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

I just thought it was interesting to hear a view from a veteran marine biologist who studies sharks, i guess it depends on your definition of significant. 16 years to maturity, 16 years since protection, yeah maybe sharks that were young then are reaching maturity and the adult population is getting larger and producing more pups, but that generations of pups hasn't reached maturity in number so with natural attrition factored in even with ideal circumstances the population probably hasn't doubled. Like he said one of the primary indicators is commercial fishing bycatch and that data hasn't changed. This drum line policy could be useful data but so far it is showing 0 GWS captures so thats hardly conclusive.

Anyway, I was against the cull regardless of the shark population. I don't really care about the science because to me its an ethics thing. The science is interesting to debate because there arguably hasn't been due diligence done by the government to establish facts on which to base their decision, but thats all neither here nor there if you want to argue that its inappropriate to kill an endangered and important animal to potentially save 1 or 2 lives a year of people who choose to take the risk of entering the ocean and compound those risks by imitating shark prey and forsaking the use of known deterrents such as shark shields.
 
I'm talking about ethics in science aswell. What is his angle? Again saying that juveniles coach is not increasing significantly enough dies not make sense unless the smaller ones she being defined. A modification in a population can lead to a population avoiding nets, and net design. trawling practice range and areas has changed over the last few decades. Net design is trying to disclude certain species like dolphins, how does that affect catch numbers. So net catch technique of estimation itself is modifying. Question things.
 
Hello again Sam. I read in the facebook you were over East. You mention Dragons, as in plural. That sounds very, very interesting indeed and my guess it is far from managing a breeding program for as yet rare if not endangered species. I won't press for more just now except to say enjoy. Peter who shot the beach protest is in Melbourne.


Trevor and Wayne. As for 60 Minutes, I would like to have seen at least one copy of the threat letters or facebook posts instead of taking statements at face value.


The long game is pretty much following the course I anticipated, concentrating on the extremists as the baddies and tossing in a death threat to the State Premier in for good measure. Certainly some of the placards at the Cott protest were suggesting harmful and unkind things, some of which did not sit comfortably with me. However, are any of these seriously being taken as death threats or was there a specific and plausible threat? There may follow, the tarring of the wider movement as extremist to justify a firmer put down.


If I were the organisers, I would seriously consider cancelling the Parliament House gathering. It could pan out a bit too much like the music piece a few years back about the boa-constrictor and its entreaty "trussssssst in me". There is just far too much risk of dociles and moderates being attainted by association with radical elements and a frightening confrontation in full view of media being engineered by insertion of provocateurs.
 
Last edited:
Wayne i was talking about human ethics, not science ethics. There is a lot of science out there and much of it is imperfect, it takes time to build a picture. My point is I don't care what the size of the population is- estimates vary widely- its irrelevant if you reduce the argument to whether it is ethical to have a cull for the sake of statistically insignificant human lives when the ocean and its occupants should be left alone.

It boils down to whether you have enough respect for the environment to say its as important as we are, or if you think people come first and everything else second. Collin Barnet has said unapologetically that for him people must come first. He is making a judgement call that a lot of people fundamentally disagree with before science even enters the picture.

Its a debate for the ages I suppose, are we equals among the worlds creations or are we above and removed? Do we strive to live in harmony with nature or is the Earth simply a resource for us to exploit to create wealth and prosperity?

Which side of the fence you sit on isn't all that different to whether you choose follow a religion or not. Australians aren't very religious, and a lot of people have a lot of respect for the environment. The outrage being seen is not because of the vagaries of science that most would fail to grasp, it comes from people not being comfortable with a politician -and a very untrustworthy one at that it must be said- presuming he has a right to speak for everyone on something where people expect, like religion, leaders to separate their personal views from their professional actions.
 
Trevor they are the same, a good human has good science ethics, and ethics about everything. Humans are first, it is standard with most species, give a shark a choice, and which of us do you think it would choose. Is it normal or sensible, in light of this, the ethical question is how to live in balance with others. True science is a pursuit of truth, It is ethics itself in that fashion, the truth about good balance being a ultimate expression on this side. Not just facts, but the fact of how to best do it in balance. There has been a lot of unethical things said, it is those things that don't matter. The ant you step on is a life, maybe not as significant a life, but many animals that we don't care about, or that sharks eat, have as much significance as a shark, as much right to life. All are worthy, precious even, but not all are equally worthy of rights as much as others. Ant to shark to human. I'm interested in preserving the shark and a worthy environmental balance, not every shark.

Politicians are elected to speak for us and to do what is better. If they don't, campaign to get them replace with somebody that does. Amateur Political science 101, that is what you guys are not getting that if your cause is just you should be reasonable and try to talk it around, then if that doesn't fail campaign to get them replaced, giving the people the chance to show their support. If you fail, you then go back to trying to talk the electorate around ;)

It is like people coming here and stomping around instead of trying to talk it through. it doesn't get them far. I try talking it around, and it has got heaps of changes. That is what private and public lobbyists are about. One talks to the government, the other talks to the public and government when they don't want to hear the private lobbyists.

Making a film gives you an incredible opportunity, not to increase untrue bais, that is a disadvantage, but to change others views and change your own views to something better. You must rise above the other side, if you think the other side is wrong.
 
It looks like I am "it" for digital cinema footage of the event tomorrow albeit SI2K origination. I'll do my best to make it as "RED Epic-like" as I can. Just say a little prayer for my cactus left knee and creaking backbone. I have a volunteer to swing sound for me so that is a bonus versus a blimp lackied onto my straw hat. No doubt the media and every video camera known to humankind will have it covered more comprehensively.
 
Wayne changing gears because it seems we aren't going to agree on the distinctions between general ethics and the pursuit of truth in science.

This is a fun quote from Tony Abbot on immigration, boat people or whatever, back before the intense media glare of his PM days:

‘Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it’s not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia.’

He is a smart enough man not to go around saying things like that anymore because he knows, and has no doubt been told by the people who control his public image, that the leader of a secular society just can't go around sighting god as a reason for doing things.

Take this from Greg Hunt in his letter to the Premier in which he approved the exemption:

"In relation to the items raised in your letter of 6 January, it is an accepted and desirable part of the Australian culture and way of life that each person and each family understands the risk of swimming, surfing and boating in the open seas. Government cannot take away that risk at the general level. Individuals must take responsibility for their own water safety both as a matter of culture and practice. If we diminish that sense of self responsibility then we may create greater risk of misadventure, accident or tragedy."


I take this as a nod to the fact that traditionally government does not see itself responsible, or liable, for what happens to individuals who voluntarily put themselves at risk. Shark mitigation is something the government had no responsibility to undertake. No victim's family could sue the government for negligence for failing to provide safe oceans. The Premiers decision was one he took based on personal feelings of responsibility and on personal values. Like Tony and his religious beliefs, the public has an expectation that leaders separate the personal from the professional. I think its very much a grey area whether that is truly a decision he should of taken by Collin Barnett. It is pretty much public record that he is not an environmentalist. Does that mean he should be able to use his position to wage a personal war on those who do not agree with him.

Take this quote from Tony Abbot on something that 95% of the worlds scientists agree is a real and credible threat: ‘Climate change is absolute crap’

Is it right to instruct your government to dismantle the nations clean energy research and funding bodies because you as PM don't believe in science and happen to be very very tight with the nations biggest coal miners?

There shouldn't be a place for personal bias on polarising issues when you have been elected as a representative of all the people. Some people believe in religion, some people don't. Some people have believe in environmental causes, some don't. The numbers on each side are large. Surely both Tony and Collin have a responsibility to take into consideration both sides and restrain themselves from making divisive decisions unless he has no other choice. For CB, this was a choice he volunteered to make, not a choice he had to make.

To further criticise:

The cost of the cull plus research into sharks I think is something like 15 million a year. When you consider that sharks are taking 2 lives a year on average now instead of 1 that is an awful lot of money to be spending on a life. I really wonder given the state of the health system over here why people with terminal diseases, or doctors or nurses working in hospitals that are starched to the limit, or charities doing work to keep impoverished youth off the street or out of jails or drug addicts in rehab.. Why aren't all these kind of people standing up and saying hey, we could save 100 lives with this money, or 1000. People don't ask to get cancer but does the government apologise when they slash budgets to public health? And yet its imperative to protect swimmers who choose to go to the beach on their day off?

16 people drowned in WA's oceans last year. Do the families of those people have an expectation that the government intervene to make the ocean less dangerous on their behalf? Does voluntarily assuming responsibility to mitigate one danger in the ocean in some way expose the government to liability for all of what happens in that domain now? If we don't have any attacks this summer and on April 30th Greg Hunts office decides not to extent the exemption under which thee cull operates and next summer we don't have drum lines and someone gets bitten and dies, can that persons family then sue the commonwealth for increasing the risk of attack, or for negligence for removing safety measures?
 
Trevor, sorry, this reply post to Paul did not go through:

Just inevitable unfortunately. but maybe we should move on.
 
Trevor, you make a number of points that are similar to how I see it. But my way is simpler I think, because of being based on the pursuit of a factual basis The way the media is run now days is abysmal in this regard, and the fantasy circus continues until the clowns die. ;). But I was pointing out not the research into shark numbers, but how the article was presented. I'm sorry, I was going to point that out, but I was not too good and forgot. My beef is the way it was presented.

I don't think it is so much citing Jesus as a reason for the rejection of boat people, but as a throw away line to his contrasting opinion that they should not come.

Concerning politics, I believe in a third way that is balanced.

Things have to be weighed up to their affect. I often argue that spending x amount, could actually be used to increase and save y amount of lives, that this should be a basis of decision-making. I see hundreds of millions of dollars around here wasted on the circus it has become, redoing things over and over again because it wasn't done right, was done right then redone wrong, or redone in indulgencd, that could have paid for a new hospital or a scheme to stop hundreds of people landing up disabled in car crashes, or 100,000 lives protected from death. Instead some little ego says my corner gets the money. Now seriously, back to sharks, if we had a hundreds of times more sharks in future do you think that artificially low rate of shark deaths a year is going to stay that way (probably a lot more with observed shark behaviour on people lost at sea) which is low because of an artificially kept low number of sharks). The money spent on research represents a fraction of the potential of what could happen if the shark population (now being protected) grows or reaches full potential, and of what it would be without past efforts, hundreds of lives. People can misadventure in swimming, but being attacked is different I think.

I often see people that will denounce things as a great waste of money when it was not what they wanted but as a great thing when it was what they wanted. What was the difference, not what was real right just balanced, but what they wanted.

I saw tonight the opposition in WA is asking for subsidiaries to equip surfers etc with shark deterrents. If they do that they should say only on the basis of a net profit equivalent to 10% of actual costs to remove any potential for rortting.


Have a good night Trevor.
 
WA is going back to the polls to vote on the Senate again after the high court rules our federal election vote invalid following the loss of 1300 votes. This is a very interesting development. Suddenly this shark issue takes on more significance, it has polarised opinions in the state and now suddenly people are being asked to go vote again.

The political landscape has changed much in the past 6 months as the liberals have revealed a number of unpopular measures under the assumption they have power for the next 3 years. A revote on the WA senate can't change the result of the federal election, as in it won't change who is in power. But it does very much put at threat the Liberals position in the senate, meaning they could suffer a downgrade in power. If voters swing away from them and they lose seats it will seriously mess with their ability to pass any legislation. This is a really great opportunity for the public to change their mind on a newly elected government, don't think its ever happened before so will be very interesting to see what happens. I expect the attack on the government from the greens and labor to be absolutely brutal as they fight to win favour with WA voters.
 
I went to the gathering at Western Australia's State Parliament House today. I travelled in on the train and got away with taking my garden trolley of gear aboard. Going home was another matter and the guys in uniform boarded and gave me polite counsel as to the error of my ways. It was only a matter of waiting until the trains were less crowded. A little bit of politeness on both sides goes a long way. I went off and had myself a fresh-made pizza at the food hall and a mug of proper coffee so there was no loss.
　

My soundie had to pull out so I ended up el solo toro trying to work a studio configured camera as an ENG and manage sound.
　

You've never seen such a Heath-Robinson lashup in all your life as what sat on the tripod today. Two separate sound systems went to the good Lord above within minutes of each other. The backup Zoom H4n laid down after rolling for two minutes. I had put new batteries in. Maybe they were duds - yet to trouble-shoot it. Then the third Redback XLR mike lead went open on me at one of the XLR plugs, so a fair chunk of sound was lost.
　

There was no way I could go agile camera on shoulder as had been the plan. The media had good coverage. If anyone takes on a second documentary to the indie one already under way, there will be source material available from the networks, albeit at a cost.
　

There was a guy who was a bit illogical, seemed to have fantasies, told me he had been in film school and been expelled. He made this disclosure when he discovered I was a cammo for the day. He got into an errant conversation with me on the Terrace until I eventually had to gently persuade him I had to move on. He turned up at the gathering and went up alongside the lecturers on the steps. He later went into the public gallery with them and told me afterwards he had been thrown out. - Regrettably, this guy, who is likely not part of the core of the protest movement, had his moment of fame and has tainted the event which was conducted with real restraint and respect.
　

Of course the media have reproduced the parliamentary webcast coverage when the man was ordered to be removed.
　

There was a heartful address outdoors by a mother of a shark victim. If any folk were incapable of being moved, then they have to be hard people indeed. She is against the shark cull.
　

I don't think my footage will be up to scratch. There was too much went wrong with my audio gear and put me off my game which is not much chop at the best of times.
　

The camera itself was fine and only one camera battery was needed. If there is footage worth posting, I will put a clip up but don't be holding your breath.
 
Here's a short clip from today. With the stress of having to find a solution to the sound problem whilst camera rolling, guess who was the idiot who forgot to do a black calibration for 34C degree ambient temp. So there is fixed pattern noise. The lens was an old Nikon ENG lens which has both corner brightness falloff when zoomed in and vignettes on wide views. There was too much to do to be even dreaming about using primes. Therefore the image zoomed in will be a bit soft. The TV-Nikon in its heyday, needed only to be able to resolve to a standard definition Betacam. ----------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDRgGWDDvmk ------------------. The guy who was apparently evicted from the gallery is the guy with the short necktie to right of the speaker. I was trying to frame him out and getting a bit frustrated. Then somebody walked in past the media line with a picture phone and blocked a cute shot of a mum in a shark suit with her little daughter.
 
Last edited:
Here's a happy snap harvested from somebody else's facebook post. ( It makes one shudder to think of how convenient a tool, biomorphic mapping and the facebook could be as a tool in locating somebody and tracking their up-to's. ) Third from left with the old black Miller sticks among all the fancy Satchlers is yours truly, the overweight short old git with the blue garden giggle-hat, buried deep behind the Rode muff and coiled rat's-nest of failed XLR cables and the long audio-mixer snake, which was the final one that worked. A pity it was not a crew and a 4K+ cam on the job as the vision was only just-so due to the old long-reach lens I used. - I received a bit of a hard look from one of the media operators when the toe of my tripod caught on a piece of textured pavement and made a noise. - One just does not do those things. - At least I did not go down in a flailing desperately jitterbugging heavy crash, scatter a debris fan through the media scrum, bring everyone else to ground and generate a look of confounded amazement on the politician's face.
 

Attachments

  • SHARK CULL PARL PIC.jpg
    SHARK CULL PARL PIC.jpg
    97.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
About shooting some sharks, I shall have to leave that to surfers with GoPros and the people who so well know the sea. My late old Auntie Mollie used to tell of a time when she, her sister Peggy and a friend, Joan Parer ( yes - related to the film-makers ) took a ferry across to Rottnest Island. The trip was so rough they decided to fly back in an ex - war service Avro Anson, operated by legendary aviator Jimmy Woods. She had second thoughts as they walked out to the aircraft. The Anson was a wood and fabric aeroplane with metal framework and sheetmetal where needed. I was told even the wing mainspar was wood, which was why they were grounded in Australia about 1962 . The usual MO was to seat children and teenagers at the front where their enthusiastic labour could be harnessed to raise the undercarriage and lower it again with a crankhandle. Auntie Mollie did not have a lot of wondrous confidence in the Anson. She had not long previously, flown with her friends from Geraldton in the much more substantial DC3. Gazing directly down into the ocean and the coastal reefs, she could see all the large sharks. She imagined they were looking up at her with their mouths open in anticipation of the good Lord delivering them a hearty meal from on high. Later model airframes with metal wings soldiered on but the wooden versions were compulsorily grounded in Australia in 1962 due to concerns the glued wooden parts would come apart.
 
Last edited:
Somehow, it looks like we might have caught a baby dolphin on a drum line off Perth? Fisheries deployed a tarp to hide from view something they hauled up, amidst reports a young dolphin was hanging around the area this morning. Shit is going to hit the fan if this turns out to be true. Media doesn't seem to have picked it up yet for some reason.

http://www.lynnmaclaren.org.au/what-was-under-tarp-minister
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top