eye on shark alerts provided in the above link. I have noted on a number of occasions man eating sharks have been sighted in the vicinity of where I'm about to dive and have then observed the surveillance helicopter flying overhead.

On other occasions I have come home from a dive and observed reports in the media about people who have seen a large white pointer close in the region where we were diving.

The number of attacks in recent years and especially fatal attacks is the major source for concern but also provides another indication of an increase in the presence of man eating sharks. White pointers have been protected in this state since 1997. The following is a summary of data from the SAS shark attack files.

Here is a summary of the updated statistics taken from the Shark Attack File:

Year..........Number......Fatalities...Shark
................Attacks
1800-1809.... 1............ NR......... NR
1810-1819.... NR.......... NR..........NR
1820-1829.... NR.......... NR..........NR
1830-1839.... NR.......... NR..........NR
1840-1849.... NR.......... NR..........NR
1850-1859.... NR.......... NR..........NR
1860-1869.... NR.......... NR..........NR
1870-1879.... 2............ 1............ NR
1880-1889.... 1............ NR.......... NR
1890-1899.... 3............ 2............ NR,NR
1900-1909.... 3............ 1............ NR
1910-1919.... 5............ 1............ NR
1920-1929.... 8............ 4............ NR,NR,NR,T
1930-1939.... 3.............NR.......... NR
1940-1949.... 7............ 2............ T,T
1950-1959.... 9............ 1............ T
1960-1969.... 26.......... 1............ W
1970-1979.... 5............ NR.......... NR
1980-1989.... 9............ NR.......... NR
1990-1999.... 11.......... 2............. T,W
2000-2010.... 30.......... 4............. W,W,W,W
2010-2014.... 24.......... 8............. NR,NR, W,W,W,W,W,W

Codes:

NR - None recorded
T - Tiger shark
W - White pointer
Number of attacks includes fatalities.

There has clearly been a drastic increase in the number of fatal attacks in recent years since white pointers were protected. Note that for the final entry the period so far only spans four years while the other periods shown in the table spans five years. Note also that in the 1960's the number of attacks was significantly higher than in previous decades and on a par with the number of recent attacks, however the number of fatal attacks was much lower. This disproves claims that the recent increase in the number of shark attacks was due to an increase in the population of this state.

 

[KevWind]

Fact :The victim was spearfishing know to be an activity with an increased risk of attracting predatory fish.

Fact: Witnesses describe victim as being taken by " A Shark" species as yet unidentified.

Fact: Shark attack numbers in Australia are quite low compared to US





Fact: The SWSLA sight linked above seems to actually only prove that, since they have actively started looking for, reporting and logging shark sightings, they are in fact seeing sharks. Unfortunately lacking comparative data as to historical context of numbers pure speculation as to increases or decreases are objectively suspect .
Interesting to note though ... The significant preponderance of sightings listed are Tiger not GW.. Humm?

OF Particular note it that there are multiple tweets of what appears to be the same sighting, little wonder some might misconstrue as "evidence of an increase"
Not really much in way of credible stats or science.

c





Also interesting when the numbers are put into context.... So far I have not found estimate on numbers of scuba divers but can we speculate at 500,000 to 1,000,000 BUT I did find Australia is home to some conservatively estimated 2,500,000 surfers with another estimated 1,500,000 boogie boarders body surfers and surf kayakers...

So lets say being way conservative there is only 3 to 4 participation trips a year by these surfers, divers, and boarders. Not to mention swimmers waders and wading fishermen !! is what another 2 to 3 million at the very least ....

That gives us and incident potential figure of 15 million to 30 million ........... With the yearly average of shark attack fatalities in Australia from 2000 to 2013 being 2

Seems the statements from the victims family about "not blaming " are enlightened as well as informed.

 

[KevWind]

Here is a summary of the updated statistics taken from the Shark Attack File:

First can you provide the link for this info ?

