normanville shark fishing fury

[Ranger 48]

Now I have some concerns of my own!This sharking issue has already hit the media, who love to climb aboard with sensational stories and headlines.My concerns are for the interests of this website, it's views, and how it is portrayed.

To: Sarfac@bigpond.com...............As the President of SA Red Taggers which is an ANSA-SA Affiliated club' date=' I am asking for SARFACs urgent support on this matter. Any cases of illegal burleying have been by unknown fisherman and we are totally against this irresponsible behaviour, but the majority of shark anglers on the forum Strike n Hook fish using only legal burleying techniques...............Brett OakleyPresidentSA Red Tagger (SART)ANSA-SA

Should any of you wish to write in support of the shark fishos or your acquaintances, that is well and good, and good luck to you all if they would like you to represent them or speak on their behalf.My concerns are that Brett, you write as President of Red Taggers, and as a representative of the Strike N Hook website! You intentions may have been good, but your method leaves a lot to be desired.Have you first contacted the Red Taggers members to ensure you are voicing their opinions rather than your own?More importantly, and directly relating to my post to you, have you asked permission to represent the Strike N Hook website and it's members in official communications and documents?Should you or anyone here wish to make further formal submissions to any group, committee, media outlet or beaurocratic body, you do NOT have permission to use the Strikehook name, or act/speak as it's representative without first gaining approval from the person who owns and operates the site..................that goes for everyone! I have been in discussions with Aarron, and there is no room for uncertainty or confusion here. The views and the stance of this website will be aired ONLY by him, as any repercussions or publicity pertaining to the use of that name will be borne by him!The Strikehook website forms a part of his business interests, and no-one has the right to interfere or claim to represent that business or it's views! That must be perfectly clear!Should site members wish to inform anyone in your discussions or communications that you are a "member" of the Strike N Hook website, or that the issue has been openly discussed on the Strike N Hook fishing forums, you are well within your rights and welcome.I am especially concerned that Brett, you clearly state in your document that the "MAJORITY" of shark anglers on the forum Strike n Hook use legal burleying techniques. This poor wording alludes to the fact that we also have a "minority" of shark fishermen here who do not............directly in contradiction to our site policies!I would now request that you make further contact, to clarify the issue, informing SARFAC and any other body you may have made contact with, that you do NOT represent this website or it's views.Strikehook is a platform where anglers/members may air their views and discuss issues pertinent to anglers. We are all members, NOT representatives of the site, and as members we all have differing views on topics.

[brenton 637]

This incident,the frenzied media beatup and the "Marine Parks"debate have a lot in more common in the Normanville/Carrickalinga area than most people would realise particularly since a couple of the major figures in the township are responsible for the draft MP plans.I hope it all works out for the sharkers but in small country towns, a loud voice and a bit of political savvy can go a long wayto achieving ones personal goals. cheers brenton

[urhookedfish 12]

Hi Ranger, Yes the use of the word Majority was a poor choice and I shouldnt have mentioned users of this forum in my request.I have now sent Gary and email as requested and sincerley apologise if you feel Aarons livelihood or the site may have been jeopordised.Hi Gary, Thanks for your rapid response!I am glad that the executive members have been informed.I just want to also point out that I do NOT represent Strike n Hook fishing forum (the website) or it views in any way.I am simply a concerned participating forum member only.Please also be advised that I did not consult with the members of SA Red Taggers (SART), before requesting your support and this is a request directly from myself only, as I felt this matter needed urgent attention.Many thanks.Brett OakleyPresidentSA Red Taggers (SART)ANSA-SA

[Jimmy. 173]

I guess if this is the way the locals feels shark fisho's will move else where and take their money with them too.That corner store may end up being closed more as people fish there less. To further a previous statement i went through my bank records... I spent 10k on fishing trips the last 2 years between pt wakefield, yorks and eyre. That wont be happening anymore if I cannot go for sharks off the local jetties. I will be buying a boat and fuel in adelaide and heading 300m's off shore and fishing there instead.

[Ranger 48]

I have now sent Gary and email as requested and sincerley apologise if you feel Aarons livelihood or the site may have been jeopordised.

Many thanks for your rapid response.

[Barbz 0]

just had a read of that article.. people bleeding out gummy sharks for burly..for some reason i dont believe that.. and yet they still think that a bait 300 meters for the shore is still going to attract a shark from kilometers out, but it doesnt click to them that the sharks are in close this time of the year.. why do they think we dont target them in the winter ?

