RealSurf Surfers' Forum

dead set, you can ask the DPI for this stuff all day long and they just send you colourful graphs with no information.

No problem.

Glad you mentioned the question that had been asked by many since the start of the program - do the receivers identify individuals?
This had only been confirmed recently, as is multiple hookings of the same animal.

For some time it’s been thought they they’re keeping some things to themselves

I found it interesting they said in the conclusion that GWS were still threatened by recreational and commercial fishing, especially around the mid north coast.

Absolute bollocks.

Complete bollocks.

Another thing, everything they write is framed around ‘improving conservation efforts’. Protection was enacted in 1998. What the fcuk else can you do?

The program was funded (by the taxpayer) not specifically to write a bunch of papers. Sean Doherty touched on that here;


https://www.coastalwatch.com/surfing/la ... -from-here

I think the Act mandates ongoing research etc.

I dunno, I don't have issues with government funded shark research at all, we do need to know what is going on with the toothy buggers, I just find it irritating that you've gotta come across the results of the research the way you do, ie from a link on an obscure surf site, or via relentless online searching which often seems to somehow dodge the info.

I talk to the DPI regularly, they're always like "Let us know what you need, we'll get you whatever we have," but they never do, they just send you talking points and graphed up clusters of things. When you ask a direct question about something even a bit touchy they say "we'll get back to you" or "we have to check on that", or just go outright evasive. You know they are under pressure from their dept heads not to release the information, even though we're paying for it.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m down with all the research bit, it’s the information bit that is lacking. It has been during the entire program.

Guys you really need to learn how to lodge GIPA requests or get an MP to ask a Question on Notice for you.
They have to answer those, legally.

As someone who has been involved in the policy-political nexus for a while, I really doubt the scientists are lying to you on purpose. They're getting shat on from above and what they release is what gets through some mid-level political operator.

^^I'm sure you're right boo

Gonna go the FOI route I think.

The politicisation of the public service in Australia is a lot worse than it used to be. I went for an advisor job in a state government department a while back and ended up coming second.

The interview feedback was that my answers were too focused on the laws, policy and scientific facts, and not enough on the political consequences of telling the truth.

"you obviously know the topic well, but your first response should've been to call the Minister's office and ask their staff how they wanted to respond, then crafted your answers to fit that narrative"

This results in selection of people who toe the line or are extremely cautious in guess they respond.

Fortunately I'm now in the US where there is total respect for scientific reason and government officials are held in the highest regard.

If you want help drafting the request question let me know.

Or better yet, ask Baba to run his pedantascope over it.

If there is any ambiguity whatsoever they'll give you a bullshit response.

thanks boo! I'll start by figuring out exactly what I want to know

Start with the likelihood of getting eaten.

@ alakaboo, in the context of what you said above, what are the ‘political’ consequences?
Not pissing off the ‘huggers’?
Playing down the rapidly increasing numbers?
Not scaring tourists?

offshore1 wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 07, 2020 6:25 am

Start with the likelihood of getting eaten.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CHQR6ybhU9r ... 27bc4i8uzy

Nick covered a couple, one perhaps by accident.

If you are recapturing 20% of the sharks in a program that is supposedly a deterrent for a small but unknown population it means 2 things:

1. It's not a great deterrent (as Nick mentioned)
2. There's a lot more sharks than you originally thought.

Other political consequences include agitating the shooters and fishers party, the marine conservationists, and the surfers.

#2

That’s basically my thinking - after following the program since the get go, generally out of interest.
There’s a lot more to than anyone thought, they reproduce and grow faster than thought, and in a couple of years those 2.5 m average size will be 3m plus and switching to larger prey than fish and rays.

It's not so much that they reproduce faster, it's that the mortality rate has dropped a lot.

Those 2.5m ones will also start to breed soon.

tootr wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 07, 2020 11:57 am

#2

That’s basically my thinking - after following the program since the get go, generally out of interest.
There’s a lot more to than anyone thought, they reproduce and grow faster than thought, and in a couple of years those 2.5 m average size will be 3m plus and switching to larger prey than fish and rays.

My understanding is that humans are very unsatisfactory prey because:

1. Ratio of bone to meat is way too high (less nourishment and the bones are very hard to digest)
2. Not nearly enough fat to sustain the open ocean venturing of the mature whites

So there's some hope.