Nth NSW sharks. Can they p!ss off already?

[Drailed]

Yeah, I know Nick.

Steve mate, stop saying "correct" to peoples posts to make yourself look like some kind of authority on a subject.

You didn’t have the foggiest.

Correct.

Shut up cnut, no one thinks the fccckn nets provide a non stop barrier.

[Thud]

Clueleeeeeeesssssssss

[Nick Carroll]

bomboraa it's a point but there's a lot of salmon out there. No lack of 'em offshore here that's for sure. The ocean's been more alive than ever.

A hunch, there's more sub adult white sharks around now than there has been for decades. Protection began in the mid 1990s. These animals are 17-20 years old. Prior to that there'd been a lot of thinning out of big female white sharks by fishos keen to see their jaws for a goodly sum on the black market to macho retards who wanted a pool room trophy. There's a species bounce back beginning and it's starting with a new generation of fucken Millennial white sharks.

[Trev]

Fucken Millenials again!

[foamy]

And they’re coming up from NSW!!!

[No Pants Lance]

has the shark species that attacked at Greenmount been properly identified?

[Beanpole]

I heard they bought it was a Tiger
.

[BA]

They’ve got a tooth from his board. It’s a Great White.

[BA]

[steve shearer]

that would not feel good.

[No Pants Lance]

They’ve got a tooth from his board. It’s a Great White.

yeah it seems eh. just searched and saw the same account elsewhere. they did catch a Tiger nearby today it's been reported.

RIP Nick Slater.

[Beanpole]

First attack on the Gold Coast in 60 years. Poor bastard.

[alakaboo]

I support Nick's theory.
These 2-3m sharks that seem to be responsible for the attacks are going to reach breeding age in about 5-10 years.

We might need to come up with a plan for reducing the risk of surfing by that point.

[offshore1]

With Shearers revelation that the nets were set yesterday do you think the shark could have potentially been trapped shore side of the net?

Appears Steve and Thud are correct. What common shark wisdom in that statement are they failing to see?

[offshore1]

That design has been around for about 16 million years. Pretty fcuking effective.

[crabmeat thompson]

it's like teeth with teeth.

i remember talking to my mate from school who's now a professional fisho up north ... the protection of salt crocs is now at the point where whole biodiversity up there is in threat. too top heavy on the apex side. he thinks a croc season, where for a month or two people can go nuts on them.

i kinda always wrote that thinking off. eg if not for humans & our interactions, the crocs would be breeding to huge levels as they are now that they're protected. ie if the world had no humans, animals, predators would grow unabated, but so would their food.

thing is, we're taking the food, and leaving the apex preds to their own devices. that imbalance will eventually find us out, yeah?

which ever side of the debate you fall. for me, tampering with lower ends of the food chain (globally -- look at china's super trawler fleet, nationally and local levels) but protecting the apex end; will have a profound effect on the biodiversity and an imbalance of some kind would surely be the overarching byproduct of that?

(not sure i'm even making sense. just typing a million miles an hour before i get the boy to school -- will come back later and check. lol)

[Cranked]

Humans are apex preditors and have been for a million years, suddenly completely protecting some species from humans is an artificial interference that may distort inter species relationships.

[tootr]

IMO they could not be thriving if there was not an abundance of food.
And the tagging and bouy pings indicate the numbers are large.