Year..........Number......Fatalities...Shark
................Attacks
1800-1809.... 1............ NR......... NR
1810-1819.... NR.......... NR..........NR
1820-1829.... NR.......... NR..........NR
1830-1839.... NR.......... NR..........NR
1840-1849.... NR.......... NR..........NR
1850-1859.... NR.......... NR..........NR
1860-1869.... NR.......... NR..........NR
1870-1879.... 2............ 1............ NR
1880-1889.... 1............ NR.......... NR
1890-1899.... 3............ 2............ NR,NR
1900-1909.... 3............ 1............ NR
1910-1919.... 5............ 1............ NR
1920-1929.... 8............ 4............ NR,NR,NR,T
1930-1939.... 3.............NR.......... NR
1940-1949.... 7............ 2............ T,T
1950-1959.... 9............ 1............ T
1960-1969.... 26.......... 1............ W
1970-1979.... 5............ NR.......... NR
1980-1989.... 9............ NR.......... NR
1990-1999.... 11.......... 2............. T,W
2000-2010.... 30.......... 4............. W,W,W,W
2010-2014.... 24.......... 8............. NR,NR, W,W,W,W,W,W

There has clearly been a drastic increase in the number of fatal attacks in recent years since white pointers were protected.

Unfortunately the only thing that is clear is you have an agenda to advocate culling in spite of what the stats. actually show or do not show. What you are doing is taking some facts like " increased attacks" then attempting to apply them to a dubious conclusion as if that alone were some kind of evidence to prop up your pre conceived agenda. Being "protection" as "the cause" for the increased sharks and attacks. And culling as the solution. Understandable as a short term feel good measure but perhaps not really a good solution.

Unfortunately again the facts and the stats actually (by using your logic from below) serve more to disprove protection as being "the cause"
. Excerpts form this article in Australian Geo.
Fatal shore: Why so many shark attacks? - Australian Geographic

In NSW, there were six deaths in a 12-month period from 1934 to 1935, (Note this conflicts with the stats from the same period in the table you provided ? ) and in Queensland, there were five fatalities in 1929. But nowadays, the general trend in Australia, as well as the rest of the world, is towards more attacks.
Again yes there has been an increase BUT protection is by your own logic "clearly" not the cause of the "drastic increase" . Because similar " drastic increases" were happening with no protection in place. Next.

Note that for the final entry the period so far only spans four years while the other periods shown in the table spans five years

. Actually the table shows a 10 year span for 2000 to 2010 and a 9 year span for the rest but who's counting.

Note also that in the 1960's the number of attacks was significantly higher than in previous decades and on a par with the number of recent attacks, however the number of fatal attacks was much lower. This disproves claims that the recent increase in the number of shark attacks was due to an increase in the population of this state.

Again quite a jump to an agenda based conclusion. First I don't know what others are saying about a general population increase. BUT my stats about numbers were in fact about increased surf based water sports. And if you want to use the 1960 stats as evidence of anomaly you are in fact mistaken. Note that the 1960s were also the decade of the explosion in popularity of Surfing world wide. Also interesting to note that the 1930s was that period when swimsuits lost the archaic look of 1900s and moved into being much modern looking arguably bringing an increased numbers of people actually swimming in the ocean. So increased numbers of people ( in the water) is very likely a significant contributory factor in increased attacks. At least most marine biologists seem to think so. Again from the Aus, Geo article

"John attributes the increase in shark attacks in Australia, over the past 20 years in particular, to more people going into the sea. According to estimates by Surf Life Saving Australia, the number of people visiting our beaches grew by a massive 20 per cent between the 2008–09 season and the 2009–10 season alone."

As for there actually being a drastic increase in GW numbers since protection, this to may be little more than an unsubstantiated and questionable claim.... to whit:

From the same article
"Great whites have been protected in Australian waters since 1997. So, is it possible their numbers have boomed? If numbers had risen, you’d expect to see an increase in sharks reported as accidental catch, says Barry, and that hasn’t happened. Over the past five years, there has been a slight rise in the number of juveniles caught in the beach nets on the east coast, but this isn’t much above previous records, he says. Biologically speaking, though, it’s impossible for our great white population to have soared, say Barry and Rory.
Female great whites take about 16 years to get to breeding age, and then they only breed every 2–3 years, with just a few young surviving each time. Shark biologists estimate that it will take two to three decades from the start of protection for the shark numbers to really rise.

