News 
 Local News 
 News 
 General 
 Greens call for shark nets to go 

Greens call for shark nets to go

20 Jan, 2012 06:23 AM
THE shark attack at Redhead beach has reignited debate about the effectiveness of shark nets, with the Greens labelling them ‘‘psychological comfort’’ only for swimmers and calling for their removal to prevent the loss of marine life.

Department of Primary Industries shark scientist Vic Peddemors confirmed yesterday a shark net was in place at the beach when the attack occurred on Wednesday, but could not say whether it was near the section of beach where surfer Glen ‘‘Lenny’’ Folkard was dragged from his board.

Read the Newcastle Herald's opinion about sharks and surfers here.

An aerial surveillance flight had also been conducted between 10am and 2pm along the coast before the late-afternoon attack, he said. ‘‘There was nothing major that was seen that I am aware of,’’ Dr Peddemors said.

The nets are 150metres long and six metres deep and in place along 51 NSW beaches between September and April, at a cost of about $1.3 million a year.

They are usually positioned near surf clubs and patrolled swimming areas, but are moved around based on sea and wind conditions.

NSW Greens MP Cate Faehrmann said the nets killed turtles, dolphins, rays and other species and should be removed.

The attack was traumatic, but most swimmers were aware the risk of an attack was ‘‘minuscule’’, she said.

‘‘Shark nets are little more than psychological comfort to swimmers and don’t prevent attacks,’’ she said.

The nets were introduced in 1937, with only one fatal attack since on a netted beach.

A 2009 government report estimated at least 16,064 animals were caught in the meshing between January 1950 and 2007-08. In 2009-10, the recorded figure was 120.

Dr Peddemors said the nets were not intended to form a barrier, but to prevent tiger and bull sharks from establishing territories.

He said nets were checked every three days so increasingly more animals were freed alive.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Perhaps Mr Abbott would have a more professional opinion - as this is definitely his playground!
Posted by Kurri 'n Rose, 20/01/2012 3:50:49 AM, on The Herald
Aren't you Greens meant to be in the park saving trees?
Posted by Jabber Jaws, 20/01/2012 6:25:09 AM, on The Herald
Wow that poll is misleading. Where's the "Shark attacks are terrible but not common enough to be concerned about" option?
Posted by AC, 20/01/2012 7:11:45 AM, on The Herald
Sharks can swim hundreds of kilometers in the sea. Surely people aren't silly enough to think that a shark cant swim 150 meters around a net or 6 meters below one?

I surf and i know the risks, just like when i crossed the road this morning to catch my bus to work!

Posted by 3qters, 20/01/2012 7:27:40 AM, on The Herald
So many people have had a gutfull of the anti human attitudes of the greens.
Posted by JB, 20/01/2012 7:51:08 AM, on The Herald
I believe the greens will not be satisfied until the entire coast of Australia is same as NT - ' Beautiful place, lovely water, better not get in! ' Due to ecomentalists protection they are breeding massively in areas we use for recreation. The coastline of Australia is enormous, we use tiny parts of it for recreation, why can't shark numbers be controlled ? Protected species.? There's millions of them - what utter codswallop !!
Posted by Andy Mc, 20/01/2012 8:36:11 AM, on The Herald
The nets introduced in 1937 with 1 ONE fatal shark attack recorded since. What were the statistics before netting and what are the possibles if the nets are removed ? Maybe Mss Faehrmann would like to take a surf at any of the 51 beaches at the best tidal times.( In the interest of the public of-course )
Posted by Slim, 20/01/2012 8:38:27 AM, on The Herald
I believe the greens and their marine parks are the reason for increases in sharks.

I would like a Green to look me in the eye and say removing the net will not increase the risk of shark attacks. Although they don’t provide a complete protection they still provide some, which is better than none when it comes to human lives.

Posted by Taipan, 20/01/2012 8:53:08 AM, on The Herald
Enough from the greens, give them a tiny bit of power and now they think they running the country. Oh wait.....what??
Posted by Vanilla Sliced, 20/01/2012 9:48:12 AM, on The Herald
What does 16,000 "animals" mean?

That reads like you are claiming 16,000 "non-target" animals were caught since 1950 - ie 62 years or ~260 per year. Obviously in the 1950's the catch of "animals" would be much much higher than in these depauperate times. . .


Posted by Vermillion Star, 20/01/2012 9:57:05 AM, on The Herald
1 | 2 | 3  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
18 January, 2012
POLL
Q: What’s the best way to reduce the risk of shark attacks off Newcastle beaches?

A shark cull
(11.4%)

Bigger and better shark nets
(17.5%)

More aerial patrols
(46.8%)

I'm staying out of the water
(24.3%)

Total Votes: 605
Poll Date: 19 January, 2012

Most popular articles


 
 
 


Newcastle Herald







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...