Bluelight

Thread: Drum lines: Shark attack victims' families challenge WA Government over lack of trial

Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. Collapse Details
    Drum lines: Shark attack victims' families challenge WA Government over lack of trial 
    #1
    Senior Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    Music Discussion
    swilow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shielding off the weakening beams of salvation shining upon the mournful gloom of Earth
    Posts
    30,398
    As some would know, the last decade or so has been bad in WA for folks getting eaten by sharks. I thought this topic interesting as it would appear the attacks are an effect of overfishing leading sharks to try out new hunting grounds and the increasing population of humans of course swim/surf/make sweet love in those same waters.

    I am concerned with any use of drum lines; and the idea of smart drums lines sounds too good to be true, and is still rough and potentially dangerous. Plus the animals that simply have a bite and are hooked, but don't happen to be sharks, or dangerous ones at least.

    We are in their territory, and should simply be aware that there are risks. The governments would like to put safety padding on everything, and its kinda disgusting. Swimming in the ocean, or interacting with any natural environment is risky and we need to accept that. I think its actually a beautiful thing to have untamed and dangerous places on the earth still, that we are allowed to go in even!


    Drum lines: Shark attack victims' families challenge WA Government over lack of trial





    Rick Gerring at the memorial for his brother Ben, who was killed by a shark



    What price do you put on life?


    That's the question Rick Gerring is asking the WA Government two years after his brother Ben was killed by a shark.

    Mr Gerring is part of a vocal group of WA surfers who want so-called smart drum lines trialled in WA.

    Advocates say they're working in New South Wales.

    But WA Fisheries Minister Dave Kelly is resisting the idea, estimating it would cost $75 million a year to roll out the technology along the state's vast coastline.

    "NSW are running a trial, they're spending millions of dollars on that trial," he said.

    "We'll wait and see what the results are to see whether there is actually any evidence that they reduce attacks."

    'What cost is human life?'

    Smart drum lines involve the use of a baited hook but instead of killing the sharks caught, like WA's previous Liberal government, scientists tag and then release them a kilometre offshore.

    "The best thing as a part of that is that we're showing that those animals are then 10 to 20 kilometres offshore within the next 24 to 48 hours," NSW Department of Primary Industries scientist Paul Butcher told 7.30.

    "So there's a fright response from those animals to move further offshore."

    No-one has been killed by a shark in the trial locations in NSW since the 18-month study began.

    Rick Gerring said that was evidence enough for him that they should be rolled out in WA.

    He also rejected the minister's $75 million price tag.

    "We're not looking at doing the whole coastline, we're looking at doing strategic areas so the cost would be a lot less and at the end of the day, what cost is human life?" he said.

    "For $70 million a year, is my brother not worth that? Is [shark attack victim] Laeticia [Brouwer] not worth that?

    "Is every other shark victim not worth that?"
    -Read more.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #2
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    5,795
    Idk, surfers tend to be strong environmentalists who are respectful of being aquatic visitors, so I'd like to hear more from that community.

    When I think about "shark fin" poachers who just slice off fins and throw sharks back in the water, this seems more reasonable to consider.

    Of course it would be nice if we could stop overfishing. Dammit.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #3
    Bluelighter LucidSDreamr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Silicodone Valley
    Posts
    4,317
    We won't stop overfishing. One day the last tuna on Earth or the last shark on Earth will knowingly be killed for some money.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #4
    Shadowmeister
    Senior Moderator
    Psychedelic Drugs
    Trip Reports
    Philosophy and Spirituality
    The Dark Side
    Shadowmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    31,381
    Yeah it does seem like we won't learn a damn thing about anything until we've utterly destroyed it or used it entirely up, and then the lamentations will begin, oh if only we'd known!
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #5
    Moderator
    Sober Living
    cj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    On a sinking boat
    Posts
    8,550
    I'm not a fan of this. Going in the ocean carries risk an exceedingly low risk but risk. To answer his question about his brothers life no it's not worth 70 million dollars. Not while thousands die every year from lack of affordable medical care. It's about financial priorities
    Addicted? Want to stop? We can help! Come to the sober living forum!
    http://www.bluelight.org/vb/forums/269-Sober-Living
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #6
    Moderator
    Current Events & Politics

