http://www.diveheart.org/

Western Australian Shark cull

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

The ocean is not the sharks domain, it is where they happen to swim and where people like to go swimming.


While the governments efforts are long overdue and at this stage a token gesture at resolving the problem, it is a start.

How do you figure the ocean is not the sharks domain?? And what's your plan for "resolving the problem"... total annihilation?

I really believe that the people who scream loudest for a cull are the ones who use the ocean least. I can't remember ever hearing a shark attack survivor calling for culls (in fact, Paul de Gelder who lost and arm and a leg to an attack in Sydney harbour has thrown his support to the no cull movement) obviously Foxfish is an exception in this case.

Getting eaten by a shark is the easiest thing in the world to avoid, despite what the sharknado documentary would have you believe, no one ever got bitten on land.
 
Reunion Island has suffered some problems with Tigers and they are thinking of the same technique for shark control. The best solution is to avoid the areas and dive a swim pool if you're scared of sharks. By the way, more people die from jellyfish stings. What do you for that.? The big fat Tigers are the most successful and their genetic continuation in future generations is in jeopardy if they are removed from the breeding stock. Don't mess with Mother Nature.
 
Did you come here to discuss this issue? Assume for a moment that there has been a big increase in white pointers along our coast and that they pose a serious threat to human life. Is culling them still tragic and despicable? Why do you think that to be the case?

Yes. As has been said, we are visitors to the ocean when we step into it to dive, to surf, wade, or engage in other beach activities. In life we take many risks, and have to be prepared to decide if those risks are worth it for us. If one finds the remote chance of a shark attack an unacceptable risk, then enjoy the golden beach sand instead. Personally, if I or a loved one were mauled by a shark, it would be tragic, but I would never once blame the shark. We know full well that there is a risk of being mistaken, or of a shark test-biting since they probe their environment with their mouths, and we enter the water regardless. I remember a professional surfer who was bitten by a shark, and I believe lost a limb, but never blamed the shark, and continued surfing afterwards.

Then again, I consider humans to just be another species on this planet, and do not think we have the right to go on killing sprees because of unfounded hysteria.
 
I have to say I am a little conflicted over this one.
It would be easy for me to have a firm opinion on the issue because I am not effected by it. I can choose to either love or hate sharks, advocate for their destruction or for relinquishing all of the southern oceans for their exclusive use but all of that would only be an abstract POV.

Far closer to home would be the way we manage our Canadian wildlife, and in particular programs for bear and cougar culls. Happens all the time in North America. Each year a number of hunting "tags" are issued to control populations and if a bear wanders into a residential area and can't be captured it is euthanized. If a cougar ever shows aggression or even is present in residential areas it is euthanized. If coyotes even just take pet dogs or cats they are euthanized. Just yesterday I was sent a link that shows wolves now present in the Pacific Rim Park, and potentially an issue may arise there.
New wolf pack spotted in Pacific Rim National Park prompts warning for visitors - BC | Globalnews.ca

I don't believe anyone who says they are ok with being killed by a shark. What they really believe is that it won't happen to them. But in any case, the real test is what you would expose your children to. There was a man who thought bears were his friends and that he could live among them too. Right up until his last trip he was considered something of a nature advocate He even took his girlfriend with him. A bear ate them both. Wildlife officers then killed the bear.
Grizzly Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fortunately for me, I am not responsible for solving the safety issue facing Australia (I pity the person with that no-win job) because I really don't know what the answer is. Saying they should relinquish the ocean to the sharks is as far fetched as saying we should hide in our houses and turn over North American to the bears and cougars. At the same time I would like to think there is a better solution than simply killing indiscriminately. Hopefully the recent increase in interest in shark research will find solutions that are a bit more effective.
 
I won't give up diving because of the remote possibility of being attacked by a shark. If your afraid for your kids keep them on shore. You have a greater chance of getting injured in the car driving to the dive site. Leave the sharks alone.
 
I don't believe anyone who says they are ok with being killed by a shark. What they really believe is that it won't happen to them. But in any case, the real test is what you would expose your children to. There was a man who thought bears were his friends and that he could live among them too. Right up until his last trip he was considered something of a nature advocate He even took his girlfriend with him. A bear ate them both. Wildlife officers then killed the bear.

Well, of course no one is okay with being killed by a shark. I'm sure if approached by a great white, and given the option of being A) eaten, or B) the shark swimming away peacefully, we would all go with option B. But A is a possibility, no matter how astronomically low, and if we do not accept that risk we shouldn't be in the ocean. I certainly don't want to be bitten by a shark, or mauled by a bear next time I am in Yosemite, but if it happened, and there is an afterlife, I'm sure I'll be cursing my own idiocy and bad luck rather than the shark or bear.

Grizzly Man is a great documentary, and as they point out in the documentary: Treadwell would definitely not have wanted the bear that ate him to be killed in turn. Treadwell accepted the risks in his lifestyle, and the Wildlife officers achieved absolutely nothing in killing that bear. This wasn't the middle of Suburbia with a man-hungry bear running around, it was in remote wilderness. The logic of, "Well, that animal killed one of us, so we'll kill him in turn! An eye for an eye!" seems arbitrary and barbaric to me.
 
Fortunately for me, I am not responsible for solving the safety issue facing Australia (I pity the person with that no-win job) because I really don't know what the answer is. Saying they should relinquish the ocean to the sharks is as far fetched as saying we should hide in our houses and turn over North American to the bears and cougars. At the same time I would like to think there is a better solution than simply killing indiscriminately. Hopefully the recent increase in interest in shark research will find solutions that are a bit more effective.

It's really not that hard. Reduce the number of man eating sharks in our waters. There will always be cranks and nutty ideas. It's the governments job to recognise those and act in the best interests of the people of this country.
 
Please explain how one identifies a "man-eating shark." Do they swim around wearing "Humans--The Other White Meat" slogan t-shirts? Do you hoist them up onto the boat and give them the Rorschach test to see if they see butterflies or dismembered human limbs?
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom