As we crest over the worst of winter and start looking forward to spring and warmer weather, a tricky question sits waiting on the horizon.

He's more scared of you than you are of him. Maybe. Pic: Supplied

How do you solve a problem like shark attacks? Or, more to the point, is there one? There are more of us in the water than ever before. Are there more of them? And is that why WA has suffered through an horrific 10 months, with five fatal attacks?

West Australian fisheries officers and federal environment authorities met last week to discuss conducting research on great white shark numbers, to see whether the species was still vulnerable and, if not, whether it still needed the protected status it was granted in 1999.

It’s a worthwhile exercise, if for no other reason than it adds to our flimsy knowledge of this migratory species.

But in an environment where most people are inclined to argue that the beasts should be respected and left alone in their native habitat, any proposed change to its status is sure to spark debate if not outrage.

The big and controversial question is whether putting great whites back on the menu, so to speak, can prevent similar numbers of attacks. Arguably, not.

To put the debate in context, WA has had 19 fatal shark attacks since records began in 1791. Three occurred last year, so almost half of them in the past two years, which has understandably left the state reeling and searching for answers. But it seems unlikely, given what slow breeders white sharks are, that the recent surge in attacks can be due to a sudden population boom. (As an aside, SA has also had 19 fatalities, all by great whites, the most recent in February last year.)

Taronga Zoo keeps a shark attack file which shows there is an average of about one deadly shark attack a year, somewhere in Australian waters. So years might pass without incident and then, other years - like the past one - it seems as though the water is a hot zone of predators.

I had occasion to speak to two of Australia’s top shark researchers, Barry Bruce and Charlie Huveneers, for a feature published earlier this year on “the secret life of sharks”. A few things became abundantly clear during the interviews; one of them was how little we know about the habits of these elusive, nomadic creatures.

We know that noticeably greater numbers head up the east coast to the Great Barrier Reef in autumn and winter, or hang around the Neptune Islands off Port Lincoln in winter and spring, or follow migrating whales up the West Australian coast in spring.

But, as the winter attack on young Perth surfer Ben Linden showed, they are everywhere in Australian waters at any one time, from beach shallows to deep ocean, and they don’t stay anywhere very long.

That’s why trying to find and kill a shark after an attack is almost pointless; it might remain in the area for a few days (and even then, how to know you have the culprit?) or it can be 70-80km away a day later.

We can surmise, but we don’t really understand why they attack, or how and why they select particular victims over others, and why sometimes they’ll go for the kill and other times they’ll sail past without incident.

Unpredictable creatures, these.

Which means trying to do a head count is no simple task.

If we’re looking at whether shark numbers are up, what is the baseline given they don’t respect state - or even international - borders?

And how do we know that any supposed increase in numbers is due to a population boom of these coast-hugging animals, and not - to hazard some reasons - because they are aggregating on warmer sea currents or some El Nino-induced factor, or changes in available fish stocks?

That is, is we find numbers are up, can we be confident it’s an absolute and not circumstantial?

If we get the maths wrong, remove the protection and then find numbers plummeting, what then?

It would take decades to repair overzealous culling. White sharks are extremely slow breeders compared to most of sea world - a small litter of pups every three years at most, and only when the females are 15 to 20 years old - so maintaining a population equilibrium (whatever authorities decide that should be) would be a challenging task.

Some people would probably shrug their shoulders and think, ‘so what, the oceans are safer without them’, but you can’t remove an apex predator without everything down the food chain falling out of whack.

Whatever you think of its merits, the task WA wants to take on is perhaps not as straight-forward as it might seem.

Most commented

69 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Craig says:

      05:57am | 01/08/12

      Make the risk clear, then let people take their chances.

      Devastating a species just because some people like surfing is not a sustainable way to manage a planet.

      Frankly, given our numbers, humans need more predators. Relying on other species, or even our own, to manage our population is not working.

    • Mahhrat says:

      08:00am | 01/08/12

      @Craig, +1.

      Advertise the risk, let people know the risk, let people be grown up enough to take the risk.

