Lindor Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 I have many more in the making lol I would like to use that as my cover photo if that's alright with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Go for it mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindor Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Go for it mate. Thank you. Keep 'em coming! I'm looking for a placard for the next rally! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 [ATTACH=CONFIG]23001[/ATTACH]:wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 [ATTACH=CONFIG]23002[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 As per usual, it's humans that are the problem. It's not rocket science. The mentality of what they are doing here beggers belief really. I suppose with a country that still sells dogs in shops, well says it all really.... You come up with some strange statements Buttercup. I always thought it was brilliant as a youngster in the UK to be able to walk in a pet shop and see the young animals and I thought the same here. Great to take the kids in and have a look at the puppies and kittens. Invariably the ones I've been in here and the UK were clean, animals well looked after and seemed to be selling plenty in a nice environment. I guess you'll be glad to hear that all the ones I knew of are now gone. No doubt because of pressure put on by lobby groups and the like. Don't know what happens to the puppies, kittens, birds, fish that used to get sold there and are presumably still being born. Probably end up in some bag and thrown in the river or something. Absolutely naff all to do with the shark debate though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 It was one protester Paul and he didn't threaten anyone. He went into the office and told them what he was going to do and handed out safety glasses! http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-21/premier27s-office-vandalised-court/5211068 So you think that's OK then? If we all carried on like that about every decision we didn't like we are on the road to anarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 I watched a tv documentary last night about a rogue great white that killed surfers two of them two years apart almost to the day, it was a female about 16 feet long a really big shark. My point is NO drum lines used just signs and the vigilance of surfers, over 200 other sharks in and around the same area at the same time as all of the attacks (conservative estimate), yet no other attacks? They interviewed surfers who surfed at the same beaches and some said no more in that area for them, and the rest saying it's the sharks domain - we are the trespassers. So why does 'colin' feel the need to waste money on a rubbish practice, more signs and more towers are the logical answer, to just kill at a certain length and then gut and drop in the sea a little further out is more irresponsible than drink driving, especially when a shark can smell blood in 1 part per million of ocean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindor Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 So you think that's OK then? If we all carried on like that about every decision we didn't like we are on the road to anarchy. No, I don't think it's OK, BUT, it's a damn site better than a few protesters going in and threatening the staff with hammers which was what you said had happened, when in fact it was a lone protester who told the staff what he was going to do and gave them safety glasses to ensure they didn't get injured. Big difference! Wouldn't you agree? The people protesting against the murder of innocent sharks, of which I am one, do so peacefully. Anyone reading your post would immediately get an impression of us that is not true. A bit like sensationalist journalism embellishing the truth to reach the desired effect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 No, I don't think it's OK, BUT, it's a damn site better than a few protesters going in and threatening the staff with hammers which was what you said had happened, when in fact it was a lone protester who told the staff what he was going to do and gave them safety glasses to ensure they didn't get injured. Big difference! Wouldn't you agree? The people protesting against the murder of innocent sharks, of which I am one, do so peacefully. Anyone reading your post would immediately get an impression of us that is not true. A bit like sensationalist journalism embellishing the truth to reach the desired effect! I was going off what Colin Barnett said had happened at his offices. He said his staff had been scared. Certainly no excuse for threatening behaviour either there or scaring off the contractor who was going to do the drumline monitoring. I'm sure most reading this thread would be reading more than just my posts, maybe trying to form an opinion. So I don't think they would be getting a wrong impression of most protesters. Just been listening to Colin Barnett talking from South Africa and he commented on how he found it amazing that the protests appeared to be World Wide when South Africa have had measures in since the 50's. Nice to see the drum lines out at the weekend and saw the fisheries boat go and check them, followed by two other boats I presume were news crews. They'll soon get fed up with that hopefully, be pretty expensive running boats up and down the coast too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambethlad Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Next Time Someone Tells You To Be Afraid Of Sharks, Show Them This... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 :notworthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Next Time Someone Tells You To Be Afraid Of Sharks, Show Them This... Should there be a picture or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beach pig Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Greenpeace were on the radio this morning with their typical over the top "we are going to ruin the planet" argument. We are talking about protecting about 500m out to sea, at a very few beaches in WA. As long as sharks don't come into that environment they will be safe. There are millions of them out there and I think the fact that they caught one the first day the lines were out there demonstrates that there is a constant danger. I'm fully behind the governments moves and the only person I've heard interviewed on the media with a for opinion is a guy who runs the shark management measures in Queensland. He was on Geoff Hutchison's show and every other presenter, paper, media outlet has had only people against the shark control measures. I think even Geoff's views might have changed a bit after this guy was interviewed. He asked when the Queensland measures had been put in place and why. Answer was because of fatal attacks and they had started in abut 1962 (I think). He then asked how many fatals since then Answer 1. How many sharks had they caught this season. I was expecting the guy to say 40-50 something like that. Answer 650 and half of them classed as dangerous. Geoff then asked the guy about other animals getting stuck in the nets. Guys answer was that's why they'd mostly gone to drum lines from nets because of whales, dolphins, turtles etc getting caught up. Since moving to drum lines they have a 100% success rate with freeing whales that might get caught up and 95% with turtles, the two species they worry about the most, can't get any better than 100%. How many whales beach themselves every year and die? There were loads just recently in New Zealand and a massive pod last year in bunker Bay. Tragic though it is it's also part of nature. If the same numbers are going to be repeated here there will be 2 stories a day with sharks killed, on the news. Doubt there will be that many though because we aren't trying to protect as many beaches. I think you are over reacting Melza. There are plenty of sharks out there and we aren't even going to make a dent in the numbers. Greenpeace to my mind are just another bunch of fanatics that say they are following the law when asked but when I see them trying to climb onto other countries ships, oil rigs, trying to ram boats and just be a general nuisance, then complain when they get jailed then I can't see there argument. Most places they would be regarded as pirates and they are lucky that none of them gets killed. Another argument they use is the money should be spent on research. They have spent millions on research and have been researching how to repel and deter sharks since the world wars, when they lost a lot of people to shark attacks after being torpedoed. I read a book years before we emigrated called "search for a repellent" about what they've tried and tested. The only conclusion I think they can come to is sharks are unpredictable. One could swim right by you tomorrow (if you go in the water that is) and you wouldn't even know it's there. The next day the same shark could kill you for a reason known only to itself. I'm of the opinion that a lot of people who are totally against any form of control/protection don't go near the water and wouldn't dream of going for an ocean swim, so it's not going to affect them one way or the other. For the ones that use it daily, like myself and most of our group of friends I reckon there is 95% support for some action. I know people who have lived here all their lives and changed their habits over the last couple of years because of the shark numbers and attacks. It's like asking someone who doesn't have a car licence if they are in support of speed traps and booze busses. If we are going to get upset about shark kills what happens if they take a camera into a slaughter house and we see pigs, sheep, cattle being killed for our consumption? Does everyone suddenly turn veggie? The press and media are loving it at the moment and I only hope it dies down soon and the guys running the drum lines can get on with business. I for one feel safer all ready seeing as it's one less closer to beaches yesterday. Mate you talk some crap .i am so angry with your attitude in the subject .take this analogy what about taking your driving licence off you just In case you might perhaps drive past one day and god forbid knock one of my kids down.thats basically what you are saying about the cull of the sharks wake up.look I am not a tree hugger or plant whisperer,but I love the ocean . I dive I fish I kayak I know the risk .i don't go out when its their tea time .end of the day they were patrolling the beaches long before us give em a break.and another thing while we at it why not kill off all the crocks as well.austrailia goes on about Japan and the whale/dolphin culling is that not the pot calling the kettle black.you have gone down in my estimations mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Mate you talk some crap .i am so angry with your attitude in the subject .take this analogy what about taking your driving licence off you just In case you might perhaps drive past one day and god forbid knock one of my kids down.thats basically what you are saying about the cull of the sharks wake up.look I am not a tree hugger or plant whisperer,but I love the ocean . I dive I fish I kayak I know the risk .i don't go out when its their tea time .end of the day they were patrolling the beaches long before us give em a break.and another thing while we at it why not kill off all the crocks as well.austrailia goes on about Japan and the whale/dolphin culling is that not the pot calling the kettle black.you have gone down in my estimations mate I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. They are planning a bit of a cull of crocs btw. Getting too many near Broome and Darwin. You say "kill off" again though. Nobody is talking about killing off anything, no chance of doing that. I think you talk some crap too. There are plaenty of people who support the governments actions believe it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gee13 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 There are plaenty of people who support the governments actions believe it or not. Yeah where are they? Maybe outnumbered 1000:1? because theres little of a leg to stand on for the culling argument. No real facts that can support it. And the so called pseudo facts fed to believe in are incorrect, disproportioned.. not unlike an agenda.created by politicians trying to fool voters. Yes I must say some of the more right wing protestors and their tactics are not really helping the cause. Some people just want to protest for protest sake. It just doesnt give the cause real justice when this happens. And it wastes the time of 95% of legitimate protesters. Totally against this and other juvenile scaremongering tactics. I say let the more articulate and influential folk form an alliance and bring this to Barnett in a rational way to take control and lead to an immediate stop on this senseless and costly act . At this point Im sure Fisheries are fed up of having to waste precious man hours and fuel costs, because the govt cant even get anyone else to do this tedious job off local waters. Im also sure theyre loving every minute of media boats hangin around They cant even catch a single GWS... thought the propaganda machine had pro cullers thinking there are too many of them nasty evil bities infesting our ocean and out to target innocent beachgoers eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest51810 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 You come up with some strange statements Buttercup. I always thought it was brilliant as a youngster in the UK to be able to walk in a pet shop and see the young animals and I thought the same here. Great to take the kids in and have a look at the puppies and kittens. Invariably the ones I've been in here and the UK were clean, animals well looked after and seemed to be selling plenty in a nice environment. I guess you'll be glad to hear that all the ones I knew of are now gone. No doubt because of pressure put on by lobby groups and the like. Don't know what happens to the puppies, kittens, birds, fish that used to get sold there and are presumably still being born. Probably end up in some bag and thrown in the river or something. Absolutely naff all to do with the shark debate though. :rolleyes: Lots of them will come from puppy farm type places and are then sold in the "nice petshop environment" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Yeah where are they? Maybe outnumbered 1000:1? because theres little of a leg to stand on for the culling argument. No real facts that can support it. And the so called pseudo facts fed to believe in are incorrect, disproportioned.. not unlike an agenda.created by politicians trying to fool voters. Yes I must say some of the more right wing protestors and their tactics are not really helping the cause. Some people just want to protest for protest sake. It just doesnt give the cause real justice when this happens. And it wastes the time of 95% of legitimate protesters. Totally against this and other juvenile scaremongering tactics. I say let the more articulate and influential folk form an alliance and bring this to Barnett in a rational way to take control and lead to an immediate stop on this senseless and costly act . At this point Im sure Fisheries are fed up of having to waste precious man hours and fuel costs, because the govt cant even get anyone else to do this tedious job off local waters. Im also sure theyre loving every minute of media boats hangin around They cant even catch a single GWS... thought the propaganda machine had pro cullers thinking there are too many of them nasty evil bities infesting our ocean and out to target innocent beachgoers eh? Where are they you ask. If you had been down the surf club with me this morning you would have met about 30 people with 100% support of the government. Judging by the ring in to the radio station a few days ago, it's nowhere near 1000:1 against it. Even I was surprised that a lot of people ringing in were for it, didn't think they'd bother to ring as the ones against it get really irate. I don't think there is "little of a leg to stand on" read my post about the figures from Queensland, 1 death on the protected beaches since 1965. Why do you call them pseudo facts btw? Just because they don't support your argument? Costly?? How much do you think has gone in to research and why do you think a lot of the researchers might be a bit worried? They might lose some of their funding to actually doing something positive and worthwhile. Not spending millions going around tagging sharks, putting out sensors, getting live feeds to the sensor buoys so they can scare people to death if there's a shark within 1Km. Like I've said before they've been researching sharks for decades and still can't come to a conclusion why they might attack and kill someone and what they can do to deter them. Fisheries have the boats and they are going to be running about out there anyway. They may as well be doing something useful. The government could and did have a private contractor lined up to do it but they were scared off because of threats to boats, gear, family. The media will sonn get fed up of following them around every day. Now there is a waste of money. It's early days yet on the GWS front. tbh I hope they don't catch one, might make me feel a bit more safe if I know there aren't that many around. I'm sure a tiger or bull shark over 3m would still give you a nasty nip. Don't take much notice of the propaganda machine as you describe it. We were joking at the surf club a couple of weeks ago on a solution that would suit everyone. Just give the contract to serco. They wouldn't be able to catch anything and even if they did it would escape. Beachgoers would feel a bit safer and the protesters would be happy as no sharks would be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 :rolleyes: Lots of them will come from puppy farm type places and are then sold in the "nice petshop environment" Nice to see what happens in one of those "puppy farms" eh stacey. Then again, don't bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest51810 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Nice to see what happens in one of those "puppy farms" eh stacey. Then again, don't bother. Plenty info online about It. The bitches are just used over and over again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gee13 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Where are they you ask. If you had been down the surf club with me this morning you would have met about 30 people with 100% support of the government. Judging by the ring in to the radio station a few days ago, it's nowhere near 1000:1 against it. Even I was surprised that a lot of people ringing in were for it, didn't think they'd bother to ring as the ones against it get really irate. I don't think there is "little of a leg to stand on" read my post about the figures from Queensland, 1 death on the protected beaches since 1965. Why do you call them pseudo facts btw? Just because they don't support your argument? 30 people eh? The pseudo fact is precisely this- Amity Beach was drum lined - in 1997 and there was a death in 2006. More to the point ...Prior to drumlining near that beach there were no shark fatailities ..ever. And there have been 16 other additional fatal incidents throughout QLD since 1965 when SSP was introduced. -The cost to QLD? still $1.7 million a year. Thats not really protecting beachgoers for that cost. WA? Only 14 fatalities since 1965 - No measures and wasted resources in place until now. And only 1 death in 2013 to spark it. Perhaps when Fisheries officers start to get a little miffed about the futile and wasteful jobs they have to do on a daily basis, especially when days of high swell and mega South Westerlies come in ....they might mount a workers strike against Barnett. Now that would be very ironic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 30 people eh? The pseudo fact is precisely this- Amity Beach was drum lined - in 1997 and there was a death in 2006. More to the point ...Prior to drumlining near that beach there were no shark fatailities ..ever. And there have been 16 other additional fatal incidents throughout QLD since 1965 when SSP was introduced. -The cost to QLD? still $1.7 million a year. Thats not really protecting beachgoers for that cost. WA? Only 14 fatalities since 1965 - No measures and wasted resources in place until now. And only 1 death in 2013 to spark it. Perhaps when Fisheries officers start to get a little miffed about the futile and wasteful jobs they have to do on a daily basis, especially when days of high swell and mega South Westerlies come in ....they might mount a workers strike against Barnett. Now that would be very ironic... There were only 30 there mate so there's the other way to look at it 100% support. I don't think your Amity beach thing proves anything one way or the other. There might have been 10 deaths in the years that the drum lines were in if they hadn't been used. It's one of those we'll never know things. There are more variables to this and I think you know it. Were there people using Amity beach prior to 1997? How many? Did the numbers increase significantly during that time? Have there been any deaths since? Why don't you go off the facts of the Queensland guy instead of one beach with one attack that you've dug up from the internet. Were the 16 fatals at protected beaches in Queensland. I would guess not as the guy who runs the show over there says there's only been one death at protected beaches since 65. Before that I don't know how many but fatal attacks were the reason they went in. 14 fatalities since 1965 so you might ask why worry then. It's not the one death in 2013 that sparked it, here's a quote from the ABC:- was announced after seven fatal shark attacks off the WA coast in three years. It's an accumulation of attacks and sightings, Great Whites hanging around boats, more sightings, a lot of people, some who have lived here all their lives acknowledging that something is different. People are worried and you might be right, the chances of an attack are minimal. I would like them to be more minimal. I don't think the fisheries guys are the ideal people to be doing this job. They are very good at looking after fish, less so bothering about humans. When the guy got taken over in Rotto there was a fisheries boat and a police boat following the shark around, in plain sight of everyone, for hours. By the time the kill order came they had lost it. I'm sure there are a few fisheries people who are dead against doing anything. Hopefully there will be enough that will do the job. I think there are more sharks around when the whales start migrating, so it will be interesting to see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gee13 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 There were only 30 there mate so there's the other way to look at it 100% support And if there were 10 there would be still 100% support too right? :cool: I don't think your Amity beach thing proves anything one way or the other. There might have been 10 deaths in the years that the drum lines were in if they hadn't been used. It's one of those we'll never know things. There are more variables to this and I think you know it. Were there people using Amity beach prior to 1997? How many? Did the numbers increase significantly during that time? Have there been any deaths since? There were ZERO deaths before the drumlines were installed in Amity Beach. I havent researched the population growth numbers or beachgoing statistics of Amity beach but the reason it was planned as a 'protected' beach says that it had regular beachgoers over time. But there have been no reported attacks or shark deaths before 1997. It may not prove anything concrete yes, however the facts surrounding this incident cant be ignored? 14 fatalities since 1965 so you might ask why worry then. It's not the one death in 2013 that sparked it, here's a quote from the ABC:- was announced after seven fatal shark attacks off the WA coast in three years. 2011 - 3 deaths/ 2012 - 2 deaths/ 2013 - 1 death The ABC journo cant do a correct tally. I counted 6 in 3 years. And note 2009 had Zero fatalities. 2010 had only One. I acknowledge a slight increase in fatalities if you take a 3 year snapshot but that was mainly due to unusual events in 2011/12. It may be not neccesarily due to increasing shark numbers in WA - because the deaths were all isolated incidents - from Gracetown to Wedge Island. Ok the 2011 and 2012 there were unusual incidents - the first 2 scuba fatalities ever recorded in WA history. Random? Perhaps. Is it Human population growth, increase in water activities, decreasing fish stocks, increasing migratory whales? All of the above? I don't think the fisheries guys are the ideal people to be doing this job. They are very good at looking after fish, less so bothering about humans. When the guy got taken over in Rotto there was a fisheries boat and a police boat following the shark around, in plain sight of everyone, for hours. By the time the kill order came they had lost it. I'm sure there are a few fisheries people who are dead against doing anything. Hopefully there will be enough that will do the job. Well this is something we both do agree upon. :cool: Sharks can travel up to 6 km/hour and are migratory so why would this one be hanging around a spot when it needs to move on to find legitimate food. It certainly didnt consume George Wainwright for food as the body was found - so had to move along to another area. Buswell and the Barnett Govt is going to come unstuck eventually with this botched program from the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 And if there were 10 there would be still 100% support too right? You know your maths mate. There were ZERO deaths before the drumlines were installed in Amity Beach There have been zero instances of shark attack at Mullaloo without drum lines. A couple of years ago my mate got his ski bitten in two by a GWS there and was lucky to not be one of those fatalities. Does it prove that there are going to be more attacks in the future, with or without drumlines. Who knows, but the government are giving it a try. It's not just the ABC journo, every report I hear and see quote 7 in 3 years. Can they all be wrong? Surely someone would have picked them up on it. Sharks can travel up to 6 km/hour and are migratory so why would this one be hanging around a spot when it needs to move on to find legitimate food. It certainly didnt consume George Wainwright for food as the body was found - so had to move along to another area. Who knows why it chose to hang around for a while, but it did. I'm sure the fact that it didn't eat George Wainwright for food will make his family feel a whole lot better then. Upshot was he's still dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gee13 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Maybe they mean 7 in 4 years? There was only one in 2010. Lets list the facts Lets break it down then - if I have missed a WA fataility for 2011-2013 then Id like to know to include. This is what I have from SharkAttackFiles Resource. As I mentioned I acknowledge there has been a marginal increase in incidents but only in 2011 and 2012. They have been all isolated incidents at vastly different locations. I dont believe this is due to a massive amount of increase in shark populations of WA coast. Random variation would have it that 1 or 2 incidents on top of a 1/year average in 10 years since 2003. And last year it was back down to the 1/year average. Other mitigating factors must be at play. 2013 23/11/2013 - Chris Boyd - Gracetown 2012 31/03/2012 - Peter Kurmann - Stratham 14/7/2012 - Ben Linden - Wedge Island 2011 4/9/2011 - Kyle Burden - Bunker Bay 10/10/2011 - Bryn Martin - Cottesloe (conjecture as body was not found, no sighted shark, may have drowned) 22/10/2011 - George Wainwright - Rottnest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.