Well yeah its still going on and I think its fairly safe bet to assume much of the momentum has been due to Social Media. Social Media is a new phenomena even if FaceBook is 10 years old. The uprising in Egypt is said to have been sparked and fuelled by Social Media and the humble phone text messaging.
Of course, the killing of a beautiful animal plugs into the receptors of many a person and there's actually nothing wrong with that.
Sadly though, Social Media provides the soapbox for idiots on both sides of every debate and a great disservice is done to pretty every side of every debate. Sad, but that's the way it is. Not everyone is going behave well and be an avid reader of Edward DeBono books, but there you have it.
I was a little surprised at there being a rally held today (as I type) against the Shark Cull here in Albany. Now reason I thought this a little odd, is there are no baited drum lines here in Albany, in fact you got to go 4 hours drive away to even get close to them. Now its not a negative thing that people are passionate about an issue, especially as there's definitely been more than a few people (of whatever age) who belong to the "Whatever" generation, generally disinterested in anything more pressing than the next meal or more serious than the weather. Its not a negative that there are people who for or against the Shark Cull but it is a little disappointing from a number of angles.
Firstly it is a cull, not a eradication programme. This is about reducing numbers of certain types and sizes of sharks in a particular area. Now how effective that aim is, well that's a very worthwhile discussion but its seems to not be closely looked at, but it isn't the wholesale slaughter of an entire species with impending ecological ramifications for the planet. Its not putting us on the brink of planet death as a few suggested. I saw another line that sharks help soak up radiation from the Japanese nuclear power plant disaster and therefore should be left alone. I don't think it matters which side of the debate you lay your hat, that sort of argument doesn't do anyone any favours. It is odd, odd and very odd.
Personal view, well if it is there territory and we should just accept the risk, then we must instruct all life savers to save people who are drowning or in distress but not intervene during a shark incident because people should know and accept the risk. Onus is on the swimmer/surfer and life savers should stick to their knitting and just prevent drownings. Whilst I draw that long illogical bow (yep I'm trying to be odd) all bushwalkers on the Bibbulmun Track must accept the risk of snake bite. They should not kill snakes, accept they can and possible might be bitten. They are not to dispatch the animal. I must not kill one if it gets into my house either. Oddly the snake should know the risk of entering my habitat and accept I may kill it as a part of nature.
I'm not sure how accurate or efficient the baited drum lines are, its probably very hard to work out if its going to save lives. But if we have (in Perth at least) aerial patrols, do we halt them because people should know and accept the risk or should we (instead of drum lines) send out a team to kill a big menacing shark that is too close to land?
The only alternative to baited drum lines I have seen mentioned so far is do nothing, let nature be.
Again I'm not a fan of Colin Barnett but I think he's pretty well hog tied on the issue now. Drum lines are in, there's precedence over on the eastern seaboard going back many years, I think despite the siege, the policy is set for now. The all new Fiona Stanley Hospital is now suffering a major cost blow out and massive delay to the opening date. I'm not sure if it will even add any extra beds to the health system in Perth. I think the fact that Treasury was only given 2 weeks to go over the financials and give a verdict is a huge worry and we may see a crack in the door which is beginning to show things reminiscent to the bad old days of WA Inc.
If ever there was an issue to poke and prod as a political distraction, this Social Media fuelled Shark Cull Debate is an absolutely God send for the Government and Cabinet. With ramping effect of Social Media, a few rallies hitting the news its a perfect smokescreen to take some of the sting out of the uncomfortable facts in other areas.
Sorry, but the Government has bigger fish to fry and the Anti-Cull Shark group are going to help keep peering eyes off some serious political hand grenades that already have the pin pulled.
I remember some years ago the interview on the radio with an adventurer who was flying a helicopter around Australia to raise money for charity. When asked what was the most incredible sight he'd seen so far he mentioned Broome. He said to be up high and see all the people on the beach swimming whilst not all that far away were literally thousands of sharks was a jaw dropping eye opener. Now why was that even possible? I think its fairly simple (yet unproven) fish numbers are there are greater than they are off Perth. The sharks food sources are in abundance up there compared to the Bunbury to Hillarys stretch. Is this a variable, are some sharks learning that meat is more plentiful closer to shore? If so, and I really don't know, I'd assume such sharks will be the bigger ones. I had heard of the shark that has a track it seemed to follow from Mandurah to Hillarys. Been a number of close calls, Kayaks bumped, outboards bitten. I imagine sharks biting outboard motors isn't new, but we do seem to hear more about it today than say in the 1970s.
I've not heard whether the sharks behaviour or food sources have changed over the decades. If it has, it changes the risk a great deal. But while we're all watching that, see if the private security firm Cerco issue, Fiona Stanley Hospital issue and rising unemployment numbers generate less rage in the community due to people's attention being diluted by big predatory fish.
Magician's illusion is afoot.
No comments:
Post a Comment