Why Are they Shooting Sharks in Australia ?

[downunder]

Originally Posted by impi

You make a very good point and I can see you speak from a position of experience and have a lot more expertise than do I in this area. I just find that in South Africa divers regularly encounter sharks whilst diving and that attacks are becoming more regular... Not on divers necessarily, but also swimmers ... I have encountered them whilst surfing and my mate was attacked by one on his surfboard ... Luckily got away and is able to 'tell the tale' today, but personally I feel the authorities in SA have caused this problem with allowing 'cage diving' ... There is a direct correlation between the increased number of cage dives and shark attacks. They no longer live in a 'natural environment' because we have altered that environment for them to the point that it is (relatively speaking) no longer safe to swim in South African waters.... I take these sharks very seriously every time I dive there.
I must admit that I absolutely LOVE diving in most of the Caribbean Islands where one does not consider this to be an issue ...
I would much rather live in a world without these creatures than with them.... Sadly so as I blame human influence (cage diving and the tourists that support it) for this problem!

Impi,

You make a good point from some knowledege. Sharks are not a problem to divers/snorklers on the Great barrier reef. They prefer to eat fish. Surfers in South of Queensland surfing on breaks on headlands where bait fish congregate accept the heightened risk.

Unprovoked attacks by GW's (atopsy can easily determine shark type)seem to have increased in recent years in WA to stage divers in Western Australia are now more nervous with good reason.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by anjou

As an after thought, there are always two ways to look at a problem.

Has anyone considered why shark attacks might be on the rise? Could it be possible that as mankind sucks up the oceans fish in giant nets, there are less fish and more pressures on dependant animals to find other, previously un predated critters?

This is certainly bourn out by big cat and elephant forrays into villages in search of food because man has encroached on animals territory.

So is it right the solution is to kill and destroy?

Anjou,

I note with more disccussion a thought your viewpoint may be moving.

Agree with the point that shark attacks may be on the rise but at present there is no definitive researched explanation nor solution.

Jaws, without doubt has coloured the perspect of many particually those who have never dived with sharks.

As Impi suggests the Carrabean is not an area to gain experience. with sharks. I absolutely enjoy diving with sharks in clean waters of coral sea and GBR up to and including quite a few Tiger sharks however GW's are another issue.

Cheers

[SimonV]

I have dived with sharks, when tigers arrive I get out but a GW would have me walking on water. Crocodiles (salty) now there is a cull that needs to be started NOW.

[Blue Crab]

I think it will be a very bad thing to lose another big predator. An animal without peer.

Here in NC we have a bunch of "sand tigers" on the old war wrecks. Scary-looking but non-aggresive. 5-10'+. Real sharks but not like tigers and GWs. Divers from all over come to see 'em.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by hummingway

......
As it turns out sharks and the rare earth elements have an interesting relationship. Rare earth elements give off electrons very freely and sharks unhappily accept them. In proximity of each other they form a battery which is a shocking development as far as the sharks are concerned. We will likely see repellents appearing on the market using this idea. Humans are highly adaptive creatures and sharks are not. Sharks have evolved successful behaviors but humans have evolved to be even more successful thanks, not to our ability to eat sharks but, to our ability to adapt.

Interesting, I guess these will have to be made in China!

[Wotname]

Anjou, please understand that although I have quoted your posts below, I am not picking on you and I am trying to address the OP's Thread Title. However I do believe you are incorrect in your view that killing of sharks is only a male perspective although I won't argue against you about the "force" point of view when it comes to other some other aspects of the gender division.

Taking a long historical view in Darwinian terms, humans as a species have adapted to survive and part of the adaption has been to developed ways of fighting off other stronger more powerful species when threatened by them. I suggest that over the evolutionary period, this has been a human trait rather then a male trait. When seriously threatened, we all tend to act in unison, again as a survival mechanism.

What has changed is that recently (say the last few thousand years), is that humans have prospered (adapted) so well that we are very safe from significant threats from other large animals (and generally safe from most non-man made threats). One off-shoot is that we now enjoy the freedom of fear which allows the for development and general inclusion of more female attitudes and ways of dealing with the need to adapt.

And this is a good thing!


Back to sharks in particular, I think its fair to say that a noticeable increase in fatal "attacks" (whether this a statistical blip or not) emotionally plunges all of us right back into our evolutionary past and given we haven't had the need to adapt to better ways of dealing with this threat, we revert to old patterns which are not gender specific.

Apart for the gender aspects, your posts are very helpful to all of us as they point out the rationall aspects of the need to find other ways to the so-called problem as "killing" shouldn't be the only option and rationally probably not the best one.

For instance one solution is to stay out of the water or at least keep a boat between one and the water. No favoured so much by those who believe that as humans, they have a right to go wherever they want with impunity.

Actually what is the problem? An increase in the number of deaths by miss-adventure when swimming with sharks. Even the word "attack" has an emotional connotation that is probably unjustified. Yes, sad for the victims as is any death for any reason but really that is all. Human survival is not at stake here and neither is our way of life really threatened in any significant way. Percentage wise I guess not many of the 6 billion souls around go swimming with sharks daily.

I grant that some of us affected but I am with Anjou here:

Originally Posted by anjou

So is it right the solution is to kill and destroy?

But not here

the

Originally Posted by anjou

Gentlemen ................. displaying the typical male attitude to a situation, which as men, you feel must be controled by force, hence the calls to shoot bomb and kill sharks.......Gentlemen, please think before you comment, and at least TRY to look intelligent.

I can't speak for others but for me may I say that while I disagree with you on some viewpoints, I trust you haven't felt belittled by me for this hasn't been my intention.

Originally Posted by anjou

........ but I take exception to my viewpoint being belittled because im female or not knee deep in sharks.

[hellosailor]

Wot-
There's a politically incorrect field name called "evolutionary bio-psychology" or something like that. A school of thought that evolution has rewarded certain behaviors, which in turn are now hard-coded into our psychology because animals that *think* along certain lines, tend to survive, reinforcing any physical basis for that behavior.

PI because a lot of folks says that's crap, just an excuse for bad behavior, meaning, behavior that no longer seems rewarding or proper. Well...I can't help but think that after the first thousand generations of "don't bite humans, they get pissed off and stop feeding you and won't let you near the fire" somehow that gets bred into dogs. And that the same type of breeding has taken place with humans.

Bear in mind that if women stay safe and protected in the caves or treetops, while expendable men go off and kill whatever looks like it might be any kind of threat, the species procreates and survives. The behavior gets rewarded and bred into the species. And considering that you only need one man to keep many caves worth of women breeding....We men are very expendable and any behavior that protects the breedstock has the blunt, crude, but simple evolutionary advantage.

Which may also be why men do foolish things like go messing about in boats on the ocean, while women prefer to stay on land, and secure their nests. Fortunaely not all of them, but sailors still tend to be mainly male.

We may or may not be beyond things being that simple these days, but eight or ten generations ago we certainly weren't. Rack up ten generations against a coupole of thousand...and we're still programmed.
Whether we can change the programming, or whether we should change the programming, is akin to debating global warming. We can debate what is happening and why it is happening, but only a politician can pretend there's no there there.

What was the name of that fellow in Alaska who was a big-name expert, went to live with the bears, got all sorts of incredible PR...and was eaten by them 2-3 years ago?

Anyone wants to pay for shark-proof netting around all the coasts, instead of shooting the sharks, I'll give them a round of applause. After they pay for the netting. (Nothing personal aimed at anyone here, just saying.)

[callmecrazy]

I haven't read this whole thread, so forgive me if I'm reposting what others have said. But, judging by the last few comments I can atleast throw out my opinion like everyone else

You can talk about the psychological evolution of sharks and genealogical memory until you're blue in the face. But the fact is we haven't been 'breeding' them like everything else on this planet. They are doing whatever comes naturally to them at the moment. They have been around since the dinosaurs and have keener senses than almost any other animal in the water.