[kon 300]

sbarnden

But how much does it cost, inconvenience and piss people off to reduce a nearly non-existent risk to a nearly non-existent risk?

Indeed, hit the nail on the head there. The sad thing is that politics and emotional preconceptions would dismiss such pragmatism. The dreaded "being seen to be doing something" - about a potential and certainly a rather theoretical issue, given the actual history of the matter to date.Now, to convince the pollies, and the councils, and the locals, and the surf clubs, and the general populace of such a rational approach...Not holding out much hope on that one - Jaws has a lot to answer for!!There is a rather topical analogy here - approximately 8(?) people per 100,000 in SA die every year in a public road accident. But...banning cars is not an option, so we (as a society) live with the risk, the more clever ones minimising that risk as much as is practically possible.However, there is political point-scoring to be made, so even though the rate per 100,000 is significantly lower than it was 5-10 years ago- "we" have declared an aspirational 30% road toll reduction to be effected in the next decade - in absolute terms!- during which time our population will probably grow by a good 10-20%- with more cars on the road of course- and the people who speed and drink will keep doing it anyway- which makes a mockery of Step1, which is- let`s reduce the speed limit on a few roads by 10kmh- which will really stop those 180kmh dudes like in the YP prang recently... :whistle: But intuitively 100 is safer than 110 - the actual reduction in risk may not necessarily be quantifiable but, hell, I feel so much safer already!Never mind that approximately a 1 in 10,000 chance (which I have to choose to accept and to live with now if I want to keep driving) still remains an approximately 1 in 10,000 chance... :dry: Same principle as applicable to what we are discussing on this thread. Hey, wait a tick, if we were serious about actually saving lives, then patently on the basis of the well known

On the other hand there have been several fatal incidents and injuries on surf beaches nowhere near jetties.

should we not ban surfing in certain parts of the state?You know, like "If it saves one life it is worth it"...the argument which can justify banning just about anything. Like, you know, like, just in case. Which is where this potentially seems headed.

[Guest]

Whether you go shark fishing or not i think we all have to band together in support of the shark anglers because this whole affair is part of the much bigger picture of losing our rights to go fishing.Whether it be because of marine parks, selfish noisy minority groups, desal plants or whatever we are losing our rights for no good reason.

[Just Me 0]

sbarnden

But how much does it cost' date=' inconvenience and piss people off to reduce a nearly non-existent risk to a nearly non-existent risk?[/quote']Indeed, hit the nail on the head there. The sad thing is that politics and emotional preconceptions would dismiss such pragmatism. The dreaded "being seen to be doing something" - about a potential and certainly a rather theoretical issue, given the actual history of the matter to date.Now, to convince the pollies, and the councils, and the locals, and the surf clubs, and the general populace of such a rational approach...Not holding out much hope on that one - Jaws has a lot to answer for!!There is a rather topical analogy here - approximately 8(?) people per 100,000 in SA die every year in a public road accident. But...banning cars is not an option, so we (as a society) live with the risk, the more clever ones minimising that risk as much as is practically possible.However, there is political point-scoring to be made, so even though the rate per 100,000 is significantly lower than it was 5-10 years ago- "we" have declared an aspirational 30% road toll reduction to be effected in the next decade - in absolute terms!- during which time our population will probably grow by a good 10-20%- with more cars on the road of course- and the people who speed and drink will keep doing it anyway- which makes a mockery of Step1, which is- let`s reduce the speed limit on a few roads by 10kmh- which will really stop those 180kmh dudes like in the YP prang recently... :whistle: But intuitively 100 is safer than 110 - the actual reduction in risk may not necessarily be quantifiable but, hell, I feel so much safer already!Never mind that approximately a 1 in 10,000 chance (which I have to choose to accept and to live with now if I want to keep driving) still remains an approximately 1 in 10,000 chance... :dry: Same principle as applicable to what we are discussing on this thread. Hey, wait a tick, if we were serious about actually saving lives, then patently on the basis of the well known

On the other hand there have been several fatal incidents and injuries on surf beaches nowhere near jetties.

should we not ban surfing in certain parts of the state?You know, like "If it saves one life it is worth it"...the argument which can justify banning just about anything. Like, you know, like, just in case. Which is where this potentially seems headed.