So the truth is currently it is not close to being fully understood why there is once again (and certainly not historically unprecedented pre protection ) an increase in attacks but "protection" as a causation factor alone, is likely of little significance. Therefore culling is likely no more than just another governmental knee jerk reaction to public scape goat which hunt mentality. Which might feel good short term, but in fact in light of healthy apex predators being vital to a long term health of the ocean, is probably ill advised as long term solution .

 

[drrich2]

Despite your frustration with the 'greenies,' you, too, put some spin into your message. To whit:

The number of white pointers are drastically increasing along our SA/WA coast line since they were first protected about fifteen years ago as indicated in the 'shark attack files' and a corresponding increase in the number of fatalities.

Which is to say, they're no longer driven quite as close to extinction as they used to be.

You refer to 'man-eating sharks,' evidently labeling a whole species based on acts by a tiny minority. Kind of like calling all humans murderers, or all men rapists, because they're the same species as a tiny minority.

So, from 2010 till today, there have been 8 fatal shark attacks. Over how large an area did that data refer to? How many 10's of thousands of people went in & out of the water in that area & time-frame? How many died in car wrecks heading to & from the ocean? How many drowned in the ocean?

So out of all the deaths that likely occur amongst the vast horde of ocean-goers, in a world where we face war, poverty, hunger in some areas...8 people dead, perhaps a few as an indirect consequence of GWS conservation, this is a call to action?

I noticed today an article that a tiger killed several people; 10 or so? Wow, one tiger blew all your numerous white pointers out of the water! Perhaps we should cull a bunch of tigers, not just that one, since if there are more tigers, it stands to reason there will be more tiger attacks.

In the U.S., black bears and grizzly bears kill a few people over time. We have the technology to wipe them out. But we don't. We kill specific problem bears, but the cost of the occasional human life is part of the price we pay to have bears living in the American wild.

And having great whites, tiger sharks and bull sharks will, on occasion, cost a few human lives, world-wide.

That is sad and tragic. But what's next? Rattlesnakes in the U.S. and some of your venomous snakes in Australia? African lions and Nile crocodiles kill people; as I recall hippos kill more people than either. How hard would it be to wipe out hippos, leaving a tiny remnant in zoos, making the world that tiny bit safer for the vast legions of humanity?

Richard.

 

[Foxfish]

This thread was started here by a forum moderator not me. My post above was in response to other posts from people discussing a recent fatal shark attack in South Australia on the Accidents and Incidents forum. A lot of the discussion was chopped out and these posts were moved here.

The purpose of the accidents and incidents forum is as follows:

The purpose of this forum is the promotion of safe diving through the examination and discussion of accidents and incidents; to find lessons we can apply to our own diving.

The start of my post indicates that it was intended as part of a discussion about a divers risk's of being attacked by a shark. It is my contention that the risk is being played down and as a result divers are unwittingly exposing themselves to a level of risk that is not normally tolerated in diving.

As pointed out above, two scuba divers were killed in fatal shark attacks within the space of two years in this state. I'm not sure of the statistics, but I think it is safe to say that represents a big percent of the diver fatalities in this state during that period. What has been the response from the diving community? A common response I've seen is for divers to bury their head in the sand and say if you don't like the risk don't dive.

Imagine the outcry if exploding scuba cylinders killed two people or two regulators of a particular brand malfunctioned causing the death of two divers in the space of two years within this state. I wonder how many people would be saying 'don't worry about it, you've got more chance of being hit by a coconut or being killed in a road traffic accident etc'. Imagine if the manufacturers responded by telling customers that the risks were small and if they didn't like it they should buy another brand or give up diving. That kind of response would be outrageous in that context and it is likely there would be government involvement to prevent further fatalities. So why do we accept the death of two divers by shark attack with such callous indifference.

As seen in the above statistics, the rise in fatal shark attacks in this state have steadily increased since white pointers were protected back in 1997. Since then, over the intervening 16 years, no one has come up with an effective way of reducing fatal attacks that continue to increase exponentially. As the drama has unfolded Fisheries WA have provided no effective solution. Instead they have continually played down the problem by claiming there is no scientific evidence to support the claim of an increase in the number of white pointers in our waters and have continued to demand more public money to research the habits of the sharks.