    • Warren says:

      08:34am | 01/08/12

      I think you will find most surfers are happy to take the risk and don’t want sharks hunted. It’s the red neck shooter types that behave like the mob in the Simpsons demanding that sharks be hunted down after an attack.

    • acotrel says:

      10:08am | 01/08/12

      @Warren
      I believe it is a survival instinct which dictates a need to be a hunter-gatherer, and kill animals.  Feral animals cannot be controlled by shooting, but killing them and experiencing that power seems to fulfil a primal urge in many people.

    • pa_kelvin says:

      10:32am | 01/08/12

      Up north in the Tropics they have signs warning off crocodiles,why cant the same system be applied to known shark attack areas???

    • babylon in Canberra says:

      11:12am | 01/08/12

      Retribution on an animal for feeding itself within it’s habitant does not sound like the right thing to do.

      I still think the numbers are ridiculously low as a cause of death for humans.

      I bet more people drown in the sea. How about banning humans from the water?

    • Arthur says:

      11:51am | 01/08/12

      Decimate the sharks food supply and then protect sharks?

      I wish more of us had brains. We’d start to realize that human over population is at the core of every problem we have.

      We never address the correct problem and continue to vote for pro population morons.

      We’re doomed and our kids will hate us for what we’ve done to them.

    • Noms says:

      01:34pm | 01/08/12

      If you see a large shark up close from the safety of a boat (not a tinnie) you would never want to see them culled or fished,They glide by curiously and generally disappear, On approx half of the numerous occassions we have stopped between Freo and Rotto something cruises by up close Whites,Bronze Whalers and Bulls,there are alot of sharks there and alot of people jumping in for a swim,none of them carrying shotguns. calling for the killing of sharks is social media hysteria and typical kneejerk by people who dont venture onto water much and are probably scared of their own shadow

    • DOB says:

      01:52am | 02/08/12

      pa_kelvin, I believe the answer to your question is called “the Australian tourist industry” (cos , lets face it, we dont have much else that tourists want to see).

    • Mike says:

      09:29am | 02/08/12

      I remember reading about the British reaching India and Malaya back in the colonial days. They were flabbergasted that one civil person could not stroll around the jungle without being mauled by a tiger. How uncivilised, how barbaric, how very pathetic of the natives to just allow this to continue they thought. So they set fire to the jungles, stoned and concreted all the wild areas and then went out with guns and blew to crap all the tigers. And then the happy Britishers could get served tea and scones by their Indian servants and then stroll in the jungle, happy in the knowledge that they had finally brought civility to the backwater people of India and Malaya. Go Australia!

    • nihonin says:

      06:15am | 01/08/12

      Meh, we’re in their domain they have to eat, it goes with the territory, when and if sharks ever start running up onto the beach and chase humans, call me, then we can talk.

    • Justme says:

      06:38am | 01/08/12

      It’s their home. They eat there. If we go in there looking like food that’s hardly their fault is it?

      The surprising fact out of all this is that There are not more fatalities from sharks.

    • sunny says:

      10:44am | 01/08/12

      Sharks don’t see us as food - we’re too boney or “not fat enough” as the commentator in this vid sez.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLPNM_zanm0&feature=related

      In 3 out of 4 attacks the shark will spit the person out, so we probably taste terrible too.

    • Chris L says:

      11:48am | 01/08/12

      It’s all the preservatives.

    • sunny says:

      12:23pm | 01/08/12

      and all the coffee smile

    • M says:

      06:44am | 01/08/12

      If you frollick with lions one day you’ll get eaten.

    • Colin says:

      08:42am | 01/08/12

      Does that include Snoop (formerly “Dogg”) Lion..?

    • M says:

      09:09am | 01/08/12

      Depends, are you a butsa or a G?

    • subotic P. Tosh says:

      09:34am | 01/08/12

      I and I Colin, mon, be leavin Rasta Jah’s latest convert alone there.

      Snoop Lion, Jah be praised, mon.

      Welcome I and I to the Lion Zion negative ion tribe of Judah!

    • acotrel says:

      07:30am | 01/08/12

      People also want to swim in the waters in Northern Australia.  Perhaps we should also kill all the salt water crocodiles? You know the risk, you make a choice !

    • Gregg says:

      08:23am | 01/08/12

      A wonderful observation that Acca when it should be only very stupid people without local knowledge will go swimming in northern Australia and not just because of Crocs.
      There’s also stinger season from about October through to May north of the Tropic of Capricorn, roughly anywhere north of Rockhampton or Geraldton.
      You’ll find sensible locals are very aware.

    • acotrel says:

      10:02am | 01/08/12

      @Gregg
      It really pisses me off when do-gooders try to wrap everyone in cotton wool.  Risk taking is part of life, and choices have consequences.  The Great White shark has a right to exist, and if it didn’t our world would be a poorer place. I’d love to go to sea in a boat and have a look at one in it’s natural habitat.  I would try very hard to ensure that I didn’t end up in the water with them.  Killing off those sharks is like driving a new road through south west Tasmania.  I love to know that the wilderness is still there, and that if I make an effort I can walk though it, in the way God intended. I don’t want to live in a world covered in concrete, and trowelled off, perfectly safe - where all we do is play computer games, and get our kicks by killing each other at the pub. I can understand people being afraid, but they shouldn’t let their fear rule their lives.  I am concerned that we are even having this discussion.  It demonstrates confusion about what we value as a society.

    • M says:

      10:23am | 01/08/12

      That sounds too much like common sense acotrel.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      11:35am | 01/08/12

      Lived in the Top End for a very long time - family swam with the threat of crocodiles, jellyfish sharks without any real worries while in Arnhem Land, but much more carefully while in Darwin where publicity made us more aware.
      Then there is the propinquity - leave sharks alone, it’s their environment so long the eaten are not my family - kill all sharks if the shark’s menu includes one of my family.
      Same argument applies to gun control - Port Arthur did not effect me or mine why should I surrender my gun. I can behave properly ...

    • mattkas says:

      08:39pm | 01/08/12

      Acotrel, a few years ago I drove from Normanton in North Queensland, 70km, to Karumba on the Gulf of Carpentaria coast. It was a very hot day and I was looking forward to a nice swim at the small sandy beach there. On arrival there was a prominent sign on the sand which read:
                  DANGER, DO NOT ENTER THE WATER,
                  SALTWATER CROCODILES ARE PRESENT
                                IN THIS AREA
      There wasn’t anyone swimming at the beach. Did I go for a dip? No way; I went back to Normanton for the internal cooling provided by a cold beer. At the end of the local beach where I live, there is a narrow river mouth. There is a sign there warning the public:
                  A SEVERE RIP IS PRESENT IN THIS AREA.
                      PEOPLE HAVE DROWNED HERE.
                    SWIMMING IN THIS AREA IS NOT ADVISED.
      In all the years I have lived here I have never seen anyone swimming at the river mouth. This is how this issue should be dealt with. At all the coastal areas where shark attacks have occurred similar warning signs to the public should be displayed, and then, properly informed people can decide for themselves if they wish to take the risk of entering the shark’s natural habitat, where it always was and always will be, entitled to exist and hunt.

    • andre says:

      07:35am | 01/08/12

      Gillard government could impose a new tax : the GWST Great White Shark Tax that would protect those creatures as much as Carbon Tax protec the whole planet.

    • Babylon in Canberra says:

      11:15am | 01/08/12

      excellent smile

      I think the GWST would be far more effective.

      Unless of course the money is HSU’d

    • Colin says:

      08:12am | 01/08/12

      Mmmmmm…flake!

    • Fiddler says:

      08:23am | 01/08/12

      I say we take off and nuke them from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure

    • subotic says:

      08:24am | 01/08/12

      Damn….

      I thought “the Great White debate” was going to cater to my inner-artefact Aryan sensibilities.

      *puts boots and braces back into closet*

    • Babylon in Canberra says:

      11:20am | 01/08/12

      the Aryan brother is the Indian from the Indus Valley region.

      It isn’t the celts here in Australia from western europe.

      Life is full of ironies.

    • Gregg says:

      08:35am | 01/08/12

      ” If we’re looking at whether shark numbers are up, what is the baseline given they don’t respect state - or even international - borders?

      And how do we know that any supposed increase in numbers is due to a population boom of these coast-hugging animals, and not - to hazard some reasons - because they are aggregating on warmer sea currents or some El Nino-induced factor, or changes in available fish stocks? “

      All too true Maria, just as it is with many subjects to do with nature where man is attempting to make decisions on the unknown through relatively scant historical data, theories and computer modelling.

      We live with danger every day of our lives, some we can minimise through being sensible, some that is so minimal that most people do disregard it and a lot we can have minimal control over.
      I think if I was a surfer, I’d be doing quite a bit of research into latest state of the art personal shark repellant devices.

    • acotrel says:

      10:17am | 01/08/12

      Many of us are not risk conscious, and cannot rationalise danger. It was only in 1992 that the first Australian Standard on Risk Management was published, and it was a global first.  Before that we had the incident then wrote the rule to prevent it happening again.  These days we are moving towards performance based legislation, rather than prescriptive.
      If you look at the ‘hierarchy of controls’ used in risk management, I believe that shark repellant falls into the ‘personal protective equipment’ category.  It would be the lowest level of control.

    • pa_kelvin says:

      10:44am | 01/08/12

      @acotrel…So your’e saying eliminate the risk, remove the risk and alls good.

    • Null and Void says:

      08:38am | 01/08/12

      That’s not a picture of a Great White. Wrong teeth, colour and snout shape. It’s probably a lemon or nurse shark that doesn’t have a high record of attaching people. So for a piece about shark attacks it’s a bit of a poor picture. Sharks are amazing and clean up the death and destruction we leave in the ocean. If we kill them all (which we do at a rate of about one billion a year anyway according to estimates and Dicovery Channel) our oceans will be a toxic pit of disease and waste. I think if you’re going to dress like a seal in a sharks home you should expect to get chomped.

    • Sea Dog says:

      03:29pm | 01/08/12

      It’s a GWS with Nurse teeth photoshoped in.  Piss poor given the amount of GWS photos out there and the topic of the piece.

    • David says:

      08:47am | 01/08/12

      Let the numb nuts that put themselves at risk keep doing so . Their grizzly demise with all its gory details make great press .
      Leave the sharks alone but cull the idiots who tempt them .

    • David says:

      08:47am | 01/08/12

      Let the numb nuts that put themselves at risk keep doing so . Their grizzly demise with all its gory details make great press .
      Leave the sharks alone but cull the idiots who tempt them .

    • David says:

      08:47am | 01/08/12

      Let the numb nuts that put themselves at risk keep doing so . Their grizzly demise with all its gory details make great press .
      Leave the sharks alone but cull the idiots who tempt them .

    • David says:

      08:47am | 01/08/12

      Let the numb nuts that put themselves at risk keep doing so . Their grizzly demise with all its gory details make great press .
      Leave the sharks alone but cull the idiots who tempt them .

    • Colin says:

      12:05pm | 01/08/12

      @David says: 08:47am | 01/08/12

      i didn’t quite get your point there, David; could you post it again..?

    • Elphaba says:

      09:08am | 01/08/12

      There’s no need to cull sharks.  I grew up on the beach and not a single surfer complained that sharks need to be culled so that they can enjoy surfing.  Anyone entering the water needs to be aware of the risks.  If you’re not surfing, then swim between the flags, at a patrolled beach.  If you don’t want to do this, then the responsibility starts and ends with you.

      Also, you couldn’t get a pic of a Great White?  How about some video of them jumping after seals?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-t2ayKadD0

    • pa_kelvin says:

      11:01am | 01/08/12

      @Elphaba…..Think Jaws that was a patroled bea….sorry thats only a movie. Any-way do what I do and stay out of the water,and they stay out of the Pubs. smile

    • sunny says:

      09:56am | 01/08/12

      “changes in available fish stocks?” this is the likely cause with sharks coming in closer to the coast because of forced changes in their feeding patterns.

    • Borderer says:

      10:30am | 01/08/12

      Sunny,
      You do know that most sharks usually feed near the coast? In fact sharks will eat pretty much anything they can get their razor sharp teeth into. One of the reasons for increased shark populations near people has been the clean up of waterways, eg Sydney harbour.

    • sunny says:

      11:08am | 01/08/12

      Borderer - yeah you’re right they’ll eat anything they can get, but they prefer their usual food. Most of the attacks on humans (probably mistaking us for seals) they spit the victim right back out again. What I meant was “shore” not “coast”. You wouldn’t expect big sharks to be so close to shore in shallow waters - maybe occasionally but not regularly - unless there was something up with their normal food supply.

    • che says:

      10:36am | 01/08/12

      Every surfer I have ever known has accepted the risks, and some even say that if they are going to go, it would be doing what they love the most. the majority of people who spend a lot of time in the water are aware of sharks, and anyone who is bothered just stays in the shallows. It’s not that hard.

    • Arthur says:

      10:43am | 01/08/12

      Decimate the sharks food supply and then protect sharks?

      I wish more of us had brains. We’d start to realize that human over population is at the core of every problem we have.

      We never address the correct problem and continue to vote for pro population morons.

      We’re doomed and our kids will hate us for what we’ve done to them.

    • buellxb12Ss says:

      11:57am | 01/08/12

      What rubbish the food supply of these big sharks is increasing has been for a long time whales are protected seals are protected the wall of death nets were removed years ago the bag limits of rec anglers has been cut right back all this adds up to more food for the top end predator . Theres more fish out there now than any other time in the last 20 years . I am basing my comments on personal exp what do you base yours on ?

    • Arthur says:

      12:32pm | 01/08/12

      Yeah. Personal experience also. Just with a bit more education in the field behind me I’m guessing.

      Whales? They eat fish?

      Ever thought there’s been a time lag where the sharks grew during the token increase in fish stocks? And now the big sharks don’t have as much to eat as when there was an ocean full of fish? Experience? You’re a rock fisherman?

      20 years in ecological terms is a blip. Mark my words we are headed for a world of pain because of ignorance such as your post, and politicians that are puppets to big business increasing human population. At the end of the curve (where we are now) is where 20 years will matter.

      You thinking decimating most fisheries close to collapse and then deciding to act is all cool. They are no where near recovered. Most angler fish are from stocking.

    • Cynicised says:

      10:51am | 01/08/12

      The WA authorities probably have to be seen to be doing something, otherwise they will be accused of complacency re the death toll on their beaches. Whether the population study leads to culling is unknown.

      I have heard that some fingers are being pointed at both fishermen who burley excessively and tourist boat proprietors who burley to attract sharks closer as a spectacle. Whether these activities have any real effect would be an interesting
      exercise also.

      Ultimately though,  as the author says, shark attacks happen in WA, as they do in South Africa near some of the better surf breaks because they are simply in the GW’s home range, often near seal colonies. This fact has been known as long as we’ve been keeping records of them.  I guess isolating the factors increasing the frequency of incidents is ultimately a good move if it leads to people being more aware.. Blaming a predator for predatory behaviour in an uncontrolled environment though is just dumb. No, it’s mental.

    • Pete says:

      11:13am | 01/08/12

      Be curious to know the percentage breakdown of attacks which are on surfers vs swimmers.  My understanding is that surfers are the vast majority because they are out further, they look like seals and they stay out a lot longer.  Is it the case that the number of attacks on actual swimmers is almost negligible?

    • Daylight robbery says:

      11:20am | 01/08/12

      “There are more of us in the water than ever before. Are there more of them? And is that why WA has suffered through an horrific 10 months, with five fatal attacks?”

      The accellerated fatalities have occurred in the past 10 years.  If anything we have less people in the water swimming now in these areas for a few reasons.

      As someone said, in the 50’s they had no televisions, airconditioners, swimming pools, Cottesloe was alive; the place centralsied aorund the attacks.

      WA now has an abundance of whales more than ever swimming the coastline on 500 metres off the beach where the tagged Great White scanners are located along the metro area. 

      There is a seal colony at Rottnest West End that was never there prior to the 80’s. There is plagues of smaller sharks growing in numbers.

      Australia has an issue as it is a last bastion of food abundance; all the global hungry refugee pelagic species will be converging the place where fisheries management has been strict not plundered by our surrounding countries.  Those surrounding countries must fix that problem or Australia will end up with all the sharks here.

      The WA fisheries have done tagging research which they wont release to the public.

      There was a commercial fisherman on the radio that said 20 White Pointers were taken for each finfish boat on the South West coast and the jaws sold.  That culling of Great White shark stopped about 20 years ago with the introduction of full protection of Great White sharks.

      There was the woman diver that went missing off the heads in Victoria only weeks back but all went quiet.

      We are only seeing the beginning of a rebound.

      Will killing a few do anything - no

    • Cynicised says:

      12:11pm | 01/08/12

      Interesting observations. So, in effect, protecting our fisheries from over exploitation, ceasing whale and seal hunting in our waters and generally having regard to the conservation of marine species in our backyard (,unlike some of our neighbours)  has encouraged the populations of their predators to increase. It seems oddly and terrifyingly logical, unfortunately. How do we address it though, without contributing to the further global depletion of fish stocks and removing protection from the mammals the sharks hunt which we decimated in the first place? Sigh.

    • Daylight Robbery says:

      10:45pm | 01/08/12

      @Cynicised We do have the problem that the predators that have survived millions of years will congregate where food is putting pressure on those remaining finfish stocks.

      United Nations need to put more pressure on total allowable catches on species outside Australia. We can have all the prtection int he world but once the fish swim outside Australian waters theyre stuffed.

      The White pointers have a lot of food in Australia. They generally follow the whale migrations. The gorging on whale triggers the breeding process.

      Loads of food and 20 years protection; there can
      only be more to come

    • Pandabater says:

      11:31am | 01/08/12

      I was watching one of those lifesaver shows & they showed an aerial view of the beach & there were at least 5,000 people in the water. And it hit me. The sharks don’t want to eat us. If they did it would be a massacre & nobody would be going anywhere near the water. Ever. Sharks don’t have hands & fingers so they bite to investigate.

    • buellxb12Ss says:

      11:36am | 01/08/12

      I do not understand this special status that seems to be attached to the gws .A dog bites some one put it down a croc stalks people catch it and move it to croc farm (were it gets made into a hand bag) a maggie is swooping the kiddies on there way to school blast it a gws kills someone ah thats ok its there domain. Is the local dog beach the dogs domain there for they can bite who they like ? I do not know the answer to the shark problem we have here on the south west coast at the moment i like many others are just hoping its just a spike and will go back to normal next summer . I do know its getting harder and harder to find a dive buddy . I will add one more thing i have seem more sharks in the last 2 years than i would have seen in the last 20 put together just an observation

    • Kev says:

      11:51am | 01/08/12

      I’ve never understood the response of hunting down and destroying a shark that has attacked someone. I’m not a greenie by any stretch but in truth It’s not like other sharks are going to see this as a warning and quake in fear the next time they attack a surfer who they thought was a seal. I say put signs around beaches and areas where sharks are known to frequent and if people still want to swim or surf then they do so knowing the risks.

    • Colin says:

      12:16pm | 01/08/12

      @Kev says: 11:51am | 01/08/12
      “I’ve never understood the response of hunting down and destroying a shark that has attacked someone…”

      Get back to me on that stance if ever a loved one gets eaten, OK?

    • Pixie says:

      02:33pm | 01/08/12

      Actually, Colin, remember back when Steve Irwin dies and lots of idiots went around killing stingrays in ‘retribution’.  It was only when his wife came forward and said that this wasn’t what Steve would want that the lunacy stopped.

      You go into water where sharks are known to live… you take that risk, you accept it.  Why blame the shark?

