Untrue, the sea belongs to everyone, at least, for those who can swim.

The reason why sharks don't attack us on land is because they haven't legs nor can breathe on land.

olde.sault wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 6:23am:

The reason why sharks don't attack us on land is because they haven't legs nor can breathe on land.

I AM SO GLAD SOMEONE ELSE HAS FIGURED THAT OUT.. oops..

I have always said if a shark wants me it would have to come out of the tap...as it is.. its not something to joke about its sad for Tathra its such a small community..and it looks like traps were set  to bring in fish....not good...it will of course increase.... shark deaths... more sharks looking for food they will come in close to shore... they fear nothing after all. and neither they should.

cods wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 7:02am:

olde.sault wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 6:23am: The reason why sharks don't attack us on land is because they haven't legs nor can breathe on land. Sharks are the most soulless of all creatures. I wouldn't go hunting for them but kill them if they come close to shore. I AM SO GLAD SOMEONE ELSE HAS FIGURED THAT OUT.. oops.. I have always said if a shark wants me it would have to come out of the tap...as it is.. its not something to joke about its sad for Tathra its such a small community..and it looks like traps were set  to bring in fish....not good...it will of course increase.... shark deaths... more sharks looking for food they will come in close to shore... they fear nothing after all. and neither they should.

I am not afraid of sharks... I just stay out of their dining room...it works for me..

if you go walkabouts in snake infested bush.. then expect to get bitten...

I would be very annoyed if something or someone invaded my home I can tell you..

god gave creatures ways to protect themselves...

he gave sharks whoppin g big teeth rows of them

olde.sault wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 6:23am:

Untrue, the sea belongs to everyone, at least, for those who can swim. The reason why sharks don't attack us on land is because they haven't legs nor can breathe on land.

Crap! Sharks generally aren't man-eaters. It's Aussie complacency that's responsible for these deaths more than are the sharks. If for example sharks actually preyed on people, then no-one could safely go in swimming at a beach. And if when a person were attacked they would be ripped to pieces in seconds. But this is not what happens. Sharks 'mistake' humans for prey.

GA wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 9:20am:

olde.sault wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 6:23am: Untrue, the sea belongs to everyone, at least, for those who can swim. The reason why sharks don't attack us on land is because they haven't legs nor can breathe on land. Crap! Sharks generally aren't man-eaters. It's Aussie complacency that's responsible for these deaths more than are the sharks. If for example sharks actually preyed on people, then no-one could safely go in swimming at a beach. And if when a person were attacked they would be ripped to pieces in seconds. But this is not what happens. Sharks 'mistake' humans for prey.

To a shark, a body is just a body. . . why would they think of us as "special"? Perhaps because of our clothing  (not much cloth in a budgee or bikini!)

If hunted when they came near the shore, some sharks might get the message and keep at sea - a very large expanse in which to prey.

Our local community is shocked at the moment after the shark attack death of a 63 year old woman just north of here.

As a young surfer I had a close encounter with a large White-tipped shark, and decided that the water was their domain and I would keep the beach.

olde.sault wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 10:57am:

To a shark, a body is just a body. . . why would they think of us as "special"?

Correct.

It's all part of the luvvie culture among the bearded university marine biology set that sharks are really 'A Man's Best Friend' ~ and anyone denying this is a racist, a xenophobe, a bigot, and quite possibly doesn't believe in gay marriage, and even supports Abbott's Border Protection initiatives.

Sharks aren't choosy eaters. If you've got protein hanging off your bones, then quite rightly they think of you as their Next Meal.

When ships sink at sea, the greatest fear is .... sharks.

Oceanic whitetip sharks, to be more precise.

Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:38am:

Our local community is shocked at the moment after the shark attack death of a 63 year old woman just north of here. As a young surfer I had a close encounter with a large White-tipped shark, and decided that the water was their domain and I would keep the beach.

