KILL A SHARK....SAVE THE WHALES

Post by **mustkillmulloway** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:40 am

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bon ... 26247.html

NO poll....it's just so stupid

i dearly hope the japs pick up on this and shove it in our face next "save the humpback" law suit class order

Post by **sydney** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:51 am

There's a little difference between shark nets to 'protect' swimmers/keep the lobster tourists peace of mind, and actively hunting down and slaughtering 400+ whale's for one of the most unproductive 'scientific research' programs in the history of modern science...

Personally I liked what I read in one article coming from the japanese research facility. We are looking into how the growing population of other whales adversly effect the population of the mink whales... So we're gonna kill some of em to check that out.

Post by **mustkillmulloway** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:58 am

i take your point....BUT can't help but feel it's a LITTLE hypercritical that we DEMAND the japs stop whaling which is a industry

while we HAPPLY employ shark nets that kill endangered creatures (more so than the humpback) too protect OUR TOURIST INDUSTRY :?

don't you

Post by **crooked** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:56 pm

mustkillmulloway wrote:i take your point....BUT can't help but feel it's a LITTLE hypercritical that we DEMAND the japs stop whaling which is a industry while we HAPPLY employ shark nets that kill endangered creatures (more so than the humpback) too protect OUR TOURIST INDUSTRY :?

don't you

Look at the motives behind the actions and there is your answer mr fong.

Post by **Shaunm** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:26 pm

I say the whale bringeth people to our waters' edge and sharks drive them from crowding our breaks

Post by **Kunji** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:39 pm

Surely you cant confuse the two Fong.

Post by **Shaunm** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:54 pm

Dunno, depends what he's wearing on the day I guess

Post by **Chamberess** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:14 pm

Sharks dying in such cases is an indirect, adverse effect of putting up the nets to protect humans. It's not intentional but it happens.

Killing whales IS intentional, meticulously planned and executed (pardon the pun).

Post by **creased** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:58 pm

Chamberess wrote:Sharks dying in such cases is an indirect, adverse effect of putting up the nets to protect humans. It's not intentional but it happens.

Killing whales IS intentional, meticulously planned and executed (pardon the pun).

No it's not intentional but has been happening for ages with very little debate or improvement, love to see the stats on the Gold Coast nets.

Nets are indesriminate and little can be done to help their larger prey bar cutting free corpses.

From memory they even claimed a young Nobby's Beack kid about 10 years ago, after they washed in after a cyclone swell. Poor kid, drowning entangled, would've know exactly what and "indirect, adverse affect" was like

Post by **creased** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:08 pm

^^

I think the stats are there that they work. Attacks on the GC 30's, 40's, & 50's were pretty horrendous. We're not just talking bites on the arse or head jobs from Wobbies either.

Just like to know what the non-target stats are.

Post by **Nick-W** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:54 pm

For the sharks that were killed in the net (pregnant shark) there have been heaps more that have been given the best chance of survival. And they have thrived and survived, creating a swarming habitat for grey nurse sharks. Go for a dive at fish rock at smokey cape (near south west rocks) and see it for real, very cool.

Post by **mustkillmulloway** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:30 pm

Coops@DY wrote:Surely you cant confuse the two Fong.

no mrs coops i don't confuse the two

the japs have a couple thousand years of culture where they catch and eat whales.....

we have a couple decades of shark nets that indiscrimately kill sea life of all kinds and are than left too rot

dolphins....turtles ( saw a large one dead in a net...pissed me right off

) sharks and loads more are killed needlessly and wastefully by australia by the tonne each year

but lets not worry about that...lets single out the japs for a hard time

pot

kettle

black

p.s humpbacks weren't brought too the brink of extion, intenion...aww frock thats hard spell

NEARLY WIPED OUT OK

by jap whalers either.....the whalers based on nth and south coast of nsw but a few 50 years back have that distinction

you can't confuse the two.....unless of course you only value the life of whales over all other sea creatures

the shark nets of australia are of limited real protection...they kill senselessly endangered sea life...they need to go

Post by cs » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:12 pm

Shark netting kills indiscriminatly, the Japs are at least targeting their catch.

It was only this morning I was trying to explain to the missus why the Japs are going after their whales, as fong said, its 1000's of years of tradition. Sure its not PC any more, but who are we with our 200 years of (anglo) culture to turn around and tell 'em to stop?

Shit, I dont agree with this whaleing business, but Im just as upset seeing a netted shark dragged out of the ocean as I am seeing the repeated footage of the whalers harpooning and processing their catch.

Oh, and Salty, Ive been attacked 3 times on un-netted beaches, and twice on netted beaches. But I think there was a hole in the nets one of those times...

Post by **mustkillmulloway** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:01 pm

no one wants argue against me cause i'm right hey

theres got be better shark technology out there than nets...and don't say long lines

some these electric things u get in leggies

on a larger scale in bouys

everyone swim between the buoys instead the flags

most likly even work out cheaper :?

i'm bored

Post by **Shaunm** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:02 pm

Chamberess wrote:Sharks dying in such cases is an indirect, adverse effect of putting up the nets to protect humans. It's not intentional but it happens.

Killing whales IS intentional, meticulously planned and executed (pardon the pun).

Sharks can travel from the capes in SW WA to the capes in RSA so how is that not international???? Who put a whale higher in the chain than a whale or a swordfish or a dolphin.

Sharks nets are useless judging from the amount I've seen this spring/winter and none of them had human interest they were too busy munching on the ample supply of fish that brough them in. Besides the nets aren't bottom to surface and fasten at the side to the nearets point.
DOnt know if it's true but heard more sharks get caught in them heading out as opposed to heading towards the shore.

Post by **Chamberess** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:56 pm

You want to remove the shark net at Shark beach (Nielsen Park)?

It doesn't have the name for just sh*ts and giggles. The beach used to be a semi-protected cove around from the harbour where the sharks would come in to breed.

It's now overwhelmed by mostly families with small kids all summer. I don't know the stats, but if that net got removed the place would be fairly deserted.

As for whaling

Do you really want to get me on that hippy trip

At the end of the day there's alot more to the whaling issue than simply that it's a cultural thing. There's a sh*tload of deceit, treason, greed..well basically it's a soap opera.

Btw fongers

When humpbacks were almost harpooned to extinction, you are correct in saying that Australians were responsible but ultimately they were working for Soviet and Jap whaling factories alongside these visitors.

Regardless of which marine species death you think is worse, they both show how f**ked humans can be. We're not happy destroying each other so we've decided to turn on the environment as well.

RealSurf Surfers' Forum

KILL A SHARK....SAVE THE WHALES

KILL A SHARK....SAVE THE WHALES

Who is online