En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.


28/09/2012 The policing and eradication of coastal sharks in Australia: tracker killings organized by the Australian Government

After an increase in the number of attacks by sharks was attributed to an increase in the number of people using the sea, in a grand gesture of demagogic obscurantism, the Australian government decided to open the hunting sharks "that are 'too close to the coast' " or " present an imminent threat. " But this is no “old school” hunt. No, the hunters use all the resources made available to them by the modern world. Thus, part of the government funds go to the tagging and tracking of the sharks. To better understand them? Not at all. To kill them if they leave their perimeter! Sharks who pose a threat or come too close to the beaches will be shot, while the sharks who keep their distance and are not seen to be a current threat will be tagged. It is then up to him not to get too close as, thanks to, or because of, his tag, straying into the specified area will trigger an alarm and he will be slain on the spot. The Australian Government has therefore decided to police the sharks! The two criteria are rigorously foolproof. Approaching "too close to shore" first. I hope that a precise limit has been given! But what? Doesn't this means that eventually all coastal sharks will be slaughtered as it is obvious that all will approach at one time or another? Firstly what about a bull shark approaching a river mouth even though he does not enter. We saw, during Australia Day in the Sydney area, six tagged bull sharks swimming among the bathers, with no-one even noticing. What would have happened with these new measures? Would they have been slaughtered? In the Breede River in South Africa, there is a population of bull sharks, some of whom are more than 4m, with no attack having taken place to date. Such a decision denies the bull shark the right to live within its own ecosystem. This therefore amounts to a death sentence. The white is a shark who will also occasionally approach close to the edge without being a threat (witness Chris Fallows paddling on a board above a specimen in False Bay) and the tiger shark can come close to the shore if something attracts him. Eventually all bull sharks, whites, and marked tigers will be killed, because sooner or later they will all approach too closely. This is absurd. Turning to the second criterion, "present an imminent threat." Here's an objective test! You only have to go on Youtube and type "shark attack" to see that this term covers quite varied interpretations. There is even an English video of a poor thresher shark fished by line and struggling on the deck of a boat, which is referred to as an "attack" with the shark being described as "vicious" (even though it is on its last! ). No doubt many sharks will present an "imminent threat." Imminent, because as everyone knows it is easy to foresee a shark attack and predict the exact time when it will happen. Ultimately, these measures mean that most shark fishing is open in Australia again and the government is now providing fishermen with two very stupid reasons to justify any decision, including those concerning the great white shark, whose population Australia today is in it's hundreds. Australia massacred its population of sand bar tiger sharks in the 60s and it will now take care of the other coastal species. The most ridiculous fact is that to kill the sharks, the fishermen will now be baiting very near the coast, or where this is permitted, therefore putting the human sea using population at greater risk. Bravo.


Attaque de requins à La Réunion : et si on s'occupait du vrai problème?


Capture d’écran 2013-05-20 à 18.16.19.png

Le maire de Saint Leu à La Réunion, commune sur laquelle a eu lieu une attaque de requin bouledogue ce mois-ci, a autorisé par un arrêté municipal la pêche au requin bouledogue, espèce responsable de l'attaque. L'année dernière, une autre attaque mortelle avait eu lieu sur la même plage.

M. Robert, sortant d'une Réunion avec le préfet reprochait à ce dernier de ne prendre que des mesurettes, alors même que celui-ci venait d'autoriser de façon totalement irrationnelle le "prélévement" (ou plutôt le massacre), de requins bouledogues grâce à la pause de drumlines qui ne manqueront pas de tuer de nombreuses autres espéces.

Irrationnelle, car la nécessité de ces prélèvements ne s'appuie sur aucune conclusion scientifique, alors même que des études sont en cours et ne semblent pas indiquer une augmentation du nombre de requins (c'est sans doute même le contraire).

M. Thierry Robert a donc décider d'en remettre une couche. Il est d'ailleurs coutumier du fait puisque c'est déjà lui qui avait autorisé la chasse il y a un an, en toute illégalité (sa commune faisant partie d'une réserve naturelle).

M.Robert ferait mieux de s'occuper du retraitement des eaux usées de sa commune où le 18 Mars à la suite de la rupture d'une canalisation toutes les eaux usées se sont déversées dans la mer. Dans ce cas pas de mesure immédiate, mais des travaux qui auront sans doute lieu à la Saint Glin Glin. Le problème des eaux usées est un problème que les élus locaux de la Réunion ne semblent pas vouloir combattre , au point que la France paie des amendes à l'Union Européenne pour non respect des normes en la matière. 

A la Réunion 58% des eaux usées ne sont pas retraîtées, mais résoudre ce problème semble un peu au dessus des compétences de M.Robert qui préfère dilapider l'argent publc ("7 euros par kilo de poids vif, dans la limite de 50 requins!!!) pour pêcher dans une réserve garante de la biodiversité de l'ïle.