Off the top of my head, I can think of atleast 5 reasons why shark 'attacks' are more common now than ever before.
1; there are simply more people in the water, thus the statics go up along with the coastal populations. (and in this new era, the reporting of incidents is increases)
2; Sharks favorite food supplies are dwindling due to over fishing, human encroachment, and pollution. We forget that the oceans are a complete system. A failure in the Baltic sea of one species might mean a surge in the Indian ocean of another species... We simply don't have that much information yet.
3; Because of the lack of food sources, migration routes have changed. It's very possible there are simply more sharks in certain locations than there were before. Thus upping the bite statistics a little further...
4; Sharks might be smart enough to recognize the changing food supply and surely smart enough to recognize the new migration habits, and therefore, feeling a little more desperate than before. Maybe a little more interested in tasting new things than before... maybe they are becoming the 'foodies' of the oceans, chasing after the best briny meals in town with a little more ferver than before...
5; after aeons of eating everything in the water, they have decided humans taste good.

As to whether they should be shot or not....

Ever been to the Everglades or southern Louisiana?... if a gator is fed by a human, that gator has to be shot and killed. it's a fact. The moment they realize humans provide food (in any fashion), they become a threat and must be put down or else they will continue seeking humans for food and there leathery friends will follow suite (this is a proven fact). we've also seen this before with bears, but (after decimating their populations) bears became cute and cuddly so we forget about their threat and accept them into our lives, with windows up and doors locked, and plenty of signs posted...

But the flipside of the coin is; sharks are being fished.

So shooting them becomes unsensical (new word). Sharks are 'scarce' (because of us, but we won't call it irony), simply killing them has become a big no-no (atleast in the 'civilized' world). Unless of course it's one of the millions of them are killed each year from recreational and commercial fishing. But nevermind all that, simply shooting one because he's caught the taste of flesh and become a future threat to humans is absolute ridiculous.

Now, shooting a shark because he may be a candidate for tasting humans, that's just wrong, in my opinion. Unless, of course, you either do it 'for science', or you're gonna eat him

[Wotname]

Thread Drift Alert

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Wot-
.............. And considering that you only need one man to keep many caves worth of women breeding....We men are very expendable and any behavior that protects the breedstock has the blunt, crude, but simple evolutionary advantage..........

Ahh... the perfect application of the KISS principle (and yes, pun intended).

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Bear in mind that if women stay safe and protected in the caves or treetops......

And ever see how well a female will defend herself/family from a threat when there is no male around to expend; no room for PC touchy feely concepts then!

OK, back to regular programming!

[anjou]

Originally Posted by callmecrazy

Off the top of my head, I can think of atleast 5 reasons why shark 'attacks' are more common now than ever before.
1; there are simply more people in the water, thus the statics go up along with the coastal populations. (and in this new era, the reporting of incidents is increases)
2; Sharks favorite food supplies are dwindling due to over fishing, human encroachment, and pollution. We forget that the oceans are a complete system. A failure in the Baltic sea of one species might mean a surge in the Indian ocean of another species... We simply don't have that much information yet.
3; Because of the lack of food sources, migration routes have changed. It's very possible there are simply more sharks in certain locations than there were before. Thus upping the bite statistics a little further...
4; Sharks might be smart enough to recognize the changing food supply and surely smart enough to recognize the new migration habits, and therefore, feeling a little more desperate than before. Maybe a little more interested in tasting new things than before... maybe they are becoming the 'foodies' of the oceans, chasing after the best briny meals in town with a little more ferver than before...
5; after aeons of eating everything in the water, they have decided humans taste good.

Now, shooting a shark because he may be a candidate for tasting humans, that's just wrong, in my opinion. Unless, of course, you either do it 'for science', or you're gonna eat him

Best post yet. Well said.

A top predator of ANY species on earth, will ensure the genetic health of all others in that food chain by providing vital control to ensure the survival of the fittest and natural selection. A shark will remove weaker animals which should not breed, thus weakening the species.

Remove that top down control and you jeapardise the viggor, virility and genetic purity of the species.

If it can be proven that a 'rogue' individual is responsible for a spike in local attacks, then it seems the only course of action is to remove it, but to suggest that shooting the worlds population is the answer is not far removed from the antics of hitler or indeed the US government when they instigated a mass cull of plains buffalo to deny the Indian peoples of their major resource or to defoliate Nam to win a war.

Humans must restrain their instinct to eliminate other species which are simply 'inconvenient'

I shall leave you with these words of wisdom

'Dont it always seem to go that you dont know what you got till its gone'

Peace and Love

[markpierce]

I stay out of the water. Thus, shark attacks on humans confirm my intelligence/cowardice.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by markpierce

I stay out of the water. Thus, shark attacks on humans confirm my intelligence/cowardice.

Staying out of the water restricts one from half of the reason for being on water.

You are not alone though and water where you are is not exactly tropical and fair reason.

[markpierce]

Originally Posted by downunder

Staying out of the water restricts one from half of the reason for being on water.

You are not alone though and water where you are is not exactly tropical and fair reason.

Saw these furry fellows taking in the sun betwixt Ozol pier and Benicia in the Carquinez Strait today, far away from the shark-infested Farallones, but who is to say the sharks aren't far behind? Looking toward Benicia:



Looking toward Mococo and the three Benicia-Martinez bridges (two highway, one railroad):

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized %1%2 and weights %3.

[Wand]

Some folks in this thread need to get a grip. Just because the question asks: "why are they shooting sharks in Australia", most posts seem to launch their rants as if this were a fact.

But the inconvenient fact is that the Great White - the shark most referred to - is a protected species in Australia. To put it simply, it is illegal to catch or destroy the great white.

The alarmist question refers to a provision under some states' laws to shoot a great white if it poses (paraphrasing) an immediate and grave danger to human life.

There have been numerous attacks in recent years off suburban beaches and yet not one great white (or any other shark) has been shot as a consequence.

Even our local dinghy racing club, where upturned boats are common in our usual 25 knot sea breezes, does nothing more offensive than using the rescue boats to herd any sharks out to sea.

So folks, please try to inform yourselves better before shooting from the hip - even if it makes you feel holier-than-thou to do so.

[Wand]

Originally Posted by Dreaming Yachtsman

Anjou,
I think At sea was what we call in U.S. "shining you on" (i.e. discounting your point of view as a touchy-feely woman's perspective). Personally I feel your post was spot on (except the strong male vs. female innuendo)..

I guess dreaming yachtsman was trying to be helpful by answering Anjou's query on my behalf. It's just a pity he was way off the mark

To a prior post by Anjou, I had responded: "I think this post can be safely filed away as: "The view from Malvernshire, on the sunny side of the hill".

I thought my comment was straightforward and easily understood, but seems I was wrong. I was alluding merely to the simple notion that how one sees things depends on where one is viewing things from. A simple concept, which millions before me have noted - nothing ground-breaking there.

The fact is that England is a benign place - any wild and dangerous beasts have been eliminated long ago through eons of human occupation. Between the sunny side of the hill in Malvernshire and the river on which Anjou keeps her canal boat, there are no brown snakes or saltwater crocodiles and there are surely no great whites in the river.such circumstance makes it easy to be holy.

But I'd suggest Anjou (and anyone) would (and should) take a different view of things were there a couple of big salties on the riverbank where their boat is tethered, or if the deadly brown snakes in the rushes have developed a habit of taking refuge in your cabin in bad weather, or if a cooling dive into the river causes a great white, laying near the bottom, to flash up toward you in strike mode.

Few posters here - and certainly not me - urge the elimation of sharks or snakes or crocodiles because of any threats to life and limb they may pose. I was merely pointing out the smugness of the view from the sunny side of the hill.