I find it strange that on the one hand the protection of white pointers was introduced back in 1997 on the basis that their numbers were falling to dangerous levels. Typically the evidence I've heard quoted to support this claim is the drop in the white pointers caught by fishermen as seen in this article:

They are listed as vulnerable because of evidence of a declining population - based on catch data - their limited distribution, low levels of reproduction and long life spans.
Before being declared a protected species, white pointers were hunted as trophy fish but by 1983 the catch data showed they were being caught only once for every 210 sharks compared with 1965 when one was caught for every 65 other sharks.


Despite not being commercially targeted, white pointers are by-catch on long-lines and in the nets of professional fishermen. Illegal trade in white pointer products such as jaws, teeth and fins are also seen as a threat to the Australian population.

Dispute over number of white pointers off WA - Yahoo!7

So on the one hand this kind of evidence was adequate to establish the need to protect the white pointer, but at the same time this kind of evidence is rejected as a basis for substantiating the increase in their numbers.

Evidence is evidence. In a court of law, eye witness accounts is considered the best evidence and people are routinely convicted or acquitted on that basis.

Scientific studies are supposed to provide information that is unbiased and accurate. But scientific studies are performed by scientists who get paid by people funding research. That alone presents a conflict of interest. Also, researchers and research organisations have their own values and beliefs that are reflected in the conclusions formed in studies. Estimating populations of marine life are difficult especially when they roam as freely and widely as white pointers and this provides plenty of scope for personal bias. The huge variation in whale population estimates from different scientific studies backed by those for and against whaling highlights the bias that occurs in so called 'scientific studies'.

People in this state have become increasingly suspicious of the claims made by Fisheries WA whose priority is clearly carrying out scientific research and protecting white pointer populations, rather than protecting people swimming in the ocean. The idea that the swimming public should all just wait around with an escalating number of fatal attacks until the Fisheries WA scientists have collected all the data they want and done the studies they want before any action is taken is nonsense.

It is natural and logical to conclude that the increase in fatal attacks attributed to white pointers is due to an increase in their numbers. As mentioned above, this is supported by evidence from aerial surveillance and the observations of professional fishermen. In recent days there has been an indication that scientists researching the data also believe this to be the case. More on this later.

The risk of a shark attack in the inshore waters off our West Australian coast has drastically increased in our waters in recent years. Divers need to be aware of that risk and take steps to mitigate the risk. In the past some divers carried a power head. These are outlawed unless the diver has the appropriate license. I wear a Sharkshield. I don't consider it an absolute guarantee of protection but it has proven effective in deterring sharks. Sharks sightings are now posted on the internet so in theory a diver can avoid places where they are seen. In practise I've found this provides little protection when diving off a charter and have ended up in the vicinity of maneating white pointers on several occasions. On one occasion we were diving a few kilometres from where a diver was fatally attacked off Rottnest Island. We were quickly called back to the boat. It could have been any one of us! I recently spoke to an instructor who was teaching an OW class in an area where a white pointer was sighted again just off Rottnest. A couple of people from the class I spoke to reported that they saw the white pointer come to within about 15 m of where they were standing.

And finally, divers can reduce the risk of an attack by supporting government initiatives to cull maneating sharks. This is a relatively simple, inexpensive and arguably the most effective way of reducing the risk of an attack. In one sense whether or not the number of white pointers along our coast has increased is irrelevant. Protecting human life is the priority and culling maneating sharks in the vicinity of those in the water will invariably lower the risk of attack.

---------- Post added February 15th, 2014 at 12:48 PM ----------

First can you provide the link for this info ? Unfortunately the only thing that is clear is you have an agenda to advocate culling in spite of what the stats. actually show or do not show. What you are doing is taking some facts like " increased attacks" then attempting to apply them to a dubious conclusion as if that alone were some kind of evidence to prop up your pre conceived agenda. Being "protection" as "the cause" for the increased sharks and attacks. And culling as the solution. Understandable as a short term feel good measure but perhaps not really a good solution.

Most of the research cited here relates to Australia. I'm speaking about Western Australia since that is where the cull is taking place. Culling of maneating sharks has been happening in the eastern states of Australia for some time and its effectiveness is one of the reasons why it is being adopted here.

Your posts indicate that you have little understanding of our local context. That is understandable since apparently your diving experience is limited and you live in the US.

The Shark Attack Files SAS is readily available on the net and in my experience is a well known and respected source for this kind of discussion.