    • Colin says:

      03:00pm | 01/08/12

      @Pixie

      Actually, I do concur; but I still maintain that if a person’s nearest-and-dearest was bitten in twain by a Big White, it would be supremely difficult not to have such feelings… whether you acted upon them or not.

      So I maintain my point; I believe that Kev’s opinion may well change if the situation was closer to home.

    • Pixie says:

      03:26pm | 01/08/12

      The essence of human nature I guess: always looking to blame someone or something else when life takes a wrong turn…..

    • Bruno says:

      12:42pm | 01/08/12

      sharks are a dumb animal, how many humans must they bite before they realise we’re not seals, why dont they tell each other “oi dont waste your energy they’re not seals and they taste bad”. if you believe that its their territory and we are messing with their resources then by logic you must have the same opinion of the middle east. I am always fascinated by people who have more concern for the welfare of cold blooded killers (have you every looked into a great white’s eyes? notice the absence of any compassion to any other living creature) than they do for fellow human beings in any part of the world. Put those sharks in zoos. Study them for cures for diseases but thats it. Perhaps we can find a way to use them in battle. Other than that they are a useless animal who simply wants to kill. They are the rednecks and terrorists of the ocean.

    • Coal Train says:

      01:46pm | 01/08/12

      I think you’ll find that sharks are actually quiet intelligent for a fish. What you’re forgetting is, fish don’t have the mental capacity of mammals, they are smart for what they are but they lack ‘trial by error’ instincts.

      Being an apex predator sharks actually control their ecosystem, they keep everything in the ocean in check, the impact it would have on a planetary scale if we were to remove sharks from the equation would actually be catastrophic for the ocean’s and then as a result impact on the creatures that walk the land.

      I find your logic of giving a human stereotype and trying to push human emotions onto a fish hilarious and stupid. How can a shark be a redneck or terrorist when it has no prejudice, when the concept of racism doesn’t even exist to them, they don’t even have any logic or advanced reasoning skills.

      By your logic it should only be Humans, primates and herbivores that inhabit this earth, purely because all the carnivores are useless animals hell bent on killing everything and anything they come across. If that where the case humans would not have made it this far, we would have been eaten by something a very, very long time ago.

    • T says:

      02:16pm | 01/08/12

      Completely batshit.

    • snooch says:

      01:16pm | 02/08/12

      Congratulations on the stupidest post in the history of the internet. Take a bow sir.

    • Bite me.. says:

      03:34pm | 01/08/12

      Like clowns im also scared of sharks…especially those like the great white which have big teeth….but that never stopped me snorkeling on the barrier reef.
      I say its up to the swimmer…surley you must realise that when you enter the ocean there are thingies out there that can eat you….its your choice.

    • thatmosis says:

      05:16pm | 01/08/12

      The shark shown has the teeth of a Grey Nurse Shark, not a known man eater and usually quite docile whereas the Great White has triangular teeth with serrated edges. I have dived for over 45 years and have been up close and personal with many sharks even the Great White who once pushed me aside to get the fish I had just speared.
        There was a concerted effort in the 60’s and 70’s to wipe out all sharks but thankfully this has been stopped.
        The number on rule to remember is its their home and you are usually the uninvited guest, second rule is always dive with a buddy as there is a fifty fifty chance the shark will take him.
        When you look back over the history of shark attacks in Australian waters its quite minuscule if we take into account the number of people who go diving, boarding or swimming.
        One thing that does concern me is these clowns who chum the water for sharks and then put people in cages so they can capture these monsters on film, now sharks are not as dumb as people make out but they are efficient killing machines and these capers probably reinforce in their minds that people mean blood and blood means food. Food for thought maybe.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

ACL says gay marriage would lead to gay sex (how to do it) being taught in schools. You really haver to credit them with vivid imagination.

ToryShepherd

Welcome to your wombiverse. On orgasmic births and being so happy you could cry http://t.co/7JrbQSCV6j

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @GordyPls: So much is wrong with this article but the last setence is absolutely astonishing http://t.co/IpoXoCiN8Y

ToryShepherd

@Paul_Murton @swannydpm @ToryShepherd I had to move fast

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter