Inspecting the last line of defence
In the wake of the most recent shark attack at Ballina the NSW government has decided that Lighthouse Beach will have 'eco' shark nets for the next three years and possibly longer.
On Tuesday surfer Sam Morgan was bitten on the left thigh by a shark and rushed to hospital, he's now in a stable condition. Morgan's attack was the 14th in the Byron/Ballina region this year and the second at Lighthouse Beach.
In response to the cluster of attacks, the NSW government recently announced a multi-pronged approach to shark attack mitigation that involves aerial surveillance, a 'clever buoy' sonar system, tagging, and also a trial of different 'eco net' technologies. When the Department of Primary Industry made the announcement in October they didn't identify which beaches would receive the nets.
However, yesterday the office of the Minister for Primary Industries, Niall Blair, announced that Lighthouse Beach would be one of the locations for the trial. In total six locations in NSW will be netted and two different technologies trialled. Two companies are supplying their product – Global Marine Enclosures and Eco Shark Barrier, both Western Australian companies.
Global Marine Enclosures' net is called a Bionic Barrier, it's a surface to ocean bed structure with a floating yellow boom at the top and chains at the bottom. As the ocean surface fluctuates due to wind, waves, or tide the net 'concertinas' to allow for the changes (see image top right). The holes are approx 20 centimetres apart and the structure has a horizontal breaking strain of 7,000 kilograms according to the Managing Director, Edward Khoury.
“Though we're a Perth company we know the East Coast conditions,” says Khoury, “and the Bionic Barrier will withstand anything at all. In fact, the issue isn't how strong it is but how strong the anchors and pylons can be.”
Khoury believes the NSW government will build shoreline to shoreline structures, meaning the nets may pass through breaking waves, but again, Khoury is confident his product is up to the task. “The barrier won't fail in waves, the question is how it will be anchored down, but that's an onsite issue to resolve.”
The other company trialling their nets is Eco Shark Barrier, another Western Australian company. Eco Shark Barrier currently have an eco-net installed at Coogee Beach, Perth. This net was first deployed in 2013 for a three month trial. Considered a success, the net was to be co-funded by the state government and local council, however the Barnett government balked at the $85,000 a year bill. The net was redeployed in November 2014 – albeit with a slightly different design - and the City of Cockburn council is now the sole supporter.
City Mayor, Logan Howlett, told WA Today the barrier made people feel safer. "It's evident that the barrier attracted people to enjoy our beach from both within and outside Cockburn," said Howlett. No doubt the NSW government would like to see a similar result in northern NSW, with swimmers and surfers returning to the water.
When Premier Mike Baird announced the shark strategy there was some bewilderment about the 'eco-nets'. They were variously described as fences, mesh, or barriers, and conservationists wondered about the side effects of keeping sharks out. Would the by-catch – a euphemism for marine life unintentionally killed by nets – rise with these new defences?
Dean Cropp is an underwater filmmaker and cameraman and he thinks the nets are “a cracking good idea”. Cropp has made eight nature documentaries, he's even filmed the by-catch pulled from old style shark nets, something that gave him a heavy heart but also instilled the belief that there was a better way to build shark defences.
“As long as the gauge is large enough so there's no entanglement issues then it's a good choice.” says Cropp about the eco-nets. When I ask for his description, Cropp says it's misleading to call it a net, “It's a physical barrier. Only water and small fish can pass through. Bigger fish bounce off it or detect it with sonar.”
The sheer heft of the eco-nets yields the only problem that Cropp can foresee. “They'll build up with weed and other matter which will increase weight and resistance. They'll need regular maintenance to clear the structures or they'll fail.”
There's also the issue of near shore dynamics: wave movement, sand erosion, longshore drift. If the nets are to work as intended then it won't be a matter of 'set it and forget it'. “Maintenance can't be understated,” says Cropp, before adding that besides regular upkeep they'll also need regular replacements. “Nothing lasts forever in the sea.”
The trial period will last three years with the nets being deployed sometime this summer.
Comments
Interesting to see them in a major cyclone/storm swell. They can rip many structures to pieces. If they are out deep enough to avoid the large surf zone they would have to be huge in terms of height and would still have to pass into the surf zone somewhere to create an effective barrier.
There is a lot of coast out there in use. This type of barrier would suit niche situations - a beach here and there rather than being the solution for a big long coast open to heavy surf.
They're only netting six beaches Frog. From that I assume it's fixed areas not great long stretches of coast. The Sydney region would be ideal because there are lots of short beaches separated by headlands. Wonder if they'll do any there or just the N coast.
Off topic...Dean Cropp must be related to Ben Cropp? Nature docos, underwater cameraman, same spelling of surname.
Yep, Dean is Ben's son. He was Water DOP on Storm Surfers 3D.. amazing cameraman!
As Ben says, indeed Dean is Ben's son, though he's a talented and credentialled filmmaker/conservationist in his own right.
Agree it will be interesting to see their performance in a large magnitude swell/storm event. I remember some of the Goldy and Noosa nets being on the beach a few times after a howler.
I can imagine the hydrodynamic drag of these with 6 months growth on them would be quite considerable?
Haven't thought about jumping sharks have they?
Having them physically work is only one aspect of the issue. The other, as mentioned in the article and comments is ongoing funding for maintenance/repairs/replacements.. I worked in public service for a while and know how budgets get divided up, the greatest parcels going to those people who make the most noise. The problem I see here is that the nets prepare for something not to happen. If after ten years there's been no deaths and no attacks the government will consider apportioning money elsewhere because the 'shark problem' simply wont exist anymore.
Seen a doco on one of these design that is set up in WAs. Seemed okay and well suited to protecting a section of a small harbour beach away from the surf to create a totally enclosed swimming pool type set up for kiddies and families. In the surf zone a major storm might see it ripped to pieces. The wear and tear of constant movement would also add up over time.
In the headland to headland barrier type of set up in surging surf zones one could imagine gaps near the rocks would exist or even above or below it sometimes leaving space for a sharks to come inside occasionally leaving a potentially big or small shark trapped inside getting frustrated and hungry with some tasty kiddies nearby.
Also they may become habit for fish over time as growth develops on them - fish gravitate to structure in the water. So they may actually make the area more interesting to sharks.
These will have their place but not as a broad based cost effective solution.
Montgomery Burns is probably looking for a new location to deploy his Omni Net after the idea was run out of Springfield.
Maybe he'd be interested in working with the Ballina council ?
He'd have to rebrand it as an Eco Omni Net of course.
You've made some key observations there Frog.
Frog, Dean Cropp mentioned the barriers becoming ideal habitats for smaller marine life. Weed would grow on the structure and small fish would congregate, something he saw as a bonus. Not sure how far up the food chain you can extrapolate.
I find it mind boggling that they entertain these solutions when statistically a proven solution is able to be deployed immediately. (Do conversationalist realise how many whales are injured by shipping each year and beaching)
As P-Funk says who hasn't seen the standard shark nets end up on a beach or swept in from their position. But they are cheap and expendable. The Gong to Newcastle cost of nets is 1.5m a year so the Le-Ba stretch would be $500k max beer coaster figures. I am aware a big proportion of the community don't want nets but last article and people in the community you get a very different picture.
I have heard that these barriers will be set up like a shark swimming enclosure 'ocean bath style' an example is Manly Harbour side in Sydney. This will not protect surfers. And do nothing to deter resident sharks. (look at behaviour of other whites once a dead one is around) Or are they proposing these barriers are to go headland to headland? THIS NEEDS CLARIFICATION FROM the companies involved Global Marine Enclosures and Eco Shark Barrier.
Frog says big gaps will allow big ocean life to get in the enclosure this will be fun. And the marine build up & artificial reef attract fish(bait) and then sharks. Hope this isn't the case for surfers in the le-ba stretch as marine park and fish aggregating device (the shark barriers) will only fuel the problem.
I also heard it was tested in the shadow of Rottnest at Coogee first cyclone swell will test them out on the east coast. Maintenance will be huge for these things. They are $250K a barrier.
Why hasn't the maintenance free (yearly once installed) South African Shark Barrier being trialled extensively in Shark Alley South Africa https://www.facebook.com/Sharksafebarrier/
I guess they didn't submit a tender, however, the government could have pursued them to have Australia first trial of the product.
Thanks for the link nochaser - hadn't heard of them before. Interesting that testing of the barrier on bull sharks indicate that the procedural control (no magnetised version) was essentially just as effective as the magnetised version. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989414000560
Also of note "Similarly, in O’Connell et al. (2013b), C. leucas were observed to swim around magnetic and procedural control regions of a barrier; however unlike the present study and O’Connell et al. (2014), entrance behaviors through procedural control and magnetically-treated barrier regions did occur. In the present study and in O’Connell et al. (2014), there were two and three rows of alternating columns, respectively, whereas in the previous study ( O’Connell et al., 2013b), only one row of columns was deployed. Therefore, the added visual stimulus provided by increased column quantity may have been sufficient to elicit these behavioral differences and may have maximized overall barrier effectiveness." And "After initial contact, prey typically swam through the barrier whereas sharks were observed to exhibit violent avoidance behaviors (e.g. 180°turns and accelerations away). These findings illustrate that increased column density may provide increased tactile stimulation and overall barrier exclusion efficacy."
