The risk of a shark attack when diving inshore waters of Western Australia

[PeterNBiddle]

Interesting perspective on the topic, but the number of deaths alone don't give the whole picture. You would need to also assess the hours of exposure to a risk and determine a probability of something happening taking this into consideration. Another way to consider the risk would be the following mind game.

Oh good lord do you think you are the only one with predators in your neck of the woods? Imagine you live in North America.

The average attack rate in North America for Mountain Lions is 6/year with one fatality. My personal exposure risk to Mountain Lion attack has frequently been for 24 hours/day when hiking or in the mountains, where I sometimes spend weeks at a time.

Getting hit by a mountain lion has been described as being like being hit full speed with a baseball bat studded with sharpened spikes and as land-based ambush predators you will frequently have zero warning of an attack - they don't circle, they don't sniff, there is no checking you out. They don't show you their fins. They stalk you (completely silently) and hit you from behind and unlike with sharks, cats do seem to view humans as a viable prey species. I know hunters (surprise!) who have looked behind them to see a mountain lion stalking them a few yards away - and they could have been stalking those hunters for minutes or even hours.

http://tchester.org/sgm/lists/lion_attacks.html#stats

We average a couple of bear attacks a year, although that number has gone up considerably in the past year or two.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/bear-attac...ww.bing.com/search?q=bear+attacks&form=APIPA1

There are more moose attacks in North America than bears or cats. Moose will seriously mess you up and reportedly kill 2 people a year in the US. They can weigh up to 1500 pounds and are deeply stupid.

http://www.glacier-national-park-travel-guide.com/moose-attack.html

I am far more concerned with Mountain Lion attacks than I am with sharks. Im more afraid of bears than mountain lions. I'm more afraid of dog attacks than I am of bears. And I'm more afraid of people attacks than I am of dogs.

However I still hike in the woods, live in the inner city, talk to dogs, and ride public transit... I take precautions but I don't ask for the world to change to fit my fears and I would vigorously oppose any plan to cull a predator species based purely on threats to humans.

It's our job to protect them, not the other way around.

I think you have forgotten what it means to be around anything scarier than yourself. I suggest you work to address your fears rather than change your entire ecosystem to accommodate them.

 

[Mike.D]

It's our job to protect them, not the other way around.

I think you have forgotten what it means to be around anything scarier than yourself. I suggest you work to address your fears rather than change your entire ecosystem to accommodate them.

Absolutely spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Foxfish]

When doing a risk analysis, one must determine whether the cost of any proposed mitigation strategy is warranted by the risk. You obviously disagree with the answer, but it is clear that your government, and (based on comments) most here, feel that the cost (not just dollar cost) of a cull is too high relative to the small risk avoided.

The Western Australian government has now publicly acknowledged it has a duty of care in this matter to ensure the safety of people who enter the ocean and that duty of care takes priority over protecting white pointers. As such, they need to take all practicable measures to achieve that end. Clearly they have identified that removing the threat ie. culling sharks, is the most practicable and effective way of achieving this.

 

[Mike.D]

Practical and effective? Are you serious? Killing sharks over a certain size and of certain species because they 'may' be a threat is absolutely ridiculous. Why not tag and release all the larger sharks and if another attack was to happen then they could identify the shark (gps tags) and then find and destroy that particular shark.
What us happening over there is an absolute outrage and shows the ignorance of man that we can just kill anything that may hurt us.
Or even simpler, have designated surfing and swimming beaches with shark nets around them and swimming/surfing/diving at any unprotected location is at your own risk. This would save so much money and benefit both government and the people.

Practical and effective. HA! What a joke.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Foxfish]

The Western Australian government state opposition proposes to use the money currently allocated for shark culling to subsidizing at risk ocean users for the cost of a Sharkshield. Clearly they believe that the risk of a shark attack is high and needs to be mitigated and the Sharkshield is an effective device to mitigate that risk.

I'd agree with both these statements. Those who doubt the effectiveness of the Sharkshield should have a close look at Elyse Frankcom's story. The article also indicates the track record for the Sharkshield is excellent. However, given the dramatic increase in the white pointer numbers presently being witnessed, I don't believe this will be an adequate. I like the seat belt analogy. But even with a seat belt, if you have enough crashes you will eventually get hurt. Recent testing clearly shows that it is not a 100 % guarantee of protection even on white pointers.

Labor says up to 30,000 shields, which emit an electric field that repel but do not harm sharks, are sold globally every year and there is no record of anyone wearing one being killed by a shark.


Shark shields can cost up to $600 each, but opposition leader Mark McGowan said they were more effective than drum lines, which he said created hysteria, killed smaller sharks and cost millions of dollars.


"They're like a seatbelt in a car. They don't absolutely make you safe, but they make the situation better," he told reporters on Sunday.


Mr McGowan said grants could be offered for surf life saving clubs to lease shark shields and subsidies could be provided to surfers, divers and others at risk to purchase shark shields.


Tour guide Elyse Frankcom, who was attacked by a 3.5m great white shark in 2010 while snorkelling among dolphins with tourists, believes a shark shield saved her life.


The shark bit her legs, but she activated the device before passing out as a tourist helped her.


"Despite blood being in the water, despite an attack already, the shark was not seen once the shark shield was on," she said.


"I do definitely believe that this shield saved my life."

Shark shields better than drum lines: ALP - The West Australian

 

[Mike.D]

The shark bit her legs, then she activated the device. It didn't come back so therefore the device works???
That is in no way evidence that the ss works. Only that the shark had its test bite and then left.
Don't know how many shark attack stories you've read but every single shark attack survivor story I've read has stated that the shark only attacked once and did not come back for another go. (Atlantic Whitetip stories excluded.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PeterNBiddle]

The Western Australian government state opposition proposes to use the money currently allocated for shark culling to subsidizing at risk ocean users for the cost of a Sharkshield. Clearly they believe that the risk of a shark attack is high and needs to be mitigated and the Sharkshield is an effective device to mitigate that risk. I'd agree with both these statements. Those who doubt the effectiveness of the Sharkshield should have a close look at Elyse Frankcom's story. The article also indicates the track record for the Sharkshield is excellent. However, given the dramatic increase in the white pointer numbers presently being witnessed, I don't believe this will be an adequate. I like the seat belt analogy. But even with a seat belt, if you have enough crashes you will eventually get hurt. Recent testing clearly shows that it is not a 100 % guarantee of protection even on white pointers. Shark shields better than drum lines: ALP - The West Australian

Waitaminute. This sounds strangely familiar:

"It was the stuff of nightmares. Mike Wescombe-Down was, at age 16, a carefree, water-loving youth, until his diving companion was mauled to death by a Great White Shark in the coastal waters of Australia. The trauma left him with a hatred of the notorious predators. But as he came to know and understand their ways better, this developed into a desire to find a technical solution that could prevent the recurrence of such horrors, while enabling swimmers and sharks to co-exist safely in the same waters."

Is your name Mike Wescombe-Down? Are you connected in any way with Seachange, manufacturer of the Sharkshield?

From here: http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2007/02/article_0008.html

 

[gcarter]

The Western Australian government has now publicly acknowledged it has a duty of care in this matter to ensure the safety of people who enter the ocean and that duty of care takes priority over protecting white pointers. As such, they need to take all practicable measures to achieve that end. Clearly they have identified that removing the threat ie. culling sharks, is the most practicable and effective way of achieving this.

Does the duty of care extend to people who deliberately - by your own words - ignore warnings?

---------- Post added February 17th, 2014 at 11:29 PM ----------

The Western Australian government state opposition proposes to use the money currently allocated for shark culling to subsidizing at risk ocean users for the cost of a Sharkshield. Clearly they [-]believe that the risk of a shark attack is high and needs to be mitigated and the Sharkshield is an effective device to mitigate that risk[/-] understand how to get votes.

Fixed it for you. Any government action, on its face, is not a demonstration of anything other than a belief they action will garner votes. Any deeper meaning requires evidence.

 

[Wingy]

66 sharks ? but zero great whites ? caught on drum lines in three weeks | News.com.au < results of the cull as of today.

 

[gcarter]

66 sharks ? but zero great whites ? caught on drum lines in three weeks | News.com.au < results of the cull as of today.

Why not just fin them and be done? Makes just as much sense.