Very sad. What a fine fellow her husband is. He spoke in very noble terms yesterday on TV.

We used to walk around Jervis Bay when I would visit my brother who lived at Sanctuary Point. Lots of sharks in the bay, we were told.

olde.sault wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 10:57am:

If hunted when they came near the shore, some sharks might get the message and keep at sea - a very large expanse in which to prey.

Sharks arn't like dogs, they can't be trained.
Also If you start killing sharks near the shore the carcases will only attract more sharks which will make the problem worse.

Shark attacks are really quite rare. The drive down to the beach is far more dangerous than going in the water. Even in the water, far more people drown than are ever taken by sharks.

So we really should get things in perspective.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:48am:

olde.sault wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:57am: To a shark, a body is just a body. . . why would they think of us as "special"? Correct. It's all part of the luvvie culture among the bearded university marine biology set that sharks are really 'A Man's Best Friend' ~ and anyone denying this is a racist, a xenophobe, a bigot, and quite possibly doesn't believe in gay marriage, and even supports Abbott's Border Protection initiatives. Sharks aren't choosy eaters. If you've got protein hanging off your bones, then quite rightly they think of you as their Next Meal. When ships sink at sea, the greatest fear is .... sharks. Oceanic whitetip sharks, to be more precise.

Wrong again Alf. We eat protein, but we don't eat each other, stupid. If sharks 'weren't' choosy eaters there would be people being eaten by sharks everyday. The reality is that when someone gets attacked by a shark, it's really only by accident, a mistake on the sharks part.

olde.sault wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 10:57am:

GA wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 9:20am: olde.sault wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 6:23am: Untrue, the sea belongs to everyone, at least, for those who can swim. The reason why sharks don't attack us on land is because they haven't legs nor can breathe on land. Crap! Sharks generally aren't man-eaters. It's Aussie complacency that's responsible for these deaths more than are the sharks. If for example sharks actually preyed on people, then no-one could safely go in swimming at a beach. And if when a person were attacked they would be ripped to pieces in seconds. But this is not what happens. Sharks 'mistake' humans for prey. To a shark, a body is just a body. . . why would they think of us as "special"? Perhaps because of our clothing  (not much cloth in a budgee or bikini!) If hunted when they came near the shore, some sharks might get the message and keep at sea - a very large expanse in which to prey.

They do think of us as being something special in that we are 'non-prey' to them. But if we're swimming in their domain in the morning or evening, or on a cloudy day, or 'disguised' as a seal, the shark, like any other creature, can make a mistake.

GA wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 12:19pm:

olde.sault wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:57am: GA wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 9:20am: olde.sault wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 6:23am: Untrue, the sea belongs to everyone, at least, for those who can swim. The reason why sharks don't attack us on land is because they haven't legs nor can breathe on land. Crap! Sharks generally aren't man-eaters. It's Aussie complacency that's responsible for these deaths more than are the sharks. If for example sharks actually preyed on people, then no-one could safely go in swimming at a beach. And if when a person were attacked they would be ripped to pieces in seconds. But this is not what happens. Sharks 'mistake' humans for prey. To a shark, a body is just a body. . . why would they think of us as "special"? Perhaps because of our clothing  (not much cloth in a budgee or bikini!) If hunted when they came near the shore, some sharks might get the message and keep at sea - a very large expanse in which to prey. They do think of us as being something special in that we are 'non-prey' to them. But if we're swimming in their domain in the morning or evening, or on a cloudy day, or 'disguised' as a seal, the shark, like any other creature, can make a mistake.

We are part of a living planet and being the apex predator for so long man has forgotten that we are part of the food chain.

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 12:05pm:

olde.sault wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:57am: If hunted when they came near the shore, some sharks might get the message and keep at sea - a very large expanse in which to prey. Sharks arn't like dogs, they can't be trained. Also If you start killing sharks near the shore the carcases will only attract more sharks which will make the problem worse.

Whaling harpoon guns.


The