Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

White Shark cull, Western Australia: Someone make a film about this please

Its hard to believe a country that cares so much about whales and dolphins wants to cull sharks. Statistics simply aren't there to back the irrational fear of sharks. There are so few deaths and attacks its insanity to even think there is a shark problem to begin with. There are many more deadly things on land there then in the water, this is policy madness
 
Here in sweden most people want to zero the wolfs. Last year we had a wolf passing my familys land and killed 10 sheeps a couple of miles from us. That did not grow any friends for the wolf around here with alot of hunters only looking for something to kill and a wolf is a dream for them to kill. They cant se the big picture where we cut of the land with roads and took away the wild forest wich feed them before. Madness!

The movies jaws was a great movie but anyone with a brain could forsee who was going to pay the biggest price. Wishing you all the lucks on saving the sharks. Will try to convert wolf haters here.
 
Nine News in Perth have just reported and displayed an image of the first shark to be killed under this new 'Mitigation' plan. A 3m+ Tiger Shark bites the dust.

Happy Australia Day folks.

Cheers,
Mark.
 
And just like that, a shameful new era in our history has began. In a matter of hours after the first lines were set fisherman have hauled up a 3m Tiger shark and blasted it in the head a couple of times with a shotgun. It will now be dumped at sea.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wes...chandkill-policy/story-fnhocxo3-1226810652353

Not sure how many White Sharks they are going to catch but i'm sure they bycatch of tigers, bronze whalers, hammerheads, bulls, is going to be significant. At which time details of operations will probably become off limits for the media. We have this new thing in Australia where the Liberals decided to stop sharing information with the public on matters they don't want to be held accountable for.
 
They got American right wing political advisors in, and now we are losing all our balanced centered political sensibilities due to these right and left extremities. I know people involved in extreme right wrong parties, and traditionally they don't get much of look in, nor the extreme left like the old communist/socialist party, now the greens. All extremists in the main parties were marginalised (less so the main left parties). We are loosing our sense of moral balance and conversations are progressively more and more irrational biased and antagonistic, we need to replace a number of parties to recenter. Even on ABC news 24, which the ABC is supposed yo have a charter or non bias and objectivity, we have biased irrational some very vested interests spin doctors arguing with one another. We get professionals in the markets presenting the news on the market in their terms to, and other such professionals, under a commercial banner of their companies too, another thing in their charter not to promote commercial companies. I don't care what they say, Q&A has a lot of bias in the show, they should pick objective truth full panelists and tell the rest to go away till they grow up. From being very good, the ABC has become a very pale imitation of the very best of what American TV tries to do. New between the commercial media and the ABC the views of the public has become very distorted leading to a break down in rationality and correct direction. Been trying to get on the ABC advisory council for years. I don't mind if we have two sides arguing against each other, as long as at least both sides have a reasonable/truthful hope of being considered correct, and they are truthful and objective.

However, I'm community social oriented but not really left or right wing myself.
 
Brian Merlen said:
The world is a f*cked up place, factory farms, puppy farms, shark culls, whale culls, dolphin culls, Seaworld/Zoos, gmos, pesticides, massive antibiotics in our food, massive spy programs, suspension of bill of rights, drone bombing US citizens, there is no end to the f*ckedupness I see around me and said spin of it, by all sides. I used to not pay attention to it, I used to avoid watching the docs that brought attention to these social justice issues. But then I got cancer at 25 and opened my eyes to more then just Michael Moore films/discovery channel, and started to try to understand the f*cked up stuff around me, be it massive NSA spy programs, fictional WMDs, animal cruelty, ecosystem destruction, open core nuclear melt downs, or the rising cost of healthcare

I would donate any amount of my my time or life to help end a single problem for mankind/earth. As much as I get upset watching Whale Wars, The Cove, Gasland, Blackfish, you name it, the reality is AMERICA is FAR WORSE then any of these other causes, we have enabled the corporate end of the world and have propelled humankind towards extinction in the name of profits, profits that don't matter in an unlivable world, a world we are fast approaching and seem incapable of stopping. Mcdonolds owns one forth of the worlds cows, and keeps them so full of antibiotics and bs chemicals that its probably whats getting us sick, and it makes more global warming emissions then all of the cars combined, in fact we wouldn't even have a global warming problem if more of you were willing to eat less meat (western diets are much more meat driven then eastern diets, also corresponds to our obesity and healthcare costs).


