Funding for shark patrols - let the debate begin

[runamok69]

Reference the recent news article on the Wollongong Aerial Patrol organisation, I too have a few questions to ask, as did an earlier post member who asked a few questions about flying at night vs funding. I recently was discussing this subject with a colleague and being keen divers and involved in the aviation game ourselves, we wanted to start a debate to get some info from people on the subject.

Shark patrols are an emotive subject that conjures thoughts of 'Jaws-like' images of people being eaten alive on the backs of fishing boats or when being towed behind speed boats a few metres from the coast. The fact is, people are something like 30 times more likely to be killed by a cow then a shark. Question 1 - Do we now need to start a cow patrol in order to protect from the occasional crazy bovine killing spree? Australia has a very large cattle industry...food for thought!

Whilst an aircraft may cover an area of coastline and clear an aircraft of sharks, how long does it take for that clearance to be compromised ie clear one minute, shark comes in from the deep a few minutes later. Saying that shark patrols save lives is somewhat of a furphy. It is easy to ride on the back of recent media coverage for come sort of exposure of emotive gain where people have unfortunately lost their lives to a shark attack. But to use this as a means of bolstering a request for Government funding is misleading, false and reprehensible. For the number of shark attacks per annum, the cost cannot be justified and other more effective means, such as shark repellant radio beacons, should be employed by councils if the risk is that great to human life.

As for search and rescue operations, I doubt anyone argues the benefits of this type of flying. But seriously, shark patrols do nor register as any sort of justifiable expense to the tax-payer, nor private donor. What thoughts to others have on this topic?

[HarveyGee]

Agreed. There are two aspects to this issue which trouble me - the false sense of security the swimmers and surfers can get (it's impossible to guarantee an area is clear); and I have the nagging feeling that it's all an emotive excuse to get someone else to pay for the flying. Public funds should definitely not be committed.

[DOA]

Last thing I want is some D*#K disturbing my tranquility whilst I lay on the beach. Take you gay overalls and get a painting job. At least you will be doing something productive.

Now don't tell me you need to be at 500' to spot sharks. Tuna spotters work from 1000 to 2500' Prawn spotters vary from 1500 to 4000', Samon spotters target 1500'. You pick sharks out quite easily from 5000'

Waste of time, If people new just how many times sharks were in there swimming area, no one would enter the water.

Give them some polarized sunnies, put them in a hot air ballon and tie them to the beach. Low cost 24hr protection.

[Capn Notarious]

As one from up here in the northern hemisphere, how much effectiveness do these patrols have?
For the shark will move about, so could these flights be classed asShow display, rather than chase away.

[Paul Alfred]

As a friend of Nick Peterson and the guys on board the boat at west beach in Adelaide......bring it on!!!!!!

I'm sure some of your negative feelings to this issue would be a lot different if you were personally effected by a shark tragedy such as this one!

PA

[runamok69]

PA - Sincerely, a tragic loss of life to lose a young bloke to a shark attack.

Emotions aside, it must be asked would a shark patrol have made much of a difference in Nick's or any other victims very unfortunate and sad attack? If only something could have been employed that may have prevented such an attack, and the few other attacks over the past 5 years or so.

There is, as mentioned before, an emotive side to shark attacks and moreso for those who have experienced the loss of a family member of friend in a shark attack. But the question remains, what of the effectiveness of an aerial patrol to very briefly 'clear' an area before moving on. It must be strongly argued that far more effective measures can be employed to protect swimmers and surfers alike from such attacks.

Further, for those with a sense of adventure, like myself, what do we ask for when we go to remote locations and dive or surf or swim? Do we have the entire coastline surveilled just in case? The risk we take in entering the domain of sharks is accepted by us being in the water, just as it is when we take to the air. Sure we can die in any number of ways from countless causes, but we accept it by being there in the first place.

Also, as stated before, the funding aspect comes into the equation. No amount can be placed on a human life - fact number 1. However, there is only so much that can be done with funds that are available and even an aerial patrol service can only activate a siren in a 'reactive' measure if when sharks are sighted. Pitch the cost of an aerial patrol against more long-term and effective measures and surely something can be implemented.

Consider that the aircraft will be overhead any one position for no longer than 10-15 seconds, returns over the same location sometime later on for that patrol before it will return to the airfield of origin and you have a section of coastline cleared for no more than 30 seconds!!! 30 seconds in an entire day does not make me safe, unless I swim only during those 30 seconds!!! Add to this the fact that patrols are mainly conducted on the weekend - forgetting that people swim 7 days a week - and you start to think that there has to be a better option out there.