 

[gcarter]

Most of the research cited here relates to Australia. I'm speaking about Western Australia since that is where the cull is taking place. Culling of maneating sharks has been happening in the eastern states of Australia for some time and its effectiveness is one of the reasons why it is being adopted here.

Your posts indicate that you have little understanding of our local context. That is understandable since apparently your diving experience is limited and you live in the US.

The Shark Attack Files SAS is readily available on the net and in my experience is a well known and respected source for this kind of discussion.

The poster you responded to requested a link to the source of your data / information. This indicates a desire to gain a better understanding of your position.

Your response is to ridicule his (perceived) lack of understanding, his level of diving experience and where he lives.

After all that you still don't provide a link.

Unfortunately not altogether an unusual response from you when challenged.

Does it never occur to you that when your posts are met with hostility there just MIGHT be a reason for that?

 

[drrich2]

I'll pull out a piece of your post to address:

As pointed out above, two scuba divers were killed in fatal shark attacks within the space of two years in this state. I'm not sure of the statistics, but I think it is safe to say that represents a big percent of the diver fatalities in this state during that period. What has been the response from the diving community? A common response I've seen is for divers to bury their head in the sand and say if you don't like the risk don't dive.

Imagine the outcry if exploding scuba cylinders killed two people or two regulators of a particular brand malfunctioned causing the death of two divers in the space of two years within this state. I wonder how many people would be saying 'don't worry about it, you've got more chance of being hit by a coconut or being killed in a road traffic accident etc'. Imagine if the manufacturers responded by telling customers that the risks were small and if they didn't like it they should buy another brand or give up diving. That kind of response would be outrageous in that context and it is likely there would be government involvement to prevent further fatalities. So why do we accept the death of two divers by shark attack with such callous indifference.

People are apt to publicize criticism of deaths due to equipment failure, such as tank rupture, with an eye toward identifying unsafe practices or product design defects, to make people wary in case something was being done wrong or a given dive op. is not adequately safe. Yes.

On the other hand, far from down-playing the risk of shark attack, fatal shark attacks are ridiculously publicized. One human rapes or murders another and it briefly makes the local news. A shark kills somebody and it makes international news.

Divers accept the risk because it is minute. What are your odds of slipping on the dive boat while geared up, falling and smashing your knee? Or a panicked out of air diver grabbing your reg. out of your mouth? The examples of road accidents and coconuts are legitimate! A tree fell and killed somebody in my town a year or two ago, but we didn't cull all the big trees in town.

If you're scared of the big, bad shark, what about the big, bad barracuda, the moray eel, the sea wasp jelly fish, etc...? For that matter, dogs kill far more people than sharks. When out & about on land, do you carry some equivalent of a bang stick in case a doberman or other 'dangerous' breed attacks you? It could happen. And your odds of getting mauled by a dog are drastically higher than your odds of getting mauled by a shark.

In fact, if we cull all dogs larger than the toy breeds, we would cause a drastic decrease in serious injuries and deaths due to dog attacks.

To get some perspective, I did a Google search on how many people various animals kill. Deer pose a far higher threat to me than sharks.

Your posts indicate that you have little understanding of our local context. That is understandable since apparently your diving experience is limited and you live in the US.

While not addressed to me, I, too, live in the U.S., so I figure I might ought to also address the point. Let's see. Sharks have been killing a few more people than they used to in your area, although the absolute number is still a small drop in the bucket compared to the numbers getting killed by other things, and relative to the numbers of people in the water. The species in question, the Great White/White Pointer, also occurs in U.S. waters, has killed people, and we are quite mindful of it since many of us were scared by the movie Jaws as kids and still get the creeps from the theme tune if we're in the ocean. The locals aren't making as big a deal out of it as you'd like for them to, and there's a lot of opposition to culling large great whites/white pointers to save a very few human lives over a period of a few years.

I think I've got the gist.

If we took your risk averse attitude toward all threats, I imagine few people would dive, there'd be a lot fewer hippos, lions, tigers, crocodiles, etc..., and it seems that many people just aren't willing to do that.

Richard.

 

[KevWind]

This is a relatively simple, inexpensive and arguably the most effective way of reducing the risk of an attack. In one sense whether or not the number of white pointers along our coast has increased is irrelevant. Protecting human life is the priority and culling maneating sharks in the vicinity of those in the water will invariably lower the risk of attack.