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,521
    Quote Originally Posted by cj View Post
    I'm not a fan of this. Going in the ocean carries risk an exceedingly low risk but risk. To answer his question about his brothers life no it's not worth 70 million dollars. Not while thousands die every year from lack of affordable medical care. It's about financial priorities
    I gotta say I also really don't see sustainability or much else positive to say in the "we should spend tax dollars funding absolutely every idea anyone thinks of in case it might help" line of thought. Apart from the staggering amount of money it wastes, some experiments return results that show the concept or product actually makes things worse. That's why you have experiments and trials to start with.

    It reminds me of when, I think it was the Victorian state government but don't quote me on that, they wanted to look into upgrading the weapons for the police force. So they ran a study. Which found exactly the same conclusion as all 5 or so other studies done by other state governments asking the same question for their own police forces. For an answer that was beyond obvious to start with.

    What a waste of money.

    I'm also not generally big on arguments that seem to be built entirely around "this one family lost this one child that maybe, might have been saved, if only X". Strikes me as the argument you use when you know you've got no logical argument so you're playing to people's emotions.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #7
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    5,795
    So another study on overfishing?
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #8
    Catch and release a kilometer from the shore? quite what in the name of fuck is that intended to accomplish?

    And the money spent? that could be spent on giving auties and aspies services, for one example among a million others I could come up with.

    Do they think the sharks are going to say to themselves 'well now, I've been a naughty shark, and now I've been told not to, I'll stay within a kilometer of the shore' ? what a load of abject bollocks and my furry autistic arse they will.

    A shark is just a big fish, fish are pretty primitive as far as intellectual prowess goes, and they certainly are completely incapable of comprehending a human-made 'law' and to decide to obey such human desires that they restrict their movements in any way. The only way you can force a shark to restrict it's movements, is either for it to be of a species which is restricted to deep water and is biologically incompatible with the lack of extreme pressure, or to create a physical barrier which the shark is incapable of moving beyond. And that of course is about as practical as farming phoenix guano fertilizer, and using trained badgers to harvest the turd.

    Fucking christ on a bleedin' bike, I've heard some mental shite before, but this is pretty damn high on the list of brainless shitbaggery.
    Last edited by tathra; 17-06-2018 at 17:34.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #9
    Administrator Tranced's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Newcastle, UK
    Posts
    9,136
    You could always try and counteract them with drum circles.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #10
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    5,795
    Reply With Quote
     

  11. Collapse Details
     
    #11
    Administrator spacejunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    20,771
    Quote Originally Posted by cj View Post
    I'm not a fan of this. Going in the ocean carries risk an exceedingly low risk but risk. To answer his question about his brothers life no it's not worth 70 million dollars. Not while thousands die every year from lack of affordable medical care. It's about financial priorities

    Globally, yeah - but not so much in australia, fwiw.

    Quote Originally Posted by Limpet_Chicken View Post
    Catch and release a kilometer from the shore? quite what in the name of fuck is that intended to accomplish?

    And the money spent? that could be spent on giving auties and aspies services, for one example among a million others I could come up with.

    Do they think the sharks are going to say to themselves 'well now, I've been a naughty shark, and now I've been told not to, I'll stay within a kilometer of the shore' ? what a load of abject bollocks and my furry autistic arse they will.

    A shark is just a big fish, fish are pretty primitive as far as intellectual prowess goes, and they certainly are completely incapable of comprehending a human-made 'law' and to decide to obey such human desires that they restrict their movements in any way. The only way you can force a shark to restrict it's movements, is either for it to be of a species which is restricted to deep water and is biologically incompatible with the lack of extreme pressure, or to create a physical barrier which the shark is incapable of moving beyond. And that of course is about as practical as farming phoenix guano fertilizer, and using trained badgers to harvest the turd.
    Yep, it's absurd to expect people to believe that they are somehow teaching sharks something with this.

    I grew up in the state this story is about, and i don't think this whole thing is being approached in good faith.

    I think the reason the government is spending money on "shark deterrents" that will presumably never work, is because they recieve political donations from property developers who make their money expanding coastal housing developments further and further along the coast.
    There are suburbs of perth stretching over 100km north and south of that city - and shark attacks on humans (increasing - but still incredibly rare) are bad for business.

    Maybe i'm just really cynical?
    Last edited by spacejunk; 17-06-2018 at 13:23.
    ✺✹✺✹BLUA✺✹✺✹
    Reply With Quote
     

  12. Collapse Details
     
    #12
    Moderator
    Sober Living
    cj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    On a sinking boat
    Posts
    8,550
    My bad space junk WA is the abreviation for the state of Washington in the United States. I didn't realize this was about Australia
    Addicted? Want to stop? We can help! Come to the sober living forum!
    http://www.bluelight.org/vb/forums/269-Sober-Living
    Reply With Quote
     

  13. Collapse Details
     
    #13
    Bluelight Crew alasdairm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    south lake tahoe, ca
    Posts
    60,534
    i'm told i am an sjw, nanny-state, liberal cucktard but i think if you get in the ocean dressed as a shark's breakfast and get bit, well, that's on you.

    alasdair
    Reply With Quote
     

  14. Collapse Details
     
    #14
    Bluelighter zephyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Your dads face
    Posts
    23,151
    Quote Originally Posted by alasdairm View Post
    i'm told i am an sjw, nanny-state, liberal cucktard but i think if you get in the ocean dressed as a shark's breakfast and get bit, well, that's on you.

    alasdair

    Especially when the beach was already closed due to shark activity. .

    The latest bloke went in regardless.

    There's not much that can be done about sharks, our coast is full of them .
    Reply With Quote
     

  15. Collapse Details
     
    #15
    Administrator spacejunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    20,771
    Quote Originally Posted by cj View Post
    My bad space junk WA is the abreviation for the state of Washington in the United States. I didn't realize this was about Australia
    Easy mistake to make

    Used to amuse me as a kid, especially when my sister was living in Tacoma WA and i in Perth WA, on the other side of the world.
    I used to surf a bit when i was in high school, but to me sharks are just a fact of life. The idea that people try to stop sharks killing people strikes me as ridiculous.
    Especially when it kills other marine life like dolphins and stuff. I think they have shark nets that do that in sydney or some other parts of australia, and i hate that shit.
    Getting et by a shark is one of the risks of swimming in the ocean. Part of the "fun".
    But i must admit it did used to scare me a bit, especially when a guy got taken by a massive white pointer in a couple of feet of water at north cottesloe beach. Swam around there a lot, growing up - and it's hard to put out of your mind.
    ✺✹✺✹BLUA✺✹✺✹
    Reply With Quote
     

  16. Collapse Details
     
    #16
    Well IMO using a broad net that only prevents large predator fish from entering shallow bays and the like where people go for a swim is acceptable, as long as its done so that the fish are only faced with a barrier they cannot pass. Sharks have a LOT of space, so sealing off 20-50 meters of beach from the large predatory sort of fish isn't really excessive, IF the nets are set up such as not to entangle but only to bar passage. They have the rest of the ocean, can people and the smaller fish which can't take more than a bite out of someone at worst have some too?

    And of course, there is the need for jellyfish nets in australia, no? because if you aren't wearing a stinger suit, or get stung on a bit of exposed tissue, and there is likely at least to be the face; by something like Chironex, then you might well end up dead before you ever reach the beach again, or drowning because of the pain. I shudder to even think what being stung in the eyes by Chironex is like...jesus! I've seen the pictures of what the dermotoxic effect part of the venom does to people, and its as if they had been lashed with a red hot metal chain-whip, or had red hot metal bars dragged over them by some demented abstract artist.

    And it doesn't matter if the box jellyfish can get through or not, the tentacles themselves, even a detached portion of one from a dead box jellyfish, and presumably most species, given the mechanism of discharge of Cnidarian stings, can still fire its nematocysts and inflict a sting as a result.

    And of course, while Chironex can get reasonably large, there are the Irukandji jellyfish types to worry about too. Very delicate, so much so that even bumping into the corner of a square tank can kill them in the absence of water current, and very tiny, no bigger than a man's thumbnail across the bell (which in at least some cubozoan jellies capable of causing the singularly awful sounding irukandji syndrome, unusually, and perhaps uniquely, the bell also mounts nematocysts (the stinging cells of jellyfish, hydra, sea anemones, and other animals in the animal phylum Cnidaria, and found only in Cnidarians, save for certain sea slugs which feed on jellyfish but are by some means able to munch down the jellyfish and keep the stinging nematocyst cells undischarged for themselves, sending them off to tentacles, which they load up with stolen Cnidarian stings that if attacked they are able to use for defense)

    Some of the jellyfish capable of causing the irukandji syndrome, have a venom hundreds of times as potent as cobra venom, and although the bell, itself covered in stingers, might be no more than a few millimeters across, they can have their four tentacles grow as long in some species as a meter. Some only have four, very short tentacles, centimeters long, at the corner of the bell, but some can grow them much longer. And the venom is extremely potent, although with a delayed action of up to hours, before the victim realizes they have been stung, before a MASSIVE uncontrolled release of catecholamines (adrenaline, noradrenaline etc) occurs, causing tachycardia, arrhythmias, severe, agonizing pain all over the body, which has been variously described as like being burnt alive, or 'pain, no, more than just pain, it was as if my whole body was crumbling to bits', spasms all over the body, heart attacks, and such agony that patients have been known to beg their doctor to kill them to make it stop. Blood pressure spikes so high it can cause a brain haemorrhage. Plus, there are sodium channel modulators in the venom which knowing sodium channel toxins in animals, they almost always force open Na+ channels in some way, such as lowering the resting potential, blocking channel inactivation, directly gating Na+ channels, the end result being sustained and repetitive firing causing massive overstimulation of the nervous system. Pretty nasty little bastards all around, and that venom, the potency of it must be incredible, given the miniscule quantity of it which can be contained within the coiled little barbed whip that sits within an undischarged Cnidarian nematocyst, the entire structure being a single cell, and considering some irukandji jellyfish have tentacles only centimeters long, and only one at each corner of the bell. And considering that they are so delicate, they would be torn apart if it weren't for the fact the venom is so potent it must be able to incapacitate or kill their prey or an attacker almost instantly.

    How it compares to say, venom from the more toxic scorpions, such as Androctonus (fat-tailed scorpions, although the name fat-tail scorpion is also used for Parabuthus species, which are unique, as they are able to fire jets of venom from their stings, like cobras do with their fangs, although of course without the great accuracy of the jets directed by the eyes of a cobra, comparing the more primitive and less detailed eyes of a scorpion or other arachnid, still, its interesting; as is the fact that they have two types of venom, the main venom, as usual, but Parabuthus also produce a pre-venom, which IIRC they fine tune to cause pain, rather than kill prey, so they can use it in defense without wasting their main venom, which is energy intensive to produce.

    Or scorpions such as Leiurus (deathstalkers), which have some of the most potent venom among scorpions, although they are not large, so cannot inject as much as the much more dangerous fat-tailed scorpions of the Androctonus family, and it isn't so dangerous as say, the similarly small sting of the exceedingly dangerous Hemiscorpius lepturus, which unlike almost all other scorpions (genus Nebo possibly being an exception), which use neurotoxins in their venom, the venom of H.lepturus, which again, unlike almost all other dangerous scorpions which pose a threat to human life, which are Buthids, Hemiscorpius is not a member of the Buthidae family within scorpions, and unlike the neurotoxic venom of almost every other scorpion, H.lepturus packs a very potent, and very dangerous cytotoxic venom which flays the victim alive, potentially causing massive disseminated intravascular coagulation, haemolysis, and destruction of flesh and other tissues, victims of it look more like they had been bitten by a viper type snake, with huge tissue necrosis, as if they had been skinned alive and then burnt with acid. Like Loxosceles (recluse spiders) venom, which contains the enzyme sphingomyelinase-D as active cytotoxic component, and their relatives in the allied genus Sicarius, which also do, but are larger, very fast, and contain as much as hundreds of times more sphingomyelinase-D than do recluse bites from even Loxosceles laeta, the highly venomous chilean recluse spider. There are not many bites from Sicarius though as they are desert-dwellers which bury themselves under the sand, remaining nearly invisible until some unfortunate lizard or the like scurries close, at which they shoot up and out at a terrific pace, bite them and kill them. So people rarely come into contact with Sicariids other than Loxosceles, although they have a popularity in the pet trade with spider enthusiasts. There is no cure if bitten, no antivenin, and of the two bites I've heard of, one guy apparently lost an arm, with people remarking the effects were more like that of a puff adder than a spider bite, the other guy was killed outright, after being flayed alive by the venom as it tore his skin and muscle tissue to necrotic shreds, attacking the heart and wreaking havoc upon the blood.

    Apparently the deadliest spiders known to science, both for the power of the venom and for the fact that there is little that can be done if you do get bitten. If you do, you are in for it, unless the spider itself decided to inflict a dry-bite. Otherwise, you are up shit creek with the paddle snapped off in your ass. Sideways. With both paddles. Common wisdom has it that either the funnelweb spiders (Atrax, Hadronyche) of australia, or else the south american wandering spiders, Phoneutria, such as the brazillian wandering spider have the deadliest spider venom, but it isn't the case, its Sicarius species. Although there is much more danger, pet keepers aside, to humans as a whole from either Phoneutria, Atrax or Hadronyche, because these live in places they can come into contact with people, although antivenin exists for Phoneutria and Atrax, and Atrax (sydney funnelweb for example, A.robustus) is also effective against the venom of both Hadronyche, the tree funnelwebs, and against Missulena, the australian mouse spiders, although Missulena are more likely to dry-bite, and not as deadly as the funnelwebs, but missulenatoxin is similar in sequence homology to the atraxotoxins, or robustoxins as they are also known, enough that antivenin raised against atraxotoxins from Atrax or Hadronyche is cross-valent against both types of funnelweb and against mouse spider venoms.
    Reply With Quote
     

  17. Collapse Details
     
    #17
    Administrator spacejunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    20,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Limpet_Chook
    And of course, there is the need for jellyfish nets in australia, no? because if you aren't wearing a stinger suit, or get stung on a bit of exposed tissue, and there is likely at least to be the face; by something like Chironex, then you might well end up dead before you ever reach the beach again, or drowning because of the pain. I shudder to even think what being stung in the eyes by Chironex is like...jesus! I've seen the pictures of what the dermotoxic effect part of the venom does to people, and its as if they had been lashed with a red hot metal chain-whip, or had red hot metal bars dragged over them by some demented abstract artist.
    that's a good question actually - i don't know if the have jellyfish nets in places that have box jellyfish.
    i've never knowingly swum in an area that is known for them - i think they're more in the tropics than the southern parts of the continent i've always live in.
    you're right though - they are insanely toxic if you are unlucky enough to get exposed to one.

    the scariest animal i've ever seen at the beach - besides sharks - was a blue-ringed octopus, when i was a little kid.
    my friend and i were walking along the shore with our mothers, and we got a fair way ahead of them, and found this little octopus with glowing bright blue circles on its body. it looked amazing - and my friend poked it with his finger (we were only about 5 years old).

    when our mothers caught up to us, we were told not to touch it - and thankfully my friend didn't come in contact with any of the toxin those things can get you with, but it paralyses your whole body temporarily - so without CPR and your heart massaged (or proper medical attention) people poisoned by them die, because their hearts and respiration completely stop. would be a horrible way to go.

    but i have no idea if nets exist in the northern states to protect people from such things.

    it's quite common in New South Wales to have swimming pools built right on the shoreline, so people can swim in the man-made pools but without having to contend with the without tides, waves or other scary things in the ocean, but i think they stopped building those around the 1960s, when backyard pools became more common.

    Quote Originally Posted by Limpet_Chicken
    Well IMO using a broad net that only prevents large predator fish from entering shallow bays and the like where people go for a swim is acceptable, as long as its done so that the fish are only faced with a barrier they cannot pass. Sharks have a LOT of space, so sealing off 20-50 meters of beach from the large predatory sort of fish isn't really excessive, IF the nets are set up such as not to entangle but only to bar passage. They have the rest of the ocean, can people and the smaller fish which can't take more than a bite out of someone at worst have some too?
    i agree, but some of the shark nets that they have in australia kill dolphins and whales that get stuck in then - mammals that drown, basically - and i'm not cool with that. i think the risk of being eaten by sharks is preferable to that.

    but yeah, if the nets are otherwise harmless to marine life, then i have no objection to them.
    ✺✹✺✹BLUA✺✹✺✹
    Reply With Quote
     

  18. Collapse Details
     
    #18
    Yeah, I am against any that could kill marine life too. A barrier without that effect is another matter though.

    As for box jellyfish, not sure how far their range extends. But in the case of Irukandji, there are several species, the genera Carukia and Malo in particular both contain species known to cause irukandji syndrome, and there are irukandji as far away as new guinea, even florida apparently.

    And of course, then you've got friendly little critters like stonefish and Hapalochlaena species (the blue-ringed octopi). Did you know, that the blue ringed octopi do not actually produce their own venom? their bite delivers tetrodotoxin, but the salivary glands of the blue ringed octopi harbor symbiotic bacteria, Vibrio species, I think, that produce tetrodotoxin, the same poison found in the (in)famous 'fugu' pufferfish used for the dangerous japanese sushi. TTX potently blocks voltage-gated sodium ion channels preventing transmission of action potentials, which causes the paralytic effect, its also present in at least one plant (a pitcher plant, Sarracenia flava), that produces TTX in nectar, and the nectar lures in flies and other insects, which become paralyzed, fall in to the pitcher plant's pitchers full of digestive enzymes and are digested whilst still alive.

    And also found in some amphibians, notably the california fire-bellied newts, in the genus Taricha, and in some Atelopid toads.
    Reply With Quote
     

  19. Collapse Details
     
    #19
    Administrator spacejunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    20,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Limpet_Chook
    Did you know, that the blue ringed octopi do not actually produce their own venom? their bite delivers tetrodotoxin, but the salivary glands of the blue ringed octopi harbor symbiotic bacteria, Vibrio species, I think, that produce tetrodotoxin, the same poison found in the (in)famous 'fugu' pufferfish used for the dangerous japanese sushi. TTX potently blocks voltage-gated sodium ion channels preventing transmission of action potentials, which causes the paralytic effect, its also present in at least one plant (a pitcher plant, Sarracenia flava), that produces TTX in nectar, and the nectar lures in flies and other insects, which become paralyzed, fall in to the pitcher plant's pitchers full of digestive enzymes and are digested whilst still alive.
    that's really interesting - i knew the toxin was found in other creatures, but i had no idea the octopi themselves didn't produce it.
    they are amazing looking creatures, but often you can't tell a blue-ringed octopus until they get frightened and defensive - because only then do the rings appear.
    really fascinating, you have a fucking incredible breadth of knowledge
    ✺✹✺✹BLUA✺✹✺✹
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •