Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

At least we know a dead shark won't attack any more surfers ...

By Stephen Barton - posted Thursday, 29 July 2004


We reduce the risk in a number of ways; shark nets on the East Coast and shark patrols in Perth are the most obvious manifestations. We are ensuring not so much that we learn "to live with sharks", but avoid them. It is limiting the possibility of a "wrong time, wrong place" encounter with a shark, bringing us back to man-eaters.

In 1997 Perth lawyer Brian Sierakowski was enjoying a morning paddle on a surf ski off Cottesloe when a Great White attacked his ski, a fellow paddler and lawyer quickly came to his aid. Obvious jokes about lawyers and sharks aside, it was a lucky escape. Over two years later, Ken Crew was attacked and killed in waist-deep water at Cottesloe after a morning swim, arms outstretched trying to hold the shark off. Same time, same place, different result.

Sierakowski told the 7:30 Report after Bradley Smith’s death: "I have a belief that the particular shark that was involved in Ken’s attack was the same shark that attacked me."  Experts might demure that it is unlikely, returning to the argument that there is no evidence that having attacked a human they will attack again. That said, is there evidence they won’t attack again?  Sierakowski can neither be proved right or wrong. Which puts us in a quandary.

Advertisement

Shark experts frequently tell us that Great Whites may be more intelligent than we thought, reinforcing the argument that humans are attacked by accident, sharks know we are not their usual food source. However, the intelligence argument could just as easily reinforce Sierakowski’s observation - a tired and hungry shark, unable to find a seal, returning to a place where there is potentially easy, albeit not very nutritious, prey. Not being a marine biologist, I don’t feel qualified to comment. But given the self-professed lack of knowledge on shark feeding habits from the scientific community, I might not be the only one. Is this a risk worth taking?

While Great Whites need to be protected, those that kill or injure humans should be hunted down and killed - and if the odd "innocent" shark is killed in the process I won’t lose any sleep. After all, I don’t want any "wrong time, wrong place encounters" next time I swim at North Cott or surf down south.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Stephen Barton teaches politics at Edith Cowan University and has been a political staffer at both a state and federal level. The views expressed here are his own.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Stephen Barton
Photo of Stephen Barton
Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy