Tiger Shark killed near Coolum why?

[Axl]

This article was in the Courier Mail this morning http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...-1226552717573 apparently a pregnant female and they killed it, what for what did it do? absolutely disgusting IMO.

[Feral]

Why? Why not. Thats what the nets and drum lines are for, getting rid if sharks.

[Axl]

Why? Why not. Thats what the nets and drum lines are for, getting rid if sharks.

Yeah I understand that and as it says in the article

"Fisheries Queensland's Shark Control Program manager Jeff Krause said there had been only one shark fatality at a shark control beach in Queensland since the program was launched"

which is no doubt a good thing, but such a majestic animal as that one WAS surely they could have cut the rope and let it go.

[Moonlighter]

You are not making sense.

On the one hand you seem to acknwledge that the shark program, which catches and removes dangerous sized sharks is working, then, you ask why they didn't release this large shark.

Hello! Thats the whole point of the program! Releasing it alive would be totally contrary to that aim.

Now, go and have a cool drink and a lie down. The heat must be getting to you! you are starting to turn a nasty shade of green.......

[Axl]

You are not making sense.

On the one hand you seem to acknwledge that the shark program, which catches and removes dangerous sized sharks is working, then, you ask why they didn't release this large shark.

Hello! Thats the whole point of the program! Releasing it alive would be totally contrary to that aim.

Now, go and have a cool drink and a lie down. The heat must be getting to you! you are starting to turn a nasty shade of green.......

49.6 deg out here yesterday, the hottest temp recorded in Aus in 15 years, only a measly 43.9 ATM but still plenty of day light hours to go yet.

You are right Moonlighter the heat is getting to me, but it will never turn me green.

I just reckon that a big shark like that could have been let go, it didnt do anything to anyone.

[charleville]

I feel a bit sorry for the shark also. It was a nice looking shark.

Still, the meshing program has done what is is meant to do.


.

[MEG-A-BITE]

Seems that big sharks are getting in closer to the beach.Must be abundance of bait and game fish around.

[Still_Dreamin]

I sort of get what axl is getting at. At nearly 5m she was fairly old. There is no evidence she had or intended to do anything wrong. Killed just because she was a shark. Maybe all males near or at beaches should be arrested to prevent rape. We all have the right gear and surely it will stop one rape somewhere. Buses, bee stings, doctors etc etc all kill more people than shark attacks. Especially if you live on the east coast, those great whites in WA have been being hard to even the score. Having said all that i won't be shedding any tears into my beer over her. The cricket is making me do that.

[Moonlighter]

On a related note, i saw comments in that article or another similar one to the effect that made me wonder whether some scientists are really so biased its unbelieveable.

We all get their view that sharks are endangered rammed down our throats all the time. Yet, go out into the ocean say, off Fraser Island, and i wouldnt want to swim out there for very long!

Now, due to the incontrivertable evidence of the abundance of sharks in coastal areas around cities, greeny scientists are postulating a new theory that sharks might be changing their habits and congregating in these areas.

Hello! There is another explaination, you blind, biased greeny scientists! And that, of course, is that the vast majority of shark species, at least in this part of the world, are NOT endangered or low in numbers and in fact are doing just fine.

But no, do they even consider or mention that possibility? Of course not, because it doesnt fit with their preconceived position of all sharks being endangered, worldwide.

When the Grey Nurse Shark debate was beginning, there was one EPA scientist in Qld who said that the GNS live in water up to 40m deep only.

Why we asked? Because that was the max depth they had been seen in, she said.

When it was pointed out to her that the majority of scuba divers only dived to that depth, and that might be the reason the GNs hadnt been seen in deeper waters, she refused to accept it.

So an experienced deep water navy diver went out to "Spot X" in about 80m of water, videoed a huge shoal of GNS, panned to his dive depth gauge showing 80m, and showed it to that scientist, who still would not believe it.

You can only think this was because the evidence didnt fit her preconceived view of things.

And this sort of research is still the basis for conclusions that GNS numbers are still so low they are endangered.

And they wonder why us fishermen dont believe them.

Axl, you shouldnt worry too much about Tiger sharks. There are plenty of them out there. Next time you are out off Cucumber Point on Peel Island, berley up for a while with some oily tuna, and you will soon get a big striped visitor. The only problem is, you might not see her, but she is there!

[Daryl McPhee]

Here is my report from last year on shark mitigation in WA.

http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/...ons/fop108.pdf

[tunaticer]

Whilst I accept that the shark control program took this animal as part of it's charter of operations, I would have a large objection if that animal was part of a thrill kill or sport kill for some form of glory or heroics.
Many times I have come across young lads out for the thrill of shark fishing, but when they do not either release it or eat it I get the shits and speak up. The perceived threat a shark delivers to humans is far removed from reality and those sharks serve a greater purpose in the environment than the need to kill them off.

I also wondered about the coverage of this animals capture and demise, and the boat in the background on one of the images. There are questions in those images.

[Si]

Why? Why not. Thats what the nets and drum lines are for, getting rid if sharks.

why not? - they have a high bycatch killing turtles, manta rays, dolphins etc They dont really stop sharks moving up on a beach as they quite easily go around or under the net. all they do is kill alot of animals and provide a false sense of security. It's a political game of bs where people want to be seen about doing something after someone gets hurt. It's quite archaic and neanderthal mentality that we must kill these 'monster' 'menacing sharks' really.

[Feral]

Yep I'm a knuckle dragger, no green around my gills.
Thats why I'm not to worried about the possession limits of one shark, after I catch it and hit it on the head and let it go, I'm not in possession of it anymore and can freely catch another!

[Lucky_Phill]

Thing is.... if this was not covered by the media ( read ,Green Propaganda outlet ) we would be none the wiser.

My beef is with the media and who controls what we see, read and hear.

The influence held over the general populas by Media is staggering and if the same attention was given to Recreational Fishing, we'd see a world class fishery from an environment, tourism, education, health and bio-mass perspective.

Try contacting Brian Williams...... environmental reporter from the Courier Mail and tell him you are a recreational fisher with concerns.......... the silence will deafen you.


LP

[rayken1938]

definitely should have released it.Bit of luck it may have eaten fisheries minister and that would have also killed the shark. 2 birds with one stone.
Cheers
Ray