Spot on Kon. Remember the planking hysteria? I mean, crikey they were thinking of bringing in laws to essentially stop people from laying down lol.The media got a hold of that non story and ran with it for a solid month...We are indeed "SA The Nanny State".

[Guest]

We are indeed the nanny state.Politicians and public servants create more and more laws to justify their own existance and to provide job security.The more laws we have the more jobs for public servants in administering them.

[ekul 0]

thanks from me urhookedfish for sending the email in.Thanks for all the other guys that are sticking up for the shark fishing.Sorry the way i may have came accross in my other posts but i feel strongly about what i wrote and yes i would say it to someones face ale.I feel theres a few people here that are being a bit negative to the sharkos, we should be sticking together to help save the right for us to shark if not fish!Now they make it sound like people are burleying to catch rays and target them wow.I best not post anymore, just hope good comes out of it.

[GDK 0]

Amazing! 11 pages and going... :ohmy: although everyone is and has put up good arguments over the pros and cons of shark fishing on metro jetties and the beurocrats will in the end - have their way one way or the other,I'm going to dumb it down a bit and although some might not agree - and thats your choice - give you one mans opinion...1. The old fella that took it upon himself to use his age and "local-ness" to abuse the shark fisherman for fishing on "his jetty"???? :dry: - broke the law.......If you are angry about life for whatever reason - see a therapist! dont take it out on others....If you approach anyone - abuse them - touch their personal property - and threaten?? That is breaking the law.... can just imagine what would have happened if the tables were turned and the sharko did that to the old man! Anyway - the story goes the "local" police knew the old man and so decided to "believe" and take his side and overlook what happened? why? Because he is old???? frail??? a respected member of the community??? (again my opinion sounds like the police need to go back to police school and re-learn the rules)....2. Bronze whaler shark - diet - fish, squid, offal... White pointer shark - diet - seals, dolphins, fish, other sharks, whales, offal...Fact: In the fiji islands shark fisherman use "rattles" to lure sharks (a stick with coconut shells cut in half and piled on top of eachother) then sort of "shuck shucked" in the water and it brings them to the boat - sounds like a fish thrashing or a (SWIMMER splashing) sends them crazy....The point here is that the sharks will first be lured to the commotion in the water by the swimmers - they will "feel" the vibrations and come in for a look....(that is what a shark does).....BUT

[Ranger 48]

I best not post anymore' date=' just hope good comes out of it.[/quote']Luke, please dont be put off from posting. This is a place where everyone has the chance to air their views. We just have to ensure that in the process it's also a place where everyone can have their say free from personal attack or abuse, and that can be tough when tempers start to flare.You have just as much right as everyone else to state your views, but we all must remember, this "general fishing" forum is also on public view, where anyone with a pc can also access, and I'm sure there's a lot more viewing this than just strikehook members.

[chuckemback 0]

GDK mate ...you are spot on!!!!I totaly agree what you have written and thats how i see it as well. THANKS!

[statesquider 0]

If anyone who had caught wind of the recent issues regarding Normanville and shark fishing wanted to look it up in google to find out more would come across this topic on strike hook...Type in "normanville shark fishing"Anyone with any interest in finding out more on the story (journo's for one) is led directly here and will use whatever information they want from what is said and twist it they way they wish. Reading through these 11 pages gives a very distinct mindset of the sharkers on this forum.

[urhookedfish 12]

If anyone who had caught wind of the recent issues regarding Normanville and shark fishing wanted to look it up in google to find out more would come across this topic on strike hook...Type in "normanville shark fishing"Anyone with any interest in finding out more on the story (journo's for one) is led directly here and will use whatever information they want from what is said and twist it they way they wish. Reading through these 11 pages gives a very distinct mindset of the sharkers on this forum.

Very true indeed Satatesquider.Then hopefully by now they public is getting the message that the whole notion of kids getting eaten by sharks because of shark fishers is nonsense, and that the Sharkfisherman just want to be left alone to spend there time fishing for what they love! :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[afishyfish 4]

.Type in "normanville shark fishing"Anyone with any interest in finding out more on the story (journo's for one) is led directly here and will use whatever information they want from what is said and twist it they way they wish.

