135 replies to this topic

[Den]

lol den mate u've missed the point completely
never have i said "save the man eating shark", i believe i said "no matter how many sharks u kill its not gonna bring those ppl back"

and fyi, i've had shark fin soup, i could not differentiate it from my mum's home made chicken sweet corn soup but yeah, was yummy ^^;;

Your previous post indicates that you were against killing this shark or any other man eating shark in our populated water areas, we cannot bring this man back but you have not considered the word "prevention" in the slightest in your arguement. Do you not think that your opinion of calling people like me who believe that culling man eating sharks in populated areas as ignorant people contradicts your attitude that its fine to eat shark fin soup which is the biggest threat to shark populations on the planet today?

you don't seem to understand our dependence on the planet and its resources so in a sense you are more of a "couch warming urbanized coffin dweller" than me already

You dont seem to have proved this statement as you offer no supporting evidence, if you want to make a statement like this back it up. I can make the same statement about you, the only difference is I can prove that its true in your contradiction of beliefs and actions, no-one with a basic understanding of the planets resources would touch shark fin soup with a 1000 foot pole, it a completely unsustaninable, wasteful, unnecessary and disgusting practice that is leading the the destruction of sharks worldwide, shark fin soup has been dubbed by scientists as the cause of an eco catastrophy, so your own words and actions prove your derogatory statement above does reflect you.

Especially when the closest contact you've ever had with shark researchers is watching a brief snippet on Today Tonight.

Ado thankyou, as again you prove my point, you are right I like the rest of the public have never gotten close to a shark researcher, as the only people who get close to shark researchers are camera store owners. Obviously if shark researchers did their job properly and had something helpful to say to the public we'd have heard about it, the population depends on the media for info, shark researchers even when they get the chance of wide media exposure do not properly inform the public, other than with old useless cliches' and of course their "nice photos". Anyway thanks for lowering your standards and talking to me, as I know from your previous attack on my intellect(which you rate as low), that you dont like to talk with people who are not shmart, but I can lift heavy fings so I can be hewpful wif anyfing dats heavy wike wiftin fishtanks and stuff.

P.S. People Im not angry at all, the emotion you experience from my writing or anyone elses writing is the emotion you choose to give it, if it is the emotion of anger you feel when you read my post the emotion of anger is yours, not mine, as I do not control your emotions. Im not an angry person, rather the complete opposite, I consider myself as friendly and happy, if your reading me as something else, its not me, its you.

Cheers
Den

[VietDragon]

?
im against whaling too but it still happens
im against wars but they still occur
im against poverty but there are millions of people starving all over the world
im against alot of things doesn't mean i have the power to stop them
and if sharkfin soup is served at a wedding banquet im not gonna act like an extremist militant about it, i will have a taste and there's nothing you can say or do to make me feel bad about it, because i dont.
i say im a non-smoker, does that legally bind me into not ever touching tobacco or marijuana?
i say i don't drink, will you then try to sue me if you ever catch me with a beer in my hands?
here's my final take on the point i've made and no amount of manipulation from you will change my words: i said no amounts of sharks can be killed to bring back the victims of shark attacks, this statement is in no way indicative of my views for or against the killing of sharks, it's against the needless killings of all things alive fullstop. you chose to interpret it however you wanted in your own warped mind, then tried to project it onto me but im sorry, that's not my view and there's nothing you can do to force it upon me.
den your tendency to over-exaggerate is beyond belief, and just for your own reference, i never made any "derogatory" remarks about anyone, i thought i made it clear that i was returning those words to you? hypocrite..

[Paddy]

Crazy long thread for a pretty easy breakdown of choices;

Shark in waters with humans,

Options-

1. Kill Shark
If you can identify and find the actual shark that attacked then go for it, but theres two chances of that in most cases.

2. Kill all Sharks
While this would make all the waters safer I think we can all see the problem with this option

3. Don't Kill Shark
Whatever reasons you have, seems the popular choice.

These are about the only 3 options in relation to the shark.

Option 1 might if you can find it sure kill it, but if you can't find it and identify it this option is impossible.

Option 2 will have a very real impact on water safety but the many many costs would seem to outweigh the positives.

Option 3 also does not increase water safety but maintains ecosystems.

So if 1 is near on impossible, 2 is more costly than it's worth that leaves us with 3.

Don't kill the shark. Seems pretty simple to me.