Thoughts from anyone else - either critical or constructive or otherwise...

Just wanted to add that in no way do I wish to disrespect the memory of those who have lost there in lives in attacks. Sure, I might feel differently if a loved one had perished in such an attack - who wouldn\'t after such an event considering the grief and sense of loss one would feel. But, I would be asking if anything could be done that would be both reasonable and practicable. As a surfer and diver, I just don\'t see the reasonable or practical nature of shark patrols.

:(

[Pear]

When does a surf patrol become a shark patrol?

Are they suggesting aircraft equipped to noting other than spot sharks, or increase in surf patrol aircraft?

I'd much rather have one or two more surf machines than five or six shark patrols.

[Scat Hose]

Runamok

I am with you. As a dive instructer for 20 years (yup, from up there wat they made a movie about) and an ex-air sea rescue volunteer pilot, I think shark patrols are a waste of time.

Really just a flying advertising banner, and if they can get the sponsorship then good luck to them, but the taxpayer shouldn't fund it. (we used to sell raffle tickets in pubs!!!)

SH

[runamok69]

Good to see some other people contributing their thoughts on the subject.

It would be interesting to hear from the organisation in question as to what they think about the effectiveness of shark patrols. Though, the latter suggestion may be an invite for an answer from a loaded question.

I agree with SH that such a service should not be supported by the government, and if they want funding to keep up their service, they should be self-supporting via private donations. Again, their is a far more effective and efficient means that is out there and can be employed to cover the coast for 24x7 protection. And NO, its not beach netting.

Further, for the number of attacks per annum, is it really necessary to expend such large amount of money on an aerial service with extremely limited effectiveness?

On the point of SH working to sell tickets in a pub for a charity, well done mate - not an easy thing to do regardless of the charity.

[Scat Hose]

The more tickets I sold the more time in a clapped out mix-master I got ;)

Nets, bah. leave the beaches open. Sharks are less of a threat than the drive to get to them.

SH

[Captain Muff Diver]

Does anyone know who is crewing the Adelaide shark patrols?

[engine out]

I am sure I read int the newspaper last year (and I'm sure some ppruner will shoot me down if I am wrong) about a recent study conducted into shark patrols buy a University in WA (cant remember which one). This was shortly after the deaths that happened there. There findings were that aerial shark atrols on the whole were ineffective as generally the aircraft flew too fast only only spent a very limited time over any given point or beach.

Given that this patrols go once maybe twice a day up the cost they could not be described as giving comprehensive coverage. Although a shark can attack at any time I beleived the most dangerous times were sunrise and sunset, however my experience of shark patrol flights these tend to occur more during the middle of the day when the beach goers are there and the risk is slightly lower.

However if they are paying commercial pilots to fly these operations i will not complain too much.

[runamok69]

Read a newspaper article today in the SMH that said that we had 12 attacks last year, 2 of which were fatal. The 2 that were obviuusly regrettable, but would have shark patrol have prevented them, or the others? I believe this was the highest figure in a long time, but prior to this the incidence was quite low.

As mentioned, shark attacks are emotive items that attract a lot of attention when they occur, much like plane crashes...every so often a plane will go down and get a lot of media attention. In any one average day, 10-20 people will die in car crashes and not a work gets mentioned. One shark attack and you get a media frenzy and a government knee jerk reaction to a relatively small problem.

I have not read the article that was referenced re shark patrols and their effectiveness, but suffice to say the findings would have been pretty obvious from the start. Good luck to students who can build hours this way, and if you get paid too as a low hour fello than goodo too. But this is where the benefit might end for the greater majority.

Still no comment from the aerial patrol organisation - would be very interested in hearing a reasoned, valid and thought-out response with some sort of evidentiary support for their argument for shark patrols and hence funding.

[Lodown]

I would imagine the best people to talk with would be shark experts. It seems that a high percentage of shark attacks on people occur in murky water when the shark doesn't get a good ID on its prey. Not a good time to spot sharks from the air then either. Several shark attack deaths have been situations where the shark took a single bite into critical areas, then seemingly realised that the target was not its normal prey and departed the scene.

The great white attacks on surfers appear (and I stress this is just my uninformed opinion) to be confusion between a surfboard and their normal prey. The MO of great whites attacking sea lions seems mainly to come up from the deep in a sprint and hit the target with enormous force.

Neither of these situations seems particularly conducive to avoiding future attacks by spotting potential shark hazards from the air. However, I don't know much about the situation, but I would like to see some research or opinions from experts.