It's worth noting mini a reef shark and a large ocean going shark use their receptors quite differently .
A reef shark uses them under head searching for morsels in close range on the reef ...it is a concentarted scan of a small area ....like a hammerhead or white tip reefy, they will detect something and zone in on smaller and smaller circles untill they are over the frequency ...i do not believe they cover a large radious and not infront of them
larger sharks like tigers and whites and mako's use the sensors to find prey from up to 1 km away , taking a MASSIVE area from a wider angle ....hence being more prone to receptors picking up the signal from any angle nad are much more delicate ...which is also why a white doesn't mess around ...he can't risk damaging those receptors
I answered keep the nets, but I would rather see something less destructive in it's stead.
If sound devices could be shown to be as effective I'd vote for them.
Either way my unreasonable fear of sharks will preclude me from being a surfer or diver.
Oddly I can't wait to pat a full grown tiger again next month [smiley=huh2.gif]
Don't think either can make you any deader
cheers
Owen
Cheers,
Owen
The whole world's mad save thee & me (but I'm not too sure about thee)
KEEP the nets ,explore new technology and "add them" to the nets
i.e. IF new technology is effective ,nothing will get caught in them.......right
p.s. put signs up "on the nets" ....
NO SHARKS ALLOWED past this point......prob solved
I think the nets should stay, for all the reasons Phil laid out. The majority good is more important than the minority.
Yes, the nets are a placebo and dont even go the whole length of the beach. Placebo effect is excatly why they should stay. The public will not have confidence in any new technology.
I also cringe everytime a whale or other crature is caught in them, but you cant expect the tourists to come here if the beaches are not netted.
I really think it is amazing the way some things get justified .
Logic and reason is out the door , everything comes back to the $$$$$$
Yet we say no to whaling which could bring in megga bucks... as the tourist $$$$$ that we would lose due to mismanagement of resources and public opinion could be worth more then the dollars for the whale itself .
If no one cared about whaling or not , and if the dollars were not there to support the scenic industry , do you believe that whaling would be allowed ?....all comes back to the dollar ....at the end of the day , the dollar does not live forever . This country send far too much out of t he country , thats the only reason why we rely so heavily on the tourist to bring it back in .
Think about this, according to the ABS, the number 1 employer on the coast is the tourism industry, no 2 is the building trade, and no 3 is retail shopping.
In my street, most of my neighbors are employed in one of these 3 industries. How about your street? I imagine most are the same. If the tourists stop coming, watch unemployment skyrocket. Remember the pilots strike? SARS? When the hotels are empty, people get laid off, and then theres all the supporting industries who feed of tourism indirectly. If theres no jobs here, then pople stop moving here. Ooops down goes the building industry.
I know what most of my neighbors will say, if it comes down to a choice between whales and morgtages.
Our image of clean safe beaches has to be maintained at all costs. I wish there was a way to keep both groups happy.
Very True .....but i think it is us that believe tourism will fall over ....i doubt it would .
Would you cancel a trip to Africa because they don't have lion fences around the villages ?
Would you cancel a trip to Canada because you heard they can't guarantee a bear would not walk into camp ?
Would you cancel a trip to Northern territory because they have not fenced off the creeks for crocodiles ?
I would be willing to bet that near half the tourists to this country would not go to the beach for a swim, or would not concider the beach a large reason for their trip here .
I would also be willing to bet out of all those tourists at the beach , no where near half would have a clue about nets being out there .....yet they all know about our sharks ...as said earlier ,...the amount of tourists ignoring the jellyfish issues on the reef is huge , even though it is well signed and in their faces everywhere
Ladies and Gents,
I think the original topic was about the shark nets, not the social economic status of the related tourism industry and its impacts (although I agree this is very important). This is what I believe to be a classic example of what happens with larger or smaller organisations when appointed to address a situation.
Hypothetically, let’s appoint a government depart to research and develop a better shark protection device.
1. we appoint the organisation with a clear directive and some $$$
2. they consult the necessary organisations and individuals involved
3. organisation and individuals disagree
4. appoint an investigation committee to see what the problem is, more $$$ [smiley=argue.gif]
5. they are accused of mismanagement by the original team
6. investigate the investigation committee from another separate individual who has nothing to do with the original directive, more $$$$$
7. and so on
My point here is this happens on chat boards to the highest echelon of politics and beyond. Like I stated in my earlier post if people took responsibility for there own actions and said ok lets fix the problem it would get done. [smiley=2thumbsup.gif] We can send robots to mars and drive them around, but we can’t stop some sharks swimming near the shore with out killing or impacting on harmless other animals????
Not having a go at anyone, just my thought for the day. [smiley=gossip.gif]
Cheers
i guess it comes down to intrinsic value - us, or us AND the rest of the animal kingdom? having seen many of these awesome beasts up close i know where i stand. yes i fish and often eat the fish i catch (rarely more than two fish), but if i got mauled tomorrow by a tiger, i know i'd want the thing to be left alone.
cuzza
Yes, your probably right, the tourist industry wont fallover. We already lose quite a few japs to rips and it doesnt get sensationalised.
Im just pointing out why the pollies wont touch this issue.
As an oldy I can still remember (58 years ago) hearing that one of my play mate had been taken by a shark at the Gold Coast. This was not an uncommon accurance the eventhough there was not the number of swimmers there are today.
You only have to notice the increasing numbers being attacked in South australia and Western Australia.
I hope that if the nets are withdrawn that a shark attack doesn't happen to someone close to you. Dont be fooled it can happen to you
My thoughts, as a freediver/spearfisher I and my mates regularly come into contact with sharks. We have had fish taken off the spear by 3m bull sharks and even a 4m tiger out at the banks. I do not dive with a powerhead as I love the thrill of being in their domain. Saying all that in 5 years of diving frequently from staddie to the central coast I have only had to kill one shark in self defence. Personally I think shark nets or lines are a waste of time, sure some tigers, whalers and whites are caught but the odds these sharks are going to take someone are pretty slim. How many grey nurse sharks are killed by set lines? Maybee flat rock would still be available to us. I know spearfisherman in the past were responsible for a lot of indiscriminate killing of grey nurse sharks, but times have changed and I would hope most of us would realise how fragile our marine ecosystem is. Would love to see a poll of tourists and their attitude towards the nets and lines. I'm sure a majority would support any move that resulted in less indiscriminate killing. If I ever get eaten so be it.
For my 2cents worth, I am born and bred on the Gold Coast, now living in Bris. (so yes I am aware of having grown up with the nets there and that I do not have a before and after benefit of perspective) The nets are, as has been said, appearing more and more as a public relations tool today, than before. Odds are you are more likely to be bitten by a shark (or catch one) in a canal then the surf and we all know not to swim in canals (don't we??).
Of course as they say, the nets are there to protect us against those big 'man eaters' where if you get bit, you are more likely to die from it, or disappear all together. Well you should see the number and size of big sharks I have seen caught off Redcliffe Jetty. It would make your eye bulge!! [smiley=shocked.gif]
But am I wrong to say that you can travel all the way from Moreton Bay to the Nerang River without actually having to head outside? So what's stopping those big buggers doing the same? As far as I recall, there are no nets protecting the bay areas?
I have always been taught not to swim at dawn or dusk (high risk times), and definitely not at night because of sharks. So common sense is a must. As for those people in SA being taken, we all know that SA is a major Great White spot and the Gold Coast is not. SA also encourages shark cage diving where they lure in the sharks with a nice feed. And any shark worth his salt remembers where to go get a feed when needs be, and being used to people there at feeding time only adds to their people = food association. So drum lining is a dumb idea too, no need to lure them in and teach them to come in to shore for a feed.
I would like to hear from anyone who is a life saver, just about the only people I know who 'swim' out beyond the breakers.
Also, who is more likely to be taken at the beach? A surfer 'tea bagging' out back or a swimmer always on the move in shallower water?
You say fish, I say yes please.
I think shark nets are silly, we need the sharks to eat people to keep the population down [smiley=devilish.gif]
I am aware of the risks ...always have been ...just like a realise when i drive into work on the freeway each day there is a risk of being in a car accident and dying like that . Life and death go hand in hand ...can't spend your entire life being shielded from danger ...and it is no ones fault that dangers exist ...this danger is not man made ...it's natural , so why try and remove it ?Originally Posted by tincanpeter
What if you kid was taken!?? ...well again , there would be nothing happy about it , sure you would be shattered !
I wonder how many people concerned about their kids safety in the surf concider the road dangers and stop their teenagers from buying high powered sports cars , motor bikes and the likes ....there is a higher chance of serious injury or death , yet we seem to believe that is an acceptable risk !???
Gogecko, i am totally aware of pollies positions ...we all are ....but how many pollies speak for all of us...they will say what they think bulk of the population thinks ( or atleast what they think the population wants )...even if they disagree personally
Thanks for the feedback guys ....i think it is quite obvious the split between peoples opinion is quite evenly weighted . But as a whole it is identified as a concern that a higher then average percentage of the population feel something needs to be done to protect swimmers , with a bulk believing nets are not the answer, but do not want to drop the nets untill a solution is found ...
Maybe some of the RFL funds ( if QLD follows NSW ) should be directed at technological improvements for securing beaches without the damage on other marine life ....something to think about if and when we get a say !
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