There are many social justice issues that haven't been told or haven't been told well, and still need to be told and I intend to fight this fight for as long as I can, God willing we can beat wall street and save this planet! Anything you need I am on board, but I think gas and factory farms are my main targets in life, I would risk prosecution to stop them, they are the true worst scourges of the world and will be responsible for the down fall of this planet
Click to expand...

Brian, believe it would or not, I actually agree with a number of things you have said. However, your story about your change of heart is not to uncommon. When you had cancer they would have errantly tried to suppress, maybe indirectly, your testosterone, and indirectly promoted your prolactin? production, which causes a lot of caring feelings. This is not bad, it wakens parts of the brain instead of testosterone and dopamine (one increases the other) obliverating everything. Once testoterone comes back up and estrogen (produced from excess test) , dht and prolactin come back into range it helps in accessing things. I've been through it myself. The world is a terribly unjust place but with us here it needs to be run better for everything to get along. I am interested in the reasonable compromise to make the end game better rather than the profit better myself. I think we all would get along better if we viewed it as such on many of the issues you mentioned. And incidentally, for readers interested in profit, there would be more profit in life and finances, we are running things at 10% efficiency at the moment due to greed etc.

I'm going to say something, that will change everything about ecological food stocks concerns. I am studying nutrition a bit due to health. I have discovered if you eat the right nutritients it is filling and satisfying, and leads to great health, even if it looks like a small bowl of porridge (which is not so good for you itself incidentally). You can eat such things over and over again for the rest of your life. You can figure out and derive such nutrients from a few sources, hardly touching the environment, and eat less and be happier. This solves many problems and greatly increases the carrying capacity of the planet. I've figured out a number of other technological fixes over the years that could mean that we can live at a level similar to how we do now with low impact and a tenth of the electrical energy, which makes solar power use very practical. Not just us, but all around the world. A truly modern society, a better term might be a more balanced society.
 
From the article above, 72 drum lines to be set in 8 locations in Perth and the South West. Planned trial period of 2 years. So far its only 9 lines have been set and in less than 24 hours we've killed 1 shark so far. Not sure how many hooks per line but i'd suspect its many. Not sure how many sharks they thought they would get but i'd reckon 1 a day would be a certainty across all lines, perhaps far more. So we're talking pretty extensive culling in the range of 700-1000+ large adult sharks in a short period of time. I don't think data exists on actual numbers of GWS off the WA coast, just speculation. I have read recently that it might be as few as a couple of hundred. Potential exists to do great damage to the population- but I guess they know that as thats the stated goal.

The Premier Collin Barnet stated in the article above that he came to this decision because the last fatal attack we had, the 7th in 2 years, represented for him personally the point at which action had to be taken. So by definition, a completely subjective [and i would say arbitrary] decision made by one man based on his own personal magic number theory.

Importantly, Great White Sharks are a nationally protected species. So state government had to petition national government for permission to implement a cull. That permission was granted by Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt. A request granted seemingly at will, with no requirement of any environmental impact study. This is the most senior minister in the land who is tasked with the protection of our nations environment just saying "Yeah, see how you go." No due process. Inconceivable to me.

This is the same guy, Greg Hunt, who recently gave the go ahead for another highly controversial dredging project that puts the iconic Great Barrier Reef at threat. So the coal industry can build a massive port in Southern Queensland. From which to ship copious amount of coal to India in an effort to guarantee global warming for us all. A man parachuted into his job by an newly elected government who's leader is a self professed climate change sceptic. Who in forming his new cabinet to run the country promptly abolished the position of Science Minister. Who within a few weeks of being in power announced a 25% cut in funding to our nations top science institution the CSRIO- who have been doing amazing, AMAZING, work for decades. Stranding about 600 of our best and brightest research scientists without jobs going forward.

