Thread: Aus Day 2014 - WA off to a bad start... Shark cull

Originally Posted by Will Wallace

Should we plant traps or IED's in pure roads to indiscriminately take out cars and their drivers in their (natural) habitat?

That is what we are doing. And as far as WA and QLD holding up the economy, what a load.
If QLD is keeping the economy afloat, then why are so many miners jobless at the moment?

All the states do their bit. I might move to Tassie one day once they mine the beauty out of WA and QLD, and soon NSW.

Will.

You can then join those Tasswegans that appose any form of mining and enjoy the unbalanced amount of GST proceeds provided to that state that is in part iderived from that filthy mining in the mainland.

Originally Posted by Graz

You can then join those Tasswegans that appose any form of mining and enjoy the unbalanced amount of GST proceeds provided to that state that is in part iderived from that filthy mining in the mainland.

There we going again, someone have to add petrol to the campfire

Originally Posted by beagleONE

Welcome to the discussion, I shall return again from my hiatus for you.

I agree with you that Australia is good at maintaining fish stocks.
What is your view point on what is happening world wide as far as overfishing/by-catch levels are concerned Ean??
I am by no means an expert, but am curious to gain an insight from someone in the industry.



As far as supporting documentation for shark survival rates are concerned, this is all I can pull ATM from the abstract of this document.
A green strategy for shark attack mitigation off Recife, Brazil - Hazin - 2013 - Animal Conservation - Wiley Online Library

'During 8 years, the SMPR caught fish and turtles only and showed high selectivity for sharks compared with shark meshing. Target species comprised carcharhinids and sphyrnids and accounted for 7% of total catch. The fishing mortality of abundant taxa was generally low except for Carcharhinus acronotus and Gymnothorax spp., and protected species had ∼100% survival. The shark attack rate diminished about 97% while fishing operations were being conducted (W = 1108.5, P  < 0.001), whereas no-fishing periods and the period prior to the implementation of the SMPR had similar shark attack rates. Overall, the SMPR seems to be less detrimental than shark meshing strategies while clearly contributing for enhancing bather safety; thus, it may provide an effective, ecologically balanced tool for assisting in shark attack mitigation.'


I can try and access to this document using alternate methods, try and get some rock solid numbers on this.






edit - i have just looked at a quick at MSC...
I take my hat off to you mate, this is the sort of practice that should be promoted world wide.
This makes me happy.

This link goes to a pay for view library. Not sure if others have had the same problem but ealrier link to this and the WA Fisheries report don't work, for me at least.

I would share Eans concerns about he survival rate of catch and release. Certainly no expert like Ean but in every doco I have watched time out of the water is critical and relocation in to the next beach wouldn't seem to be sufficient

Your quote from the report also talks about reductions of "about 97%". I would have thought they would have know eactly but from what base and the report is only over 8 years. Does this make it more or less effective than a system which has been running for 50 years with exactly 1 fatality.

How do they measure the survival rate of relocated sharks?

Originally Posted by nugge t

This link goes to a pay for view library. Not sure if others have had the same problem but ealrier link to this and the WA Fisheries report don't work, for me at least.

I would share Eans concerns about he survival rate of catch and release. Certainly no expert like Ean but in every doco I have watched time out of the water is critical and relocation in to the next beach wouldn't seem to be sufficient

Your quote from the report also talks about reductions of "about 97%". I would have thought they would have know eactly but from what base and the report is only over 8 years. Does this make it more or less effective than a system which has been running for 50 years with exactly 1 fatality.

How do they measure the survival rate of relocated sharks?

Gday Nugge t,


Mate im far from an expert, I am just relating what I have seen with my own eyes.
People spend years studying this stuff, sadly , when it comes to marine science people choose to believe it or not believe it to how best suits their arguement.


Cheers Ean

Originally Posted by Ean Austral

Gday Nugge t,


Mate im far from an expert, I am just relating what I have seen with my own eyes.
People spend years studying this stuff, sadly , when it comes to marine science people choose to believe it or not believe it to how best suits their arguement.


Cheers Ean

Mate your experience far outwieghs mine. I used to get sea sick skin diving so you can imagine how much I have seen from a boat...although if hurling up over the side counts I could be an expert

Originally Posted by nugge t

Mate your experience far outwieghs mine. I used to get sea sick skin diving so you can imagine how much I have seen from a boat...although if hurling up over the side counts I could be an expert

Cheers Ean

Originally Posted by Ean Austral

MSC is an on-going accreditation, so all fisheries that have it are continually audited to ensure its practices continue in the future. Brilliant!

As for my comments about the shark survival rate, its more directed at the method of catch.. being hook, in my experience most animals caught on hooks of that size have decent injuries, and sharks will quite happily eat their own sick or wounded.
What's worse, a shark that cant feed properly because its jaws been damaged by a hook and its been released to die a slow death of starvation, or a shark caught and culled.
Im making an assumtion, which is always dangerous to assume, but would they not euthanize sharks who were not suitable to relocation?.. Again, assumption, ideal world. Unsubstantiated wishful thinking. Shall attempt to confirm.


My personal opinion is its their domain leave them to it, and if humans get attacked then that's just the ways of nature. No different to when the croc attacked me, I was in its domain, it was just my luck day that someone saved my life, cause it was to good for me.
Amen, if you cant handle the chance of being nibbled. Stay outta the ocean, and keep to the swimming pool. Dont get upset because nature is taking its cause.
Very mature and balanced view point regarding your croc attack Ean!

Cheers Ean

Yeah nugge t, it does only take you to a pay for view thing. Which is quiet frustrating.

Im trying to gain access to it otherwise, and if I do, I will post it up with links and hopefully we can answer a few of the questions that yourself and Ean have put forward

Of course the shark is a fish like any other and if managed sustainably there should not be any issues. In Aust we have shark fisheries that provide the flake that you have with your fish and chips and less well known is that we have a shark fin fishery up north however it is generally not financially viable due requirements in the fishery. It is not also well known that shark taken as bycatch in any fishery can generally be finned but again management restrictions make this not viable. This management restriction is that if fins are taken the carcass must also be kept and the fins and carcass tagged and landed as one unit - so taking up much more room in holds and freezers of the fishing boat than just fins.

However - the Great White and some other sharks like the Grey Nurse are protected species and cannot be taken in any circumstances and in this aspect Federal Law takes precedence.

Queensland actions have been mentioned and as their law predates the Federal Law their actions can continue however this is not the case in WA. I understand the Commonwealth has given WA approval for one season to do a cull but that is it and for any further culls a sustainability/needs assessment will have to be conducted to gauge the need for the continuing cull - based on past experience that approval would not likely be granted.

While it is clear that the whole culling action is just a political media action to satisfy certain groups, the reality is the cull will probably have minimal impact on the sharks compared with the number of sharks killed through the process of netting Sydney and Gold Coast beaches. This doesn't get into the news much but see how often a whale gets caught in the Gold Coast nets gives an idea of how devastating and indiscriminate these nets are.

Garry