Unfortunateley you are correct SS.Lets face it, Integrity is often thrown out the window when it comes to selling newspapers, and its prety easy to see how a reporters senior could pressure them into making it sound any way they want, after all it's supposedly in "everyones" "best" interest, and no-one takes the time ( or wants to ) see the wood for the trees :SWith a poulation growing larger and larger, the world seems to be ebcoming smaller and smaller, bring anything that was once deemed as acceptable as maybe being not quite as it once was.Its a sign of the times I think, and if thge shark fishos want to be free to pursue their sport ( which I think theye should have very right to do so, they need to be aware of this and act accordingly.Maybe its just a case of the old "give and Take " on both sides, while taking the above into account too

[luke_southoz 0]

Emu these are in your own words "It appears that where there are fish the sharks follow. In this area, November December are the months when there is increased shark activity due to seal calving and the movement of snapper and whiting up the gulf." I thought it was our burleying that was bringing them in?And is it your kids you are worried about or yourself? "I have been trying to sell my yak as I have become worried about sharks in my local area. I am wondering where to draw the line." http://www.akff.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=50987

[Ranger 48]

I have now re-opened the topic' date=' however please ensure all replies are kept within the sites guidelines.Any member who feels the need to attack another member or bypass the swear filter will earn themselves an instant 24hr holiday from the site.[/color']

[samboman 319]

Emu these are in your own words "It appears that where there are fish the sharks follow. In this area' date=' November December are the months when there is increased shark activity due to seal calving and the movement of snapper and whiting up the gulf." I thought it was our burleying that was bringing them in?And is it your kids you are worried about or yourself? "I have been trying to sell my yak as I have become worried about sharks in my local area. I am wondering where to draw the line." http://www.akff.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=50987[/quote']And there was this one aswell, i don't sharks are his problem....After a year of trying I have decided kayak fishing is not for me. In a year I have caught 2 squid, 1 cuttlefish, 3 leather jackets and a wrasse. I have found out that in SA you need to live in the northern suburbs lust after Hobies and fish in West Lakes or the Port River. I live in Southern country, need a surf capable yak and want to eat what I catch. There are great whites active in the areas which are close to me and fishing alone is too scary. As a pensioner I am not able to afford to travel very far. I have enjoyed contributing to the forum, but the time has come to say goodbye. My Yak A red Mission Catch 390 is up for sale, well set up and in perfect condition with fish finder, folding anchor and three rod holders. Skegs are fitted for improved tracking. Sambo

[Guest emufingers]

Emu these are in your own words "It appears that where there are fish the sharks follow. In this area' date=' November December are the months when there is increased shark activity due to seal calving and the movement of snapper and whiting up the gulf." I thought it was our burleying that was bringing them in?And is it your kids you are worried about or yourself? "I have been trying to sell my yak as I have become worried about sharks in my local area. I am wondering where to draw the line." http://www.akff.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=50987[/quote']Luke, I am both concerned about the sense of kayak fishing in this area and the safety of my grandchildren. My kayaking included Second Valley, Lady Bay and Carrickalinga up to 500 metres off shore. I have decided that I cannot manage the risk sufficiently and have decided to stop yak fishing. I have pointed out the patterns of shark behaviour that are relevant to the environments here I used to kayak fish and how they influenced my decision not to continue this hobby in this area. In the case of the Normanville Jetty my interest is in ensuring that the risk management in place by lifesavers is not countered by practices that increase risks that take place in that vicinity. This includes shark fishing and heavy berleying including berleying with fish products. You may be interested in this statement by Queensland fisheries.The following information has been issued by the Department of Primary Industries in Queensland http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/28_3140.htm viewed 18/11/2011Shark fishing - safety first Correct handling techniques can help minimise risk to anglers, while ensuring the survival of the sharkShark fishing is a popular recreational activity in some parts of South East Queensland. However, anglers must remember that sharks are dangerous predators and that fishing for sharks is extremely risky.Anglers who target sharks must act responsibly to minimise the risk to themselves and safeguard the safety of local residents, swimmers and other users of the waterways.Safety advice for anglers• Consider others.Avoid fishing for sharks in areas used by swimmers and other waterway users, such as kayakers. • Do not berley.There is no need to berley for sharks - they can be caught quite effectively with the correct rig and baits. Unnecessary berleying attracts a larger number of sharks to an area, thus making it more dangerous for other waterway users. • Handle sharks correctly.Following the correct handling techniques for releasing sharks is important for personal safety and for the survival of the shark. There is nothing inconsistent in my position. Sharks are part of the natural environment around here and create a risk for those who use the water. I have decided after looking at the issue and listening to opinion of other yakkers that I will manage my own risk by not kayak fishing in this area because I cannot adequately manage the risk. The information I have gathered indicates that the safety strategy put in place be shark patrols and lifesaver watch-keeping adequately manages the risk for it to be safe for children to swim in patrolled areas, provided there are no other practices that locally increase the risk. The practise of shark fishing and berleying for sharks and rays so close to a patrolled area constitutes an increased risk which needs to be managed. I have indicated that the most practical way to manage the risk is to restrict shark fishing from the jetty to hours of darkness during summer months and to winter months. I think that the general community would agree that this is more practical than moving the surf life saving club to another location, especially when there is no alternative beachfront land available.I am happy that you have noted that I do not try to cover my identity by using multiple names on forums. You may also find that I have been active in discussing the information about the effectiveness of the Sharkshield on other forums and have summarised the research in that area. I have done extensive work on the habits of sharks and ways of managing the risk of interactions with humans and have in this forum presented my views without trying to put down or belittle the arguments and positions of others. I have pointed out inconsistencies in positions that are different to my own.I presented my position to a forum that contained shark fishers rather than going quietly to influence politicians because I thought it was important to understand the positions of others and that I do not condone impolite or aggressive behaviour by anyone on jetties or any where else.You have had your say and that is our privilege in a forum like this. I have had my say too. It will be up to the local council and state government to weigh up the discussion and to decide what if any action they take. They will take into account the evidence before them including what has been written on this forum. I am happy to accept their decision.

[afishyfish 4]

Interesting redaing there Luke and Sambo .

[afishyfish 4]

It would seem the Risk Figures of being attacked by a shark as opposed to being injured in a car aaccident, as worked out on the akkf ( www.akff.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=50987 ), would suggest an extremely minimal risk, as argued by so many others here, so I have to wonder where the REAL justification is for any ban :whistle:

[Guest emufingers]

It would seem the Risk Figures of being attacked by a shark as opposed to being injured in a cra worked out on the akkf ( www.akff.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=50987 ) would suggest an extremely minimal risk' date=' as argued by so many others here, so I have to wonder where the REAL justification is for any ban :whistle:[/quote'] Please cite the calculations properly and fully. The risk calculations you refer to are based on an estimate of the number of kayak fishing hours in a particular area. This is very different to swimming hours. Also the context of the figures is that there was an argument that there was a high probability of dying in a car crash. When determining if a risk needs to be managed it is necessary to take into account not only the probability of the risk but also the frequency of exposure and the severity of the consequences.The management strategy of shark patrols and lifesaving towers reduces the risk of attack. It is accepted by society that there is a risk. My argument is that it makes no sense to reduce the effectiveness of a management strategy that is in place and is deemed necessary by society, by using another practice that weakens the effectiveness of the first by increasing exposure risk. The cost of failure of the protection system is high. A fatality. The cost of protecting a patrolled area by moving shark fishing away is low. It does not prevent shark fishing, it manages the risk by separating a contributory risk factor in time and or space.The over reaction of shark fishers who cry that I am trying to get shark fishing banned altogether has no basis in fact. Unfortunately an over reaction can result in wider controls if society believes that the actions of at least some of a group are irresponsible and that stronger interventions are needed.My posts in other forums show that I have been doing my research and have presented a systematic argument and asked for feedback from others. If other people wish to Kayak fish in this area that is fine by me. They are generating and managing their own risk. After assessment I have chosen not to continue. The fact that I have been unsuccessful at yak fishing means that I have less reason to take a risk. It is a personal decision weighing up the riks and my own capabilties. I have also noted that many other yak fishermen have chosen to limit their risk by fishing in lower risk areas such as West lakes and the Port River, something which for financial reasons I cannot do.The case for intervention by the State comes when the risk to one group is being increased by the practices of another group. This is the case at Normanville Jetty and I have no doubt that the State will make its assessment.