Interesting link p-funk.
Good for swimming but you'll have to ollie the barrier in a decent swell.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=coogee+beach+wa+shark+barrier&espv=2&...
While these ideas are well-intentioned they are piece-meal and extremely costly. Why not target problem sharks at a fraction of the cost? If we reduce the number of man-eaters we reduce the chances of attack - it's not rocket science. We know that shark-huggers are horrified by this common-sense approach but then they don't support the killing of any creature, do they?
How do they identify the problem sharks? They the ones with tattos? Riding Harleys, perhaps?
Or the ones with shifty eyes wearing hoodys.
yes shark huggers are to blame, like those pesky tree huggers .
thween anything you seem scared of seems to go on the hit list , should we cull the boogiemen ?
Nets are good enough for Sydney and points north and south, and SE Qld. Horrible for the mid/north NSW coasts.
Hmmm..
Just to break in with some facts, the data from the shark tagging is freely available to the public here: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/sharks/tips-to-reduce-your-risk...
Seems like the juveniles have all moved on but the sub-adult sharks in the 3 m range which seem to be the "problem" sharks have all stayed very close to the area and remain inshore.
I think that says a few things.
Free76 what is your interpretation of the data?
It shows a population of sub-adults establishing residence or semi-residence in this area.
It also raises questions as to what they are eating.
Sub-adults are moving from fish prey to more mammalian prey. That accounts for their danger to surfers: they are inquisitive and potentially aggressive as they learn the hunting methods to bring down mammalian prey in inshore waters. That mainly seems to be the bite and bleed-out technique.
What are they actually eating?
The only inshore mammal in significant numbers here are dolphins. I and many others believe these sub-adult whites are preying on dolphins which explains their continuing presence long after the bait schools and whales have been and gone.
Yes, buried whales may be a factor in bringing them in close but that isnt a factor in explaining why they are sticking around.
just as an aside, I was fishing with the T and G chopper pilot who has been up in the air with the fisheries shark scientists during the tagging program; they also have posited the dolphin hypothesis but have not mentioned it due to lack of evidence.
What do you make of it Sharkman?
very interesting Free76 to see a theory of sharks setting up residency.
I just watched a program on the attacks over the last 15 years in Nth and Sth Carolina,where bullsharks are the culprit , and every decade there seems to be swimmers attacked in 3 feet of water ,quite a few people attacked and killed in the same area , but it looks like never the same shark , but they get waves of attacks.
Have we changed their habitat to they have , as you suggested , they eat less fish and now chase mammals and we have become part of their food chain ?
as for the whale carcass's on the beach as they take 4 - 5 years to decompose where does the stench/scent go. it would be good to get a scientific opinion on what to do with all the carcasses now coming onto beaches all over the world , because there's now a lot more whales...
No, whats changed are three very easily recognisable and quantifiable factors.
1. We stopped killing white sharks.
2. Whale populations are increasing.
3. Inshore commercial fishing effort has markedly decreased, as well as inshore marine parks have become established. EG, Ballina used to have 37 trawlers, now there are 7 with talk that will be reduced to 3 or 4. Thats a huge reduction in fishing effort.
Hence, more food inshore, more whales.
What this tagging data now comprehensively demonstrates is that white shark populations at the juvenile and sub-adult level and far healthier, at least at regional levels than fisheries scientists had hitherto thought.
No sane person can now continue the dismantled theory that increasing shark attacks are the result of more people in the water.
The current tagging program tagged 15 white sharks within ten k's of the Richmond River mouth.
15! Thats just what they saw inshore putting a chopper up from 9-3 in a couple of weeks.
Chief shark scientist Vic Peddemoor even had the audacity to come out before the second round of tagging and declare he thought the sharks would have moved on and they would be lucky to tag one.
They got two on the first day!
As of last week they are still there.
The only theory supported by the facts as to why there has been more attacks/encounters/sightings is because white shark populations have rebounded far more robustly than scientists have thought. There are simply more sharks around, hence more attacks.
Taronga Zoo should immediately retract it's more people in the water hence more attacks theory if they wish to maintain any credibility at all going forwards in this debate. At the moment a total rethink is required of their position.
Free76 , I think reading a lot of forums , posts and articles on the problem of sharks on the N Coast , there are a few more than 3 points to consider...but your 3 are a good starting point...
1) stopped killing white sharks , so there are more now than 30 years ago , but are there more Bulls and Tigers?
2) whale populations have dramatically incr4eased in the last 15 years from 296 migrating Nth in 2000 , and more than 20K last year,which means there is a significant increase in dead whales washing up on beaches , which could mean more sharks hunting dead whales , especially if the smell of dinner is leaching from the beaches ?
3) commercial fishing has decreased , so there are more fish , but does that mean inshore or off shore?? bait balls have been very prevalent this year?
4) water temps are higher than normal is this true?
5) more people in the water , I get your point about being a moot point , but maybe its all the media ,plus the tracking devices now we have no real point of reference of what was before , as we just didn't have the tools to measure the amount /size /and species of sharks....
when you add up all the above, there are and have been very big changes in the sharks environment over the last 50 years , and we are now experiencing hopefully an anomaly , as there has been in so many other places.
The reason I keep on about burying whales on beaches is no0ne seems to have factored this into their theories and it would be very easy to test the water to see.
This might be a little off the topic, but I have a question for some of the theorists here -
Currumbin Rivermouth, has a dog beach just inside the mouth and suffers the same murky waters etc in storms--- I see kids swimming in the dog friendly area all the time - Why are not bull sharks rampaging in that area?
The nets/barriers are one side of it or the 3rd party side, but what about taking steps to reduce your own risk?
why has there not been more personal devices ie an ankle sensor.
Surely with all the technology around we could develop something that regular ocean users can strap on and get amongst it. There was one advertised in a surf mag recently but the scientific backing looked a little to light for my liking.
solve this problem in this current media storm and you will make a billion dollars.
Also if you haven't seen it check out the ted talk on the camo wetsuits
Interesting theories FR & Sharkman. Good discussion.
If the food source in close has increased as you say FR (less trawlers etc) the on flow effect of that would be more dolphins not only feeding in close but also an increase in their population too. I assume dolphins have always been on the menu of GWSs so where there's dolphins there's going to GWS. No surprise the dolphins are in close, given their habits.
The stats clearly don't back up any theory in relation to humans being a reliable or desired food source for GWS. If this was the case all GWS would either be starving to death given the extremely low numbers of attacks on humans or there would be a significant increase in the frequency & number of attacks, beyond what we are seeing IMO. This is not to say that a hungry or inquisitive GWS won't hunt a human, obviously it is happening as we see in Ballina & surrounds of recent times.
I think your right FR when you suggest that the GWS population has recovered well. On top of this tho I don't think you can just simply dismiss the fact that there are more people using the ocean these days but this has no bearing in the stats. I think it does. I think it's a combination of facts. One fact that can't be denied but seems difficult to quantify is that human activity has changed the ocean environment, the consequences of which will continue to play out over time.
Its hard to see the trend of GWS attacks declining unless their numbers are reduced. That said, it's also no guarantee that it will reduce/prevent any future GWS attacks. So many unknowns in this issue, which is why research is a vital component in solving this puzzle, much to the dismay of some. So in reality, in the meantime, it gets back to what is an exceptable risk personally that one is prepared to take in life.
Disappointing response from you, stu - you're smarter than that. I think we'd all agree that 'a problem shark' will generally be a GWS of 2m plus in a swimming/surfing zone, wouldn't we?
Mate, most people attacked dont see the shark beforehand, or if they do they simply don't have time to paddle in.
And even if they did paddle in, what then? Have a lifeguard with a .22 stationed at every swimming/surfing spot?
Take out your 'problems sharks' if you will but don't expect these random attacks to stop; the last shark with a "taste for blood" was taken out in Amity, 1975.
I don't discount the shark with taste for blood theory.
Have a read about Sir Victor Coppleson or the series of attacks in New Jersey in 1916 or the attacks in Madang Harbour , New Guinea in 1996.
Just because the scientists haven't proven it, which would be extremely difficult, doesn't mean it's not true.
Might even be a cultural thing amongst a group of socially familiar sharks.
It makes no sense to talk of more people in the water equalling more attacks unless you are talking on regional scale.
Obviously, more people surfing in SA or WA doesn't make it more likely for an attack in Ballina.
These things have to be considered on a regional scale to have any meaning.
Surfing populations in this area increased through the 70's, 80s and 90's. If the increased people, increased attack theory had any credence we would have seen increased attacks during this period.
It was only in the last 5 years, after whites started to be spotted regularly that the attacks/encounters started to spike.
Now, we have the reverse situation occurring, ie much reduced numbers of people in the water and increased attack rates.
"Much reduced numbers of people in the water."
Ballina Shire has grown 6.5% in ten years. Not sure about Byron but I reckon it'd also be significant. How can you say there's not more people in the water?
I think perhaps he's talking about the scaled differences... Per capita rates and the noticeable discrepancy. For example (I'm just making these up), 1 attack for 100,000 swimmers in the 80s. 2 for 220,000 in the 90s, 3 for 340,000 in the '00s. 10 for 420,000 in this decade.
I'm guessing that "reduced numbers" here doesn't necessarily refer to less swimmers. That number rose by 80,000! But the growth rate of swimmers was less than in previous decades, which also seems incommensurate with the rate of population growth, and is possibly explainable by recent shark incidents. I know he didn't say that exactly but that's the feeling I got from reading that comment.
I live and surf here every day Stu. Since Tadeshi got taken in Feb there's been a drastic reduction in people surfing in Ballina shire. Yet the attacks/encounters keep on keeping on.
The problem with the increasing numbers/increasing attack rate theory is that the evidence doesn't support the theory.
If the facts don't support your theory, unless you have some agenda to push, you modify or look for a new theory.
In this case we do have a theory which the facts support: the increased attacks are a result of increased numbers of (white) sharks in the area.
i think He means recently,since the attacks started.Hard to argue with that.
Hi, might have already been covered before but I flew to QLD from Sydney on Wednesday for a quick trip with super clear conditions and a window seat. Watched the coast the whole way and the Richmond river at Ballina was a noticeably different "milky" brown colour than all of the other rivers and catchments on the way up including the Clarence (despite prawning etc) and Tweed which were more of a "watery" looking brown colour. I couldn't see any indication that there had been extra rain here compared to the other areas on BOM but wondered why this was and what the impact could be if there is a good reason??
acid sulfate runoff???
Still no shortage of shark sightings in Ballina area - Air T@G Ballina
nah, minor fresh in the Richmond catchment. Discoloured plume on the outgoing , clear on the incoming.
My memory could be a bit shabby so slight detail glitches may be present however i was listening to a ABC radio National last week and a claimed ex net contractor (last 6 yrs or so) from cent north coast phoned in with some interesting points. He stated the latest contract(which he did not win), changed from prior and only had provisions stating that the period of nets in the water was brought down to any 12 days during each month, and that it was now not required to have nets in the water every weekend as it used to be. So in effect whomever now has the contract could place nets in for the first 12 days of the month then remove 'for maintenance' and take the rest off. - anyone else hear this guy last week? Only reason I stumbled upon it was that I was travelling the outback in Moranbah area and ABC is the one station that Keeps me awake.
Seems like an idea to minimise impact would be to raise the barrier off the sea floor maybe 30cm. Looks like its touching the bottom no?
ABC reports shark barriers will be installed at Ballina in January
Stab have a story [which my computer wont load] are DPI telling fibs on the number of shark sightings.
On the DPI site it says 14 GWS have been tagged, and it seems only 5 of these have been picked up recently
In an interview Mike Baird stated more than 200 have been tagged?
WTF?!?
There's a broader tagging program which has been happening for a few years based around the Port Stephens nursery area. He may have been referencing those sharks as well.
Fair enough. Mostly GWS or others?
If 200 odd GWS have been tagged around Ballina etc then it's hard to believe the endangered tag.
All GWS to my knowledge. The majority in that Port Stephens/Seal Rocks nursery area.
Are they still tagging or even seeing sharks now? That's hard to say.......DPI has now stopped informing the public when sharks are spotted from the aerial surveillance. I was surfing x.... x.... this morning and the shark chopper was circling for a long time off the end of x.... x.....; which is usually a good sign they've got a shark underneath.
Not even sure if the smart drum lines have been set yet and if they have caught anything. Seen lots of activity from the fisheries tagging boat going in and out of the river mouth so there's definitely something going on.
This policy of keeping the public in the dark is going to bite them on the bum horribly (sorry, bad pun) if we get another attack.
I reckon I saw my first shark (since moving) on the Tweed Coast this morning. Surfed an empty beachie on my own - no other surfers as far as the eye could see - had some fun peaky waves for 45 mins when a dark shape swum directly under me (wasn't very deep, I was lying on my board).
Didn't appear to be a dolphin, as it was too small (just 3-4ft long) and it was swimming rather erratically, very un-dolphin like (I usually see dolphins just about every surf). At a rough guess I reckon it was probably a small bullshark.
Water temps were down a couple of degrees from the weekend due to some local upwelling (lots of nutrients/seaweed in the water too) and I was also right in front of a creek, on the top of the tide/outgoing.
Certainly scared the crap out of me, but after quickly paddling into the impact zone I reassessed things - whatever it was, it had swum off down the coast - so I paddled back out for another couple of waves before coming in. A little rattled but to be honest there's an equal chance I could have been looking elsewhere (other than down into the water) so I may not have seen it at all.
How many other similarly close, but unknown encounters happen like this? Who knows.
Probably heaps.
Anyone who has ever dived knows how curious sharks are.......it's their nature to investigate whatever (potential prey) is in their domain.
Well looks like N. Wall and the Pub at Lennox will have eco nets by feb.
http://www.echo.net.au/2015/12/shark-barriers-to-be-erected-off-ballinal...
Nice cameo by Freeride76 in last night's 4 Corners program (a great watch, too).
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2016/02/08/4400419.htm
I hope our boy Stevie S wasn't chumming up the water around those surfers!!!
@17.10 secs
only watched the first 5 minutes but wasn't it amazing how those whites in SA had clearly established behaviour associating boats and humans with food.
That alone should be setting off alarms.
That's a big worry - clearly, to those sharks, boats and humans mean food.
You couldn't hope to make it any clearer to an animal by training them this way.
Are you the guy with the fuzzy white hair freeride? ;)
Thats the mayor.
Freeride is the fisherman........but fuck how cool would he look with hair like the Mayors ?
Ah ok I was trying to visualise the guy with the crazy white hair charging 8ft Lennox? But then again I've seen a few old locals at Cactus sporting that look?
How is that intellectual pygmy from Deakin Uni claiming there is no relationship between shark numbers and attack rates.
Seriously, when there is no reliable estimate of shark numbers your conclusions are not just flimsy they are risible.
The only recent data we have on shark numbers and attack rates comes from Ballina. That clearly showed a relationship between the numbers of (white) sharks and attack rates. We had a very clearly documented increase in white shark numbers and a corresponding increase in attack rates.
Everything else is worse than speculation. It's misleading, verging on deliberate deception.
I'm very surprised 4 Corners didn't take his unpublished results and subject them to more scrutiny.
As to the 4 corners reporter who asks how much of the fear is irrational and a response to hyper-vigilance and how much is justified?
Id' say the cold hard facts of 9 attacks and many more encounters plus the footage of sharks in close proximity show the response of North Coast surfers to be proportionate to the actual risk.
Fuck, I hadn't seen Junior (Darren Rogers) for ages. He's obviously really suffering.
Pretty flimsy piece of journalism on many counts, I thought. You definitely can't rely on old Aunty to give proper and balanced reporting as much as previously.
Starts off with a guy pondering what the cause of these attacks are. First thing to do: chum like mad and jump in the water in a wetsuit taunting the man-eaters by leading them to him with half a fish, then taking it away. Oh, the irony.
Next: do a lap of the WA coast out to Rottnest, declare that there was no shark seen. Oh well, there mustn't be any...
Next: Bring in Sea Shepard while inspecting netting programmes. This gives a good opportunity to run file footage collected over the years of the by-catch that has been recorded. Gives good impression that humans are raping the marine life here, but not really anywhere else.
Next: Get experts to talk about how they couldn't make an algorithm to predict the next attack.
The main thing I took out of it was those that actually had the attacks, or face-to-face encounters, were not calling them beautiful creatures. They saw these things for what they are and nobody can counter their experience.
The moral: There should be no interaction between man-eating sharks and humans that is positive for the shark... ever. They need to be conditioned to avoid us, just like they have been conditioned to approach us in food mode
When all this shit was going down last year they should have caught one of those whites and bled the cunt out whilst towing it behind a boat in the Ballina, Lennox, Byron area.
Show those cunts whose in charge. Sacrifice one for the safety of other sharks and humans.
Hear Hear......1hr north over the border GWS are very often caught in nets or line by Gov contractors....could have put one on order from Qld...and used that ..the fucker was already dead...perfect !
Sharks hate dying and in distress sharks. Scare the cunts right outta there.