Nonsense of course the number of sharks is relevant. It speaks directly to the health of the ocean environment which ultimately will do more to save human life then knee jerk culling.

Most of the research cited here relates to Australia. The Shark Attack Files SAS is readily available on the net and in my experience is a well known and respected source for this kind of discussion.

Yes the SAS is a good source no one was was even remotely close to questioning that, I was simply noting a discrepancy between the table you posted and a quote from the Aus. Geo. article, . AND I assumed the table you posted was about Australia. However even though I looked fairly extensively and found the international Shark Attack File sight as well as the Australian ASAF I did not find that particular table, again care to post an actual direct link ?

Your posts indicate that you have little understanding of our local context. That is understandable since apparently your diving experience is limited and you live in the US.

On the contrary everything I quoted or linked relates directly to WA or Australia. Once agin resorting to an ad hominem attack does not nothing to discredit the actual argument. Really you can do better if you just try.

 

[Foxfish]

Nonsense of course the number of sharks is relevant. It speaks directly to the health of the ocean environment which ultimately will do more to save human life then knee jerk culling.

And where is your evidence or source to support the outrageous claim that this will be the result of catching and killing a few sharks in our local waters with a drum line.

Here is what relevant authorities stated on this matter.

Fisheries executive director of research Rick Fletcher wrote in his research advice that 10 to 20 great whites sharks were expected to be killed in the program up to the end of April.


Most of the tiger sharks, according to Dr Fletcher, are expected to be under the three metre target catch size and therefore may be released alive. It’s expected 10-20 tiger sharks over three metres will be caught and killed.


“The use of drum lines to capture sharks is designed to have a localised impact on the relative number of individuals of the targeted species within the MMAs (Marine Monitored Areas), the killing of a few isolated individuals of the target species over a short period of time is therefore unlikely to generate even a measurable effect on these species at a population level,” he wrote.


“Hence for these species the proposed strategy poses a negligible risk.”

Dr Fletcher also states that the drum lines poses “negligible risks” to most other non-targeted species and the broader ecosystem.

---------- Post added February 15th, 2014 at 07:27 PM ----------

Yes the SAS is a good source no one was was even remotely close to questioning that, I was simply noting a discrepancy between the table you posted and a quote from the Aus. Geo. article, . AND I assumed the table you posted was about Australia. However even thought I looked fairly extensively and found the international Shark Attack File sight as well as the Australian ASAF I did not find that particular table, again care to post an actual direct link ?

The information was extracted from statistics provided on the site. In this case you will need to expend a little more effort than simply regurgitating a few irrelevant comments from someone else. You can easily find the statistics by googling Shark Attack Files SAS.

---------- Post added February 16th, 2014 at 12:39 AM ----------

More evidence of the drastic increase in the number of white pointers off the West Australian coast:

Head of the shark fishermen's association in WA, Neville Mansted, said white pointers - also known as great whites or white sharks - were more common than scientists thought and their numbers had increased significantly in the past five years.

"We see them a lot more now than we ever did before," he said. "You see them swimming around the boat and watching the nets get winched up.

"You see evidence of their work in your nets and in the bites in smaller sharks."
Dispute over number of white pointers off WA - Yahoo!7

A WA abalone diver who has come face to face with five great white sharks says he won't give up his job, declaring: "Why would I? I've still got all my bits".

Mr Sell believes great white shark numbers have increased dramatically since they were protected in 1997. He warned more fatal attacks on swimmers and beach users were "a given".
No Cookies | Perth Now

The manager of a major abalone business in Esperance says divers have reported a big increase in encounters with great white sharks this year.

Marcus Tromp, the manager of Esperance Abalone Enterprises, said that between Augusta and Esperance there had been 14 sightings of great whites reported since April 1.

"I think there's been a steady increase," Mr Tromp said.

He attributed the increased sightings to a rise in the numbers of the great whites and said that abalone divers were now more likely to use safety gear such as cages while in the water.He said the average diver spent about 600 hours a year in the ocean.
Southern great whites increase - The West Australian

Shark expert and author Hugh Edwards, who opposes the cull, said the data highlighted the importance of researching shark behaviour.

"What it shows is there's probably a lot more sharks than we think there are and that mostly they behave themselves and that the risks of attacks are very slight," he said.
Great white lurked off Perth beaches for a week - Yahoo!7

Comments by Lee Warner a long time shark fisherman and abalone diver in the south of this state:

It was close to half a century ago but Lee Warner recalls what happened that terrible day in chilling detail.

In 1982, he took up an abalone licence in Esperance and started diving for the prized mollusc. Mr Warner said that during his early days hunting for abalone the great whites were not often seen by divers.

His first encounter came in 1985 in Israelite Bay. "A huge pointer swam over the top of me," Mr Warner said.
…
He did not see another great white while diving until 1995, about 70km north-east of Esperance, when he saw what he thought was a bull seal.
…
He headed for the boat above and that was it: no more diving.
…
During this time he had also taken up shark-fishing licences. His shark boats would head to near the South Australian border to fish for school sharks, Mr Warner said.

"In the November, December, January period the school sharks come in and pup, just on the border and slightly over the border," he said.

"During that time the white pointers came in and pupped in the same area."
Mr Warner said the WA boats were not allowed to fish in SA waters but the SA boats caught vast numbers of great whites.

It was effectively a cull, and it happened for many years, when the abalone divers had no problems with the great whites. It all changed in the mid-1990s when the area over the border was declared a marine park and fishing was prohibited in SA waters.

Mr Warner said the numbers of great whites had been increasing ever since.

"When I hear people say the numbers aren't increasing, and we are only seeing more sharks because there's more people in the water, it is absolute rubbish," he said.

"We have always had six abalone divers here who never saw any pointers and now we have six divers who see pointers on a regular basis.

"We have a pilot who picks up abalone for us, he sees pointers on a regular basis from the air, tourists see them from the cliff tops, amateur fishermen see them from their dinghies, amateur divers have seen them.

"The numbers are mind- boggling compared to what they were in the early 90s and there's going to be more and more fatalities unless we cull them."

Mate s loss returns to haunt diver - The West Australian

Incidentally I recently spoke with a young man who said he’d worked as a deckie on the abalone boats. He confirmed that divers and deckies were regularly seeing white pointers while working.

PORT Lincoln tuna baron Hagen Stehr has warned that it is just a matter of time before another South Australian dies from a shark attack following an unprecedented build-up of white pointer sharks around the coast.

Mr Stehr said people needed to be protected from sharks at beaches by nets or lines and believes SA is negligent in not doing so.

"It is wrong to have carte blanche protection against every shark," he said.

"It's better to be cautious and save human beings where possible."

Records show that shark control measures on protected beaches in Queensland since 1962 and New South Wales since 1936 have achieved remarkable success in cutting the number of shark attack victims.

Queensland authorities use nets and drumlines at 85 beaches, while NSW uses nets at 51 beaches.

Mr Stehr said his tuna farming company, the Stehr Group, flew eight hours a day up and down the Great Australian Bight from Cedunato Kangaroo Island, from December to Easter, and he had no doubt there were more white pointers around than before.

"I wouldn't swim anywhere because there are so many sharks around, yet I dove at Dangerous Reef for 18 months as an abalone diver when I was young," he said.

"I dove with Valerie Taylor on the Queensland Coast 40 years ago, I was diving before Rodney Fox and then I dove for abalone with him."

Port Lincoln tuna baron Hagen Stehr says shark culling is a must | News.com.au

Note that this warning was issued a week prior to the recent fatal attack on South Australia diver Sam Kellett. In my opinion that provides strong validation of the claims made by Hagen Stehr.

 

[drrich2]

Obviously if there are substantially more white sharks, then over time, there may be a higher number of fatal attacks on humans. But even that higher number might well be quite low compared to other hazards we face, including in the marine environment (e.g.: accidental drowning, entanglement, etc...).

The difficult question is how many human lives are we willing to pay to maintain how many sharks? Conversely, how many adult great whites would a person be willing to kill to save a human life?

I sympathize with the abalone divers who they may make nervous, but I believe there is value in nature, and that there should be a place for these animals. Even increased, it seems like the fatality rates are low.

Does Australia make as big a deal about it when other things kill people?

Richard.