[ekul 0]

@emuYou can sit around all day and do little calculations on what COULD happen, but at the end of the day just live life, dont base your life around a stat. Now i understand you worried about your grandkids/family/friends/civilians, but i mean come on, it is just 1 small stat in millions of things you could die to but the beautiful thing about sharks is that can be avoid by not swimming at all, but if you would like to. Dont swim at the prime times of dawn and dusk, dont go out far and if you do dont swim around like a injured seal and beware that they are around in the summer months.At the end of the day there is no recorded shark attacks off a metro beach, where shark fishing has always been around, and since the sharks have been on the planet. Why is it a problem now for you? You cant catch what isnt there. Now im not saying this is true, but how would you know and how would i but, take this into consideration, It could be a chance that a shark fisherman has saved someones life by intercepting a shark on its path to potentially attack someone, but intercepted a bait got pulled ashore and put back in the water and got out of the area asap or someone kept the potential man eater. I cant say that is true but it could be?Whats the difference between someone sitting 500m off shore going for sharks and someone sitting on the beach going for them? Might aswell just ban everything while your at it. Im also sure if it gets banned it will help assist in destorying local tackleshops. Its not like we can go off outer harbour and catch tuna and marlin. So might aswell set fire to the big game gear or send it interstate.Thanks.

[Ranger 48]

At the end of the day there is no recorded shark attacks off a metro beach' date=' where shark fishing has always been around, and since the sharks have been on the planet.[/quote']In South Australia there have been a total of 46 shark attacks, 20 of them fatal, with the last being at West Beach in 2004.http://adl.brs.gov.au/brsShop/data/12984_attacks_sharks.pdfAustralia wide and since records were first kept, there have been a total of 639 shark attacks, with 190 of them being fatal.

According to the ASAF, there have been 61 recorded humanfatalities due to shark attack in the last 50 years (as for Dec2004). Of these, 22 have occurred in Queensland, 16 in SouthAustralia, nine in New South Wales, 7 in Western Australia,4 in Tasmania, and 3 in Victoria (Table one). No fatal attackshave been recorded in the Northern Territory in that timeperiod.

Although Australia continues to have a bad reputationconcerning the threat of shark attacks to swimmers, thestatistics do not support these contentions. In the last 50 years,there have been only 61 human fatalities (an average of 1.22per year) in Australian waters from shark attack. Some yearsthere are none, other years there have been up to three in ayear, but the average remains around one per year. Yet eachyear hundred thousands of swimmer-days take place on ourbeaches, harbours and rivers and the number is increasing withboth increasing population and tourism.Prevention of shark attacksShark attacks remain a genuine but unlikely danger for humansentering the water. However, this does not mean that peopleshould disregard the likelihood of an attack by swimmingoutside the protection of the patrolled beaches, or whereprotected swimming areas are installed. It must be rememberedthat there is a much higher risk of drowning while swimmingthan from being killed in an encounter with a shark. As moreknowledge is acquired about the shark’s normal behaviour andthe circumstances surrounding attacks, it may be possible in thefuture to develop an effective repellent (some electric impulsedevices are currently on the market).The best prevention is to use common sense related to where aperson swims and what activities they undertake whilst in thewater. Awareness of what may invite or provoke an attack willassist in deciding where to go and what to do in the water. Thefollowing points highlight some of these considerations:• Do not swim, dive or surf where dangerous sharks areknown to congregate, such as canal developments inSouthern Queensland.• Always swim, dive or surf with other people prefereably atpatrolled beaches.• Do not swim while bleeding.• Do not swim in dirty or turbid water.• Avoid swimming well offshore, near deep channels, at rivermouths or along drop-offs to deeper water.• If schooling fish start to behave erratically or congregate inlarge numbers, leave the water.• Do not swim with pets and domestic animals.• Look carefully before jumping into the water from a boat orwharf.• If possible do not swim at dusk, dawn or at night whensome sharks may be more active.• Do not swim near people fishing or spearfishing.• If a shark is sighted in the area leave the water as quicklyand calmly as possible.• Do not wear jewellery or shiny objects as the reflectionscould be mistaken for those from fish scales.• Do not swim near fur seal colonies especially during thepupping season.

I've taken the liberty of highlighting a few points which I think are important relating to Normanville issue.....as the patrolled beach there happens to be right alongside the jetty.

[Just Me 0]

Yeah, i was thinking about that attack on Nick Peterson, that was only 400 meters off the shore at West Beach. I can't belive it was 7-8 years ago.

[GDK 0]

"Australia wide and since records were first kept, there have been a total of 639 shark attacks, with 190 of them being fatal". (Thanks Ranger - great post)Looking at that stat I am wondering what the stats are on lightning strikes on humans compared to shark attacks....The saying goes "you have more chance of being struck by lightning"????Seems like a pretty big number....

[Kat 0]

Saw this On Adelaide Now this morningInteresting.I think the shark fishos need to band together, agree on one statement etc to spread a message

[thefunkychicken 0]

Gday.The 12 pages of this discussion make for very interesting reading with some well thought out opinions voiced but also, unfortunately, some totally idiotic statements.Here's one more from myself, your's truly:"I'm going to go fishing with chicken for bait and bovine offal for burley in West Lakes for the Kingfish that may or may not be in there."Of course I'm joking... using such bait and burley would be highly illegal... and there are no Kingfish in West Lakes... or are there?Keep this shark fishing discussion going in a level-headed, polite and respectful manner and it will be much bettter in the long run for everyone.Cheers.

[Kat 0]

The whole thing can continue to be debated until there is a non bias risk assessment dne. Which, until proper research as the weather burleying the water makes any difference, can't happen.Its the social mentallity that sharks are dangerous and will hunt humans that has people in fear + some kids and then the recreation shark fishing becomes the most dangerous thing that people can think of.I could nit pick and point out the other dangers that a lot of parent/people dont take into consideration when going ot the beach (sunburn/assult etc). Again having this as a counter argument will fall on deaf ears.May i suggest, someone with sound communication skills contacts one of our Many shark experts living in this state and get them on board or at least arrange to have a chat about shark behavior which is related to south australian beaches.as many have pointed out, this debate come sup every year and nothing is "done" about it, but one day, something will be done and I have a good feeling they will take away our right to shark fish or throw legislation at us that will make it incredibly hard to do so.If there are some who are willing to get an action group together it think now would be a good time :)I'd be wanting to help but my knowledge is rather minimal

[Just Me 0]

Saw this On Adelaide Now this morningInteresting.I think the shark fishos need to band together' date=' agree on one statement etc to spread a message[/quote']Was just a matter of time before

[Jack. 10]

The case for intervention by the State comes when the risk to one group is being increased by the practices of another group. This is the case at Normanville Jetty and I have no doubt that the State will make its assessment.

In this case I am glad your Mayor has gone to the local member with his concerns. He is one of the few members of parliament that I have great faith in. Rather than a knee jerk reaction calling for any kind of ban, I suspect the call will be for tougher policing of wrong doers and some sensible measures employed. This kind of response is welcomed by ALL fisho's on this site (in my opinion) because we share a common frustration when it comes to wrong doers ie too many rods, inappropriate/illegal burleying, the taking of undersized fish/crabs, abusive behavior and the whole range of poor behavior we witness from time to time. You have a great local member over there who as well as being responsible, is acutely aware of the economic importance recreation fishing has to the electorate. His tough stance on the Marine Parks debate is to be applauded. I am an underwriter for a niche insurer that provides cover for very high risk activities. We rely on our actuaries and the international re insurance market when setting individual premiums. The work we do and risks we cover are also very emotional in nature. I can tell you that if I went to the international market for re insurance on a shark insurance policy for my son (if such a policy was written), the price would be based simply on the current life expectancy of a 5yr old south Australian male. Further, no life insurance company asks whether a 30 year old surfs, swims, kayaks or fishes in the ocean. It's more important whether they smoke tobacco or not. I'm not an economic rationalist by any means, but the banks, re insurers and corporations are heartless when it comes to decisions involving the almighty dollar, and with out the actuarial data to reflect a risk, if money is not in jeopardy, I would be confident enough to say our lives aren't as a result of shark baits. I think you make a well reasoned argument and the membership here seems to have spent a good amount of time considering your position (judging by the responses). I look forward to you making a broader contribution to this site, so next time you're out having a fish you ought to take a camera and chuck a report up when you're done. I'm always really keen to hear from people like yourself that have live by the water and have seen a lot of fishing trends (and species) come and go.CheersJack

[ekul 0]

At the end of the day there is no recorded shark attacks off a metro beach' date=' where shark fishing has always been around' date=' and since the sharks have been on the planet.[/quote'']In South Australia there have been a total of 46 shark attacks, 20 of them fatal, with the last being at West Beach in 2004.Thanks for that information ranger, i havent seen that one before.I should have made myself clear, i ment people getting taken from just swimming around at the beach as anyone would when down at the beach. Not people that are off shore getting towed around behind boats, Not that could have stopped the shark coming in but you know what i mean?I could be wrong, but what im saying is i havent come accross recordings of people being attacked in a every day swimming scenario.Thanks

[fullysikwog 6]

what a load of :c this whole ban shark fishing is.in the paper today even the mayor or whatever he is said we werent doing anything wrong, he just thinks his little nippers are going to be in a burley trail.