Protest on yesterday against the installation/location of the lighthouse beach shark barrier.
Yes, the stupid cunts have decided, after consultation with the clubbies and no-one else to put the net right in the middle of the break.
They've made the break safer alright, no-one will be able to surf it, so it'll be the safest break in NSW.
This is going to get ugly.
c;mon FR76 , now you have nets and are safe , you want to surf too?
Are you still seeing a lot of sharks , as its been awhile since an attack??
it seemed to have quietened down for a while, but reliable reports now of a 3.5/4 m white taking mackerel off the inshore boats.
similar reports and sightings predated the Tadashi attack last Feb.
Where about are they planning to put the net FR? I just had a squiz and couldn't see anything. Somewhere near the dice or further out?
you can see the line on the posters they've put up,
on any given day looks like a greater than 50% chance the take-off will be outside the line of the barrier, making the place unsurfable.
Can you post a link FR76?
Can't find anything relevant Simba ie that shows the break and the barrier together.
if I get a chance tomorrow I'll go out to the wall and take a photo looking along the line where the net will be and then you can see where that sits in relation to the sand bar.
So is sam ok now?
Delayed again.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-31/nsw-government-delays-shark-bar...
They have no idea .......dumb fukkers.
spent a week hovering around in a boat before finally realising the net placement was actually in the surf zone, and was actually a really dumb idea.
delayed indefinitely. Niall Blair promises further consultation.
On the north end of the net, the perpendicular line is going to have to run through speeds?
correct
The mayor wants surfers to give it a chance but do you reckon they'll remove or shift it once it's in??
Slim chance.
And the prick puts the guilt trip back on the surfers.
It begins. Work started on Lennox net up at the Surf club (Hey FR76, did surfers stop the project from happening at the pub?)
Ballina net next week; we'll see how much south swell hits then :).
http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/eco-barrier-will-create-shark-free-s...
Wow what a contrast in reporting styles only two days apart.
[I'd attach a Northern Star article from two days prior to yours Doggy but the site won't allow it.}
Lostdoggy, I wonder why the author of your article chose to call the enclosure a "swimming haven"?
One thing's for sure, the locals are very unimpressed with the siting of the proposed Lighthouse Beach barrier - it'll be right in the actual surf zone, parallel to the beach.
Apparently Mike Baird says that if you don't like it you can go and surf somewhere else.
Also, I wouldn't want to be inside or to the south of the enclosure on Seven Mile Beach if there was a strong north-setting longshore drift. Wonder how the nippers are going to negotiate it?
Who did he say that to?
Yeh, that's the first time I've heard it called 'swimming haven', but I didn't even know they'd changed the location from the pub. Wonder how sand flow bank formation will be affected up that end.
Doggy the Swellnet site thinks the Northern Star link I'm trying to post is spam but Google "Northern Star shark barrier is more dangerous than sharks".
"Surf somewhere else" was apparently Baird's response to Mark Hernage, the organiser of last Sunday's protest.
I can't imagine the barrier will effect sand flow too much - as mentioned, the concern for Lighthouse Beach is that the barrier is right in the surf zone.
Also, as shown by the diagram of Seven Mile Beach (Lennox) in the article you posted, there are barriers running perpendicular to the beach, out through the surf.
I'd take a punt that although this maybe ok for stinger nets in low-swell areas like FNQ, there are obvious hazards in areas like Lennox and Ballina.
Mark Hernage has stated that the DPI can't give an answer as to whether or not the barrier poses a risk, or whether it poses a risk greater than a shark encounter. On this basis, Hernage has made a fair claim that the DPI, if nothing else, has failed to do a proper risk assessment.
They did a risk assessment and raised a red flag for possible risk of drowning from becoming entangled in the net.
And it's highly likely the placement of the barrier will impact the break negatively or render it unsurfable.
So apparently there is a universe where it's considered sane public policy to spend taxpayers money protecting people from a tiny risk of shark attack at a spot by destroying the break or making it potentially fatal to surf there.
oh yeah, and their brilliant method of risk mitigation? Put up a sign warning you could die if you surf outside or run into the barrier.
You can't make this shit up.
It's a genius plan Freeride -
Put up enclosures that make a break unsurfable.
No one surfs there.
No one is bitten by a shark.
Ergo, the barriers work.
But, but, but the North Coast is leading the world in shark deterrent technology.
Ridiculous.
NSW DPI has an online survey for feedback
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/sharks/shark-management
Funny thing is and maybe a good thing is that its going in front of the surf club,i lived their for a long time and very rarely you would surf that far down best waves are back towards the pub area,could be a blessing in disguise.Chances are that it will all end up on the beach by February or possibly have a good bank form off it.Be funny if a white ended up in it and someone was attacked inside the enclosure.Anyway be surprised if it works.
there are 2 barriers Simba: the one in front of the surf club and the one at N. Wall.
but yeah, be surprised if they don't end up on the beach during a swell event and it'll be interesting to see how that surf club one affects sand flow .
Just to confuse some of you here with some facts,
the DPI now will and does not bury whales on the beach anymore , because it increases the risk of sharks and shark attacks.
The DPI have now been asked the question what about all the whales that have already been buried,will they be dug up and removed?
The DPI have virtually conceded that buried whales on the beach is a factor in shark attacks , and are currently still formulating a policy on the already buried, to be continued!
Where have they conceded that? And to whom?
a real Journalist friend of mine , asked the DPI what was their policy on whales on beaches , and they now have a policy of removing dead whales from beaches and not burying them , as there was 13 whales buried on NSW beaches in the last 3 years.
The question is now , which he is following up on, is what do they do with the whales already buried , such as the one at Ballina , which washed up 1 week before Tadashi was killed.
have you tried calling your local council/DPI to see what their policy is?
Slightly off topic, but where's the modern day Ron Taylor.... check out the 20m20s mark and onwards of this clip
. Unbelievable.The NSW DPI shark tracking website is showing some interesting stuff.
http://www.wildlifetracking.org/?project_id=1141
I had always thought the east coast population of great whites was separate from the South and West Oz ones but Shark No.4 puts paid to that. After being tagged off Ballina it then took off down south, around Tassie, quick lap of Kangaroo Island and is now back on the east coast off Fraser Island, probably chomping on Tailor.
they have actually tracked GW's from South Africa , to WA, then SA/Vic , ended up at the barrier reef , then turn around again and back track , now there's some frequent swimmer miles!
FWIW there's been a number of sightings at Sapphire Beach in recent weeks, where a sperm whales carcass was buried one year ago.
tootr , ask your local council what is their policy on burying whales on the beach , in the light that the DPI is now removing whale carcass's off beaches , because of the shark threat , and do they intend to dig up buried whale?
I would suggest you contact your local paper , and work with them in getting to the truth of whales washing up on beaches!
I remember that one.
http://www.coffscoastadvocate.com.au/news/whale-causes-a-stink-for-park-...
The issue of buried whales was being discussed at the time and in the lead up and they still went ahead with that strategy.
lost woofy , in the article it actually says it takes more than 12 mths to decompose , the actual figure is 4-5 years , they also say that there were not many options for disposal of the whale , $20 K to bury , $200 K to remove it , sounds more and more like the authorities covering up what they really know about whales on the beach , and following up with very poor actions!
That whale off sapphire should have been towed out to sea,no reason not too just lazy.Question is why didnt they?
Sharkmans theory on dead whales washed up and attacks is sounding more on the money as i cant remember if one has washed up in northern nsw this year? and so far no attacks but still plenty of sharks being sighted,maybe Sharkman is on it.Maybe the scent drifting along the beaches from a buried/washed up whale is the trigger for an attack and without it are a lot more cautious.I wonder if W.A had the same dead whale issues and attacks.Anyone know?
I believe there was a correlation with the one buried in Gracetown. Maybe with one at Rotto too.
Authorities would not make it easy for anyone to research into these areas of past attacks though, I'm sure.
.
"The surfers were right."
Don't think they'll ever say that.
http://m.northernstar.com.au/news/plans-scrapped-for-eco-shark-barrier-a...
Well thats that Shark barrier totally canned...what has been installed [ choppered in concrete blocks] wil be removed ?
surely they'll have to remove it......can't leave concrete blocks half submerged in the surf zone on the main swimming beach.
what a fucking debacle.
Does anyone know why the barrier has been canned ? Legal or ineffective or too hard to maintain ?
The structure couldn't hold in the surf zone......and it's been fucking tiny, for this part of the world.
Ballina Advocate
Anyone know how much the state government put into it?
Ol' Wrighty reckons, don't worry, it came from the state not Ballina shire. Why does that matter, it is still public money and he asked for it?
Over at Coastalwatch, Nick Carroll talks to DPI about the failed shark eco-barriers.
http://www.coastalwatch.com/environment/20504/update-the-nsw-dpi-answers...