Cheers

[ado]

Spot on Paddy.
Great that someone can move through a discussion with logical thought.

Surely this is over now.

Anyone want to discuss shark fun facts?

[Den]

Option 1. I must correct this, as it has been quite possible to capture or kill many of the recent man eating sharks as several boats with the capabilities to capture or kill these sharks tracked these sharks for some time after the attacks both in Warnbro and also the one that attacked Ken Crew at Cottesloe from memory, however no-one was allowed to touch these sharks due to current protection laws which are based on scientific reports containing both misinformation and speculation, which you can also find out if you care to read the reports on which our Great white protection status laws are based on, and yes I have read them some time ago.

Not wishing to argue, just correcting some misinformation here.

Vietdragon, my point regarding shark fin soup was in response you your numerous statements such as this for example

. you don't seem to understand our dependence on the planet and its resources so in a sense you are more of a "couch warming urbanized coffin dweller" than me

if you have been out in nature or knew anything about it

I dont care that you ate the shark fin soup, or that you didnt protest about it, my point is that you didnt know about it, and I wanted to show that this fact contradicts your opinion of my and your own understanding on the topic of our planets resources and this subject in general. Also trying to derail the subject does not help to defend your arguement. I can assure you on the subject on nature I keep myself well informed.

Cheers
Den

[Paddy]

Option 1. I must correct this, as it has been quite possible to capture or kill many of the recent man eating sharks as several boats with the capabilities to capture or kill these sharks tracked these sharks for some time after the attacks both in Warnbro and also the one that attacked Ken Crew at Cottesloe from memory, however no-one was allowed to touch these sharks due to current protection laws which are based on scientific reports containing both misinformation and speculation, which you can also find out if you care to read the reports on which our Great white protection status laws are based on, and yes I have read them some time ago.

The only problem with this is that just because one shark has taken a life does not necessarily mean it will do so again, there are many theories out there about re-offenders but as you have mentioned it is counter productive to go on quoting misinformation when noone has hard facts to back up these claims.

So if you concede that there is no proof that a shark will re-offend then where is the logic in punishing it?
The other sharks don't see this one getting punished and decide not to eat humans. When someone does something wrong we punish them to firstly teach them it was wrong, killing the shark will not teach it anything and secondly to show other would be offenders that the punishment is a deterrent to the crime which as I have mentioned the sharks will probably not quite grasp the concept.

Better off to tag, track it, get some real hard data and identify firstly if does reoffend then definitely eliminate the shark but this will also show us the many times it will be in the water with humans without taking a life.

You also mention you don't wish to argue. I feel you have lied there, you obviously enjoy it.

[ado]

Better off to tag, track it, get some real hard data and identify firstly if does reoffend then definitely eliminate the shark but this will also show us the many times it will be in the water with humans without taking a life.

That's right again Paddy, and that's what the CSIRO boys are busy with as we speak. Keeping the public updated with their work is hardly a priority.
Tagging has got some real issues as well....it's not as straight forward as just shooting a dart into a beast. Because it's a lot of work to tag one individual, it's very expensive and therefore only a small number of sharks actually get tagged.
It's actually pretty amazing how far (and fast) these beast swim. It's only very recently that these things were found to carry out inter-continental migration. Check out the story of Nicole the white shark.

Fascinating stuff...

[VietDragon]

Option 1. I must correct this, as it has been quite possible to capture or kill many of the recent man eating sharks as several boats with the capabilities to capture or kill these sharks tracked these sharks for some time after the attacks both in Warnbro and also the one that attacked Ken Crew at Cottesloe from memory, however no-one was allowed to touch these sharks due to current protection laws which are based on scientific reports containing both misinformation and speculation, which you can also find out if you care to read the reports on which our Great white protection status laws are based on, and yes I have read them some time ago.

Not wishing to argue, just correcting some misinformation here.

Vietdragon, my point regarding shark fin soup was in response you your numerous statements such as this for example I dont care that you ate the shark fin soup, or that you didnt protest about it, my point is that you didnt know about it, and I wanted to show that this fact contradicts your opinion of my and your own understanding on the topic of our planets resources and this subject in general. Also trying to derail the subject does not help to defend your arguement. I can assure you on the subject on nature I keep myself well informed.

Cheers
Den

err no.. you kept changing directions of the argument, first it was "save the shark", then "urbanized coffin dwellers" and now its about resources? im sure anyone who follows your various versions of this argument can see that they keep getting weaker and weaker.. what i meant (should i have to repeat myself over and over) is animals dont have this concept of right OR wrong and just because we feel them eating us is wrong doesn't make it wrong on their part, refer to above comment about eat or die. every time you go swimming in the ocean you're in their territory whether you like it or not, so build a.. umm.. bridge? and get over it.. this debate has been over since before it started.

and for the last time, "couch warming urbanized coffin dwellers" were words used by you den, notice the "apostrophes"?

[Den]

Regarding culling sharks, this was a shark which ate a man in a partially enclosed bay highly populated with water users in the middle of summer, which is why I suggested it should be culled, people here, particularly those who dont use the water seem against culling it. Its not about punishment just a matter of preventing further attacks on people, considering the human population using the bay, we were lucky that this shark has not struck again - yet, I think this has had alot to do with people stopping, reducing or changing their water activites in our waterway since the attack.

I think most people including scientists are missing a big point, because sharks must constantly swim in order to breath people assume a shark is in a constant state of hunting and when a shark passes a human without attacking them assume that it presents evidence that the particular shark is not a man eater, without considering that the shark may be at a state of rest, sleep, already full of food and not hungry, not hungry due to illness, not in a feeding pattern due to time of day, wrong water temp to stimulate feeding, etc. Preditors do not hunt on a permanent basis, for example does a lioness chase every antelope and Gazelle it see's? if it did you'd have one exhausted and/or overweight lioness thats for sure. So if a lioness passes an antellope without chasing and attacking it(which you can regularly see on any savana)I guess you same people would assume that Lions do not eat antellope? or perhaps you same people believe that lionesses only hunt and eat antellope when they mistake them for seals?

I saw a video of some shark scientists convince a National geographic reporter to stand in waste deep crystal clear water with bull sharks swimming around to prove that bullsharks do not attack humans, and to try to prove that attacks on humans are a "mistake" that happens when the water is murky, needless to say that reporter lost a large chunk of his leg. I do not believe that sharks make mistakes when they attack someone.

Cheers
Den

[marie90]

I think this has had alot to do with people stopping, reducing or changing their water activites in our waterway since the attack.

You think this? Where has the scientific evidence gone? I have not seen any changes with peoples water activities since the incident.

I think most people including scientists are missing a big point,

I think you are missing a big point. We live on land, sharks live in the water. It did not walk out of the water and attack anybody. We enter their territory and are fully aware of the dangers involved. Its just unfortunate that these things happen.

I do not believe that sharks make mistakes when they attack someone.

If they are really out to eat us then why hasnt that big nasty man eating shark come back to eat anybody else? I mean theres plenty of people going out in the water all the time. Sharks have a really good sense of smell, they lack however the brain capacity to differentiate a human swimming and a food source. They taste by biting, this is a known fact. They dont come up and lick you and then decide whether your food or not.

And the ironic part. If you really wanted to kill the shark, you would have to once again enter it's territory to do so ............


Cheers
Marie

[Paddy]

They taste by biting, this is a known fact. They dont come up and lick you and then decide whether your food or not.

Just adding to this they also feel by biting like we do with our hands so often its not even a hunger response but mere curiosity.

[VietDragon]

Just adding to this they also feel by biting like we do with our hands so often its not even a hunger response but mere curiosity.

just adding to this why do u think in a great many case ppl are able to get away with either minor injuries or missing limbs? the extent of damage is not at discussion here, just the plain fact that ppl are able to get away at all. do u seriously think that a hungry man eating shark would not get driven into a frenzy after blood is let from the wound and/or missing body parts? what's to stop them from eating the whole person? why are certain ppl able to be rescued after the attack instead of getting torn to bits and pieces? this proves in many cases the shark was merely having a nibble/taste..

and if you want facts and statistics, here are some relevant to this discussion taken from the national geographics website:

• Each year there are about 50 to 70 confirmed shark attacks and 5 to 15 shark-attack fatalities around the world. The numbers have risen over the past several decades but not because sharks are more aggressive: Humans have simply taken to coastal waters in increasing numbers.

• Over 375 shark species have been identified, but only about a dozen are considered particularly dangerous. Three species are responsible for most human attacks: great white (Carcharodon carcharias), tiger (Galeocerdo cuvier), and bull (Carcharhinus leucas) sharks.

• While sharks kill fewer than 20 people a year, their own numbers suffer greatly at human hands. Between 20 and 100 million sharks die each year due to fishing activity, according to data from the Florida Museum of Natural History's International Shark Attack File. The organization estimates that some shark populations have plummeted 30 to 50 percent.

• While scientists still have much to learn about shark migration, researchers do know that some species get around. Blue sharks (Prionace glauca), for example, roam the North Atlantic on journeys of 1,200 to 1,700 nautical miles (2,220 to 3,145 kilometers). After one record-breaking blue was tagged off New York, it swam 3,740 nautical miles (6,919 kilometers) to Brazil.

• Some sharks must swim constantly to "breathe" oxygen from water passing through their gills. Other species can achieve this while stationary.

• The media can have a voracious appetite for "shark bites man" stories. The summer of 2001, for example, saw an explosion of shark-attack hype and was even heralded on the cover of Time magazine as the "Summer of the Shark." Yet 2001 was statistically average: The year saw 76 shark attacks and 5 fatalities worldwide, compared to 85 attacks and 12 fatalities in 2000.

• Thirty years ago the blockbuster Jaws brought the terror of shark attack to movie theaters. The record-breaking film, directed by Steven Spielberg and based on a best-selling novel by Peter Benchley, grossed nearly 130 million dollars (U.S.) in the United States alone. The movie arguably made sharks public enemy number one.

The most recent worldwide annual shark attack stats: 71 cases total, 1 fatal, 70 non-fatal according to ISAF stats.

Shark attack article on wikipedịa.

And for further educational reading, an example of the effects of removing apex predators can be found illustrated within this article.

[Den]

If I could ask a shark expert some questions these would be it:

1. Would you advise your friends and family members that it is safe to swim and snorkel in Warnbro sound? would you let your children swim and snorkel in Warnbro sound? if not, why do you choose to not inform the public with the same advice?

2. What is the GW shark population in Western Australia?

3. Why have great white shark attacks begun occurring in Western Australias metropoltan area over past 6-7 years?

4. Why are Great White sharks being increasingly sighted close to shore on metropolitan beaches over the past 7 years, where previously there was no history of them near our beaches.

5. Why are Great whites increasingly harrassing boats in our waterways over the past several years? where prior they were rarely if ever seen?

6. Could visits by Great whites be increasing in our metro area due to some attractant being emmitted into the water from our coastal activities, such as live animal exports, meat processing facilities, sewerage etc.

7. Why is the Western Australian public so uniformed, ignorant and uneducacted as to the real threats that exist to shark species and populations? such as coastal development and overfishing for human consumption.

8. Can we expect increased attacks in Warnbro sound and in the Perth Metro area in the future?

9. What can people do to tell sharks that they are a human and not a seal or turtle? should people wear banners in the water informing the sharks? i.e. "Human species not for consumption" or perhaps "Warning human species, contains bones, may cause indigestion".

10. When a shark mistakes a person for a seal and begins eating them should they tell the shark it has made a stupid mistake? or stay quiet as to not offend or hurt the sharks feelings?

11. According to the majority of PCS forum members who believe that the shark which ate Mr Guest probably mistaked him for a seal, does this mean that Mr Guest will eventually be O.K.? or will this incident remain to be a fatal one?

These animals can be attracted to shore by sewerage, human or animal, my suspicion is that something we are doing has changed which is attracting these sharks close to our beaches, such as those listed in question 6.

With the increasing prevalence of these animals close to our populated shores I can confidently say that more attacks are coming, I guess when there are a few kids killed in one summer people will start asking more questions. This is my last post, I accept that you the public want more deaths before any intelligent questions are raised or anything is done. Keep propelling those cliches' people, it remindes me of when I owned a pet parrot!

Cheers
Den

[Paddy]

The above merely shows the inadequacy of internet debates. Your beaten by a myriad of information from numerous members and so skip over any pointed inadequacies and rehash previous points already covered. Your entitled to your opinions, and we're entitled to see the stupidity in them.

Take care when swimming

[VietDragon]

The above merely shows the inadequacy of internet debates. Your beaten by a myriad of information from numerous members and so skip over any pointed inadequacies and rehash previous points already covered. Your entitled to your opinions, and we're entitled to see the stupidity in them.

Take care when swimming

well said mate, you've given him the paddy wagon lol (pun intended)
i believe the appropriate wording of such description would be "pwnt"

[Donna]

http://www.news.com....17382-1,00.html


Some pictures here for those who think images speak louder than words

Regards,

Donna