Tracking Great Whites By Satellite

e-gold points to this article about tracking Great White sharks by satellite, writing: "Interesting, I'm glad the impulse isn't just to kill them anymore, it's nice to see something is out there that still considers people as nothing more than a small meal, IMO it puts things into perspective. Besides, life isn't a risk-free proposition, even if they track some of the sharks they're unlikely to track them all." In fact, the article says that Australian law carries fines and jail time for killing Great Whites -- even in self-defense.

Yea right

[Anonymous Coward]

The article would give someone the impression that the sharks would be adequately tracked to allow warnings in various coastal areas.

Similar past research has already shown that these sharks often cover very large geographic areas in short periods of time. A positions report, placing the shark 500 miles away from a beach is useless after a day or two.

By time the shark surfaces for the next position report he will be munching on someone. Even worse, that next position report will come in at the point where he grabs the poor person.

I admit that this is a small step toward some better form of protection but, anyone relying on this for their shark warnings is likely to get bitten.

Shark attacks are up not only in Australia but, worldwide. There has been a sharp increase in the number of attacks in Florida and California as well as Australia in the past year. One of the most recent attacks can be found here http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/07/08/shark.bite/index. html As yet, no one really knows for sure why the number of attacks are up so sharply. There are numerous, very plausible, theories. But, nobody's really sure.

Two years in jail?

[crcerror]

Hmmm... that's a tough one: I get attacked by a shark and I get to choose between two years in jail with my cellmate Bubba or being eaten alive.

[sarcasm]I love my choices![/sarcasm] That doesn't seem fair at all. I mean, I don't know about Austrailian law so mabye someone can tell me but if you're attacked on the street by someone, you can defend yourself with equal force and not face legal problems right? What's the difference between that and me killing an animal intending to make me a before dinner snack?

self defense is the key term

[boarder]

The problem with enforcing a law about killing animals only in self defense is in how do you prove self defense? Think about the South Park episode where they go hunting and have to yell "It's coming right for us!" before killing it, even though it wasn't moving at all. There are too many loopholes if you set up the law with self defense as a just cause. How can you prove that shark was really attacking you with the intent to kill? If a shark is coming right for you and it looks like he's going to attack, who's to say he's not just trying to scare you off. If he bites your leg off, he might've been just testing your flavor and will then leave (this is what happens in the majority of shark attacks), so why kill him if he has learned that humans don't taste good.

I guess my point is that this might be the only way to completely discourage the killing of great whites. If you think hard about it, the only person really capable of killing one of these guys is someone who is going out there to specifically do just that. If you are out surfing, swimming, or SCUBA diving you probably aren't going to be able to adequately defend yourself with deadly force against one of those tough bastards. If they really want to kill you, they will. If they don't want to kill you but just taste you, then you should only be able to defend yourself with equal force (bite their fins off).

Re:self defense is the key term

[crcerror]

I understand what you're saying but it still seems somewhat odd to me. I mean, I don't know much about diving either but I've heard (not entirely sure) sometimes they carry knives on a dive to be prepared for the worst. Let's say I'm diving and a shark takes a nip at my leg, I'm going to use any means necessary (including the knife) to get him off me before he decides he likes the taste of my arm more than my leg.

I can see how, without specifying the self-defense part, people could still kill great whites without reason but at the same time, if I show up in a court room with a hunk of my leg missing and plead guilty to killing the damn shark, I'd like to know they'd let me off. :-)

Frankly, it's all a moot point since I don't dive, I don't live in Austraila and it all doesn't really matter for me. The law seemed silly until you pointed that out. Now it seems less silly but still sort of unfair to someone who is capable of defending themselves against a shark attack (despite however rare that may be).

Thanks for raising a good point though. ;-)

Re:self defense is the key term

[topham]

It is virtually impossible for you to defend yourself against a Great White. Unless of course you have intentionally created the situation so that you have a perceived right to kill it.

A Great White is kind of like a grizzly bear. You pretty much have to kill it before it catches you, if not you are not likely to win.

In it's own environment it is the superior creature. You arn't.

Of course, any sane person would try to avoid the grizzly bear in the first place.

Re:self defense is the key term

[flewp]

Of course, any sane person would try to avoid the grizzly bear in the first place. not this guy: http://www.outsidemag.com/magazine/0597/0597grizzl ies.html Although, I don't think I'd call him sane now that I think about it.

knives

[boarder]

Yeah, as a diver, I always carry a knife, but it is only to be used as a tool for cutting fishing lines (you can get tangled in old fishing equipment very easily and that crap is all over the bottom of the ocean) and for prying things open and banging against your tank for noise. One small person with a small knife is only going to piss off an 8 foot reef shark, let alone a 20 foot great white. By the time the shark is close enough to actually use it, you're hosed. Like the Anonymous Coward just posted, you're just going to piss him off.

That aside, though, I think the judge will probably be lenient if you show up in court sans leg (or leg in hand). I imagine they'll let you off if it is a first offense. You're right, the law isn't meant to punish justifiable killings, but if you do happen to kill one you had damn well better use every small bit of it (shark skin boots, jacket, ear muffs, gloves, underwear, and socks).

What does man have against fate!!

[BigTimOBrien]

timothy, you've got this thirst for stories about man's ability to conquer nature of late huh? So what do we have lately:

• MAN CONQUERS RAIN [slashdot.org]
• MAN CONQUERS DEATH BY JUNK FOOD [slashdot.org]
• MAN CONQUERS DEATH BY TOOTHY FISH

Alright, think about this, how come no one in the article talks about how this will affect the Shark in any way. A shark gets pulled from the ocean, and some alien beings ( us ) can implant a satelitte beacon in a tail fin. Then we dump him/her back in the frothy sea. Just like magic, we've made the sea safe! Thanks guys. Why? Anyone think this may be a little invasive?

Oh and wait, the cost of 2000 pounds is being put up by corporate sponsors. ALRIGHT ENOUGH, is this a hoax, five fatal shark attacks in Australia LET US IMPLANT SENSORS IN THE SHARKS. Why not just STOP PLAYING ON THE DANGEROUS BEACHES? Seriously, this article doesn't talk about curious scientists wanting to learn the migratory habits of the shark, it talks about corporate sponsors tracking the sea killers to make beaches safer.

Why not spend money on real problems instead of manufacturing cybersharks? ( Oh, sorry, it's cool, let's do it because it's cool. )

Did I mention, "DON'T MESS WITH RAIN"

Re:What does man have against fate!!

[BigTimOBrien]

what's the next story in "science", MAN HARNESSES LIGHTNING [spie.org] CREATES ULTRASAFE RAIN-FREE OCEAN.

GO HUMANS!

once every two days!

[thebitninja]

Now is this just me being slow or...

a) The sharks can surface once every two days.

b) When they surface they are tracked.

c) Sharks live around Port Lincoln, whose waters are the natural home of the great white.

Hmm, I guess this means there will be no more swimming around Port Lincoln then! Doesn't this make the whole project a bit daft?

Us humans, we take away all the predators food, stuff up the areas where they live and then get a bit tetsy when they start eating us.

How about putting fake humans with electric shock devices into the water all around the area. Soon the sharks will assosicate humans with electric shocks and start looking elsewhere for lunch!

More to the point start swimming in Port Lincoln with an anti shark device. [wildnetafrica.co.za]

Re:once every two days!

[big_groo]

"How about putting fake humans with electric shock devices into the water all around the area. Soon the sharks will assosicate humans with electric shocks and start looking elsewhere for lunch!"

Lamarck also thought that giraffes 'grew' their necks becuase they needed to reach the leaves on the higher branches. Darwin was more correct in that he postulated the giraffes with necks not long enough would die out, and those with the longer necks survived. Lamarck's views on this were "learned behavior from the parents" translated to hereditary traits, while Darwin's were hereditary, through natural selection.

You seem to take Lamarck's view. It won't work, and not for just the reasons I've outlined here.

The whole point of the project is to determine not just the location of the sharks but a _pattern_ of movement. Infinitely valuable data, IMO.

Job Opportunity!

[martyb]

Tired of the boring same-old same-old? Looking for some excitement? Well look no more, we've got the job for you!

We're looking for motivated individuals to attach satellite transmitters to Great White Sharks. The number of people killed by Great Whites has been increasing, and we need YOU to help us track their whereabouts! Please note: "Under a 1997 federal law anybody caught killing one, even during an attack, faces fines of up to £20,000 or two years in jail."