We seem to be entering our own little mini dark ages down here. Decisions are being made on environment on behalf of all Australia's without public engagement, and are forced into being amidst great public outcry, and there's basically nothing anyone can do about it. Without a doubt there is a disconnect between the respect for the environment the majority people think is deserved, and what is being given by the powers that be. But thats a story repeated the world over I'm sure.
 
how close can anyone local get to the lines? perhaps some gory close ups would sway public opinions? Seems to work for dolphins, whales and wars... over crank the dying fish and kill the audience with a sensationalistic image, bring it to their home, an image they can't escape of what a cull looks like, maybe a wide shot of hundreds of sharks? i mean quite frankly if this is a war on sharks, were winning 200,000 to 1 on the kill ratio world wide. Between shark fin soup and indiscriminately netting the ocean the entire species is on the brink. I have long been interested in sharks, big fan of shark week and my surfer friends and I get along just fine in the water, statistically its hard to know people who been attacked even at all
 
Text deleted as is essentially duplication of Trevor Emmerson's post.
 
Last edited:
Although culling of sharks may not be the best approach to the shark attacks in WA, there does need to be some action taken. I haven't heard anyone suggest a viable solution other than 'save the sharks'. The decision to cull is based on a desire to 'save the humans.' There have been more shark attack related deaths in WA than any other part of the world for quite some time.

Anyone know of a genuine solution that will protect the 'sharks' and the 'humans'?
 
Have been looking into population estimates. I was surprised to find that Tigers Sharks too are considered endangered/at risk. I doesn't seem possible but 3500 tigers sharks worldwide was a recent number I came across a bit. White Sharks are generally considered to be less populous. Maybe around 2000 total. Hopefully its more. Possibly its less.

They have drum lines and nets in Queensland that have been in place for 50 years. Apparently those take between 500-700 sharks a year, mostly Bull and Tiger sharks with a handful of Whites as the warm waters are not really their typical range. Not sure what projections are for WA but clearly it can inflict significant damage to what is a small population of sharks.

It is almost getting to the point, and in South Africa this is already the case due to intensive study, that the number of White Sharks in a population off any coastline are few enough to be identified as individuals. We are spending into the millions of dollars on this cull. I'd be surprised if it wouldn't cost a similar amount to put a GPS tag on every last one of them and manage the threat via live tracking data.

The deeper I look into this issue, the more shocked I am at the irresponsibility at play.

There is talk of legal challenges as its not 100% clear the government has acted within its powers in rushing this cull into being. Hopefully that could bring it to an early stop.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wes...massive-backlash/story-fnhocxo3-1226810663433
 
From Greg Hunt, Australian Environment Minister on granting WA permission to cull:

"One does not have to agree with a policy to accept that a national interest exemption is warranted to protect against imminent threat to life, economic damage and public safety,"

So thats how you bypass an environmental impact study. Claim it is in the National Interest, say public safety trumps conservation. And we all know economic damage trumps everything so. Rules are meant to be broken I suppose. Just like the Great Barrier Reef, the environment is not something to conserve at all costs. Just something its a good idea to conserve until doing so becomes an obstacle to someone making a lot of money. Then overrule.
 
Robert, in the interest of fair reportage and balance, I already posted a link to that same article. And concluded that based on everything Collin said what it came down to was a subjective call he made personally after the Gracetown attack last November.

The fact that I am critical of that decision I don't think is because of bias in wanting to see sharks protected, in this case its that I find it disappointing that an a decision like this is able to be made without oversight. And that the person ultimately charged with providing that oversight in this case decided it could be bypassed for similar personal and subjective attitudes.

The cull is a trial. It is not know if it will stop attacks or make people in the water appreciably safer. It might. Kill enough sharks and surely that has some impact as there are less sharks to attack people. But I don't think large scale slaughter of endangered species is something that should be able to be "trailed" based on one mans misplaced sense of duty to public safety when its no sure thing how effective it may be.
 
Trevor. I had not spotted your post which mine effectively duplicates so I will now remove it. My concern about this whole thing is that it may be a cynical red herring to siphon off environmentalist energy and introduce a public "fatigue" when it comes to environmental issues. The reputed extra clearing to happen on Barrow in previous off-limits areas is likely the one being masked.
 
Robert, please don't remove it. I'd rather people did read the article so the more links the better.

Read just now Greg Hunt is going to try and repeal protective status given to old growth forrest in Tasmania too. For this government I don't think the term off-limits applies.
 
Here is a little tidbit for those who might consider making a bit of a racket. The extremely unpopular Section 54B of the W.A. Police Act was repealed after much public anger and protest which was in reaction to the first Court Government's enforcement of access to traditional lands for drilling under protest. What is perhaps less well known is that similar powers remain extant under the W.A. Criminal Code. In themselves they are not necessarily unusual but the manner in which they are interpreted could be another matter.

-------Quoted below--------
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Part 3 . Amendments about public order
[/FONT][/FONT]Michael Murray QC, as His Honour then was, in his 1982 report of an extensive review of the [FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]Criminal Code[/FONT][/FONT](WA) recommended amendment to chapters IX (Unlawful assemblies: Breaches of the peace) and XX (Miscellaneous offences against public authority) of the [FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]Code[/FONT][/FONT]. Part 3 of the Bill implements recommendations contained in the report by modernising the language used in the various sections, providing for summary disposition of offences where this is appropriate, and abolishing others. The Bill also makes consequential amendments to the [FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]Police Act 1892 [/FONT][/FONT]and the [FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]Justices Act 1902[/FONT][/FONT]. These amendments are not intended to have any unusual impact on the right of citizens to gather peacefully and protest or engage in lawful industrial action and will not do so.
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Clause 6.[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold] [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Section 62 amended[/FONT]

Amends the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]definition of [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic].unlawful assembly. [/FONT]in section 62 [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Criminal Code[/FONT]
by: (a) removing the need for a common purpose as a prerequisite of an unlawful assembly; and (b) deleting .tumultuously. from the definition of. unlawful assembly..
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Clause 7.[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold] [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Sections 63 to 67 replaced and Police Act 1892 consequentially amended[/FONT]

Changes the offence of unlawful assembly in section 63 [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Criminal Code [/FONT]from a misdemeanour to a simple offence and renames the offence [FONT=TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic]Taking part in [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic]an unlawful assembly[/FONT]. The penalty is unchanged . imprisonment for one
year.


The new section 64 provides that if 3 or more persons form an unlawful assembly, a justice of the peace or a police officer may orally order them to disperse, and if they do not do so they are guilty of a crime and liable to imprisonment for 3 years.

The penalty on summary conviction is imprisonment for 2 years or a fine of $8,000. The new section 64 is intended to prevent erosion of police powers with respect to dispersing unlawful assemblies that might otherwise result from the repeal of section 54A of the Police Act 1892.

Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2003 ~ Clause Notes

The new section 65 (current s. 64) Criminal Code changes the offence of Taking part in a riot from a misdemeanour to a crime and the penalty on indictment is increased from imprisonment for 3 years to imprisonment for 5 years. The Bill also provides for a summary conviction penalty of imprisonment for 2 years or a fine of $8,000.


The new section 66 (current s.65) Criminal Code is renamed Rioters may be ordered to disperse. The language is modernised and the maximum penalty reduced from imprisonment for 14 years to imprisonment for 10 years.


The current sections 66 and 67 Criminal Code are consolidated into a single new section 67: Rioters causing damage. The new provision renders any person who is riotously assembled liable for unlawful damage or destruction to property caused by the riotous assembly.

The maximum penalty for the offence is 10 years. imprisonment, except where property is destroyed or damaged by fire, in which case the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 14 years.

Section 54A of the Police Act 1892 (Disorderly assembly) is repealed in view of the insertion of the new section 64 Criminal Code: Unlawful assembly may be ordered to disperse.


As in the times of the Nookambah protests, just how it is determined, that three or more persons become an unlawful assembly can be a very malleable beast. The defining of what becomes a riotous assembly could be also subject to flexible misuse when it comes to beach protests. The onus of proof to the contrary is upon you if you are grabbed for being part of a riotous assembly. Just hanging around to watch may not cut it as an excuse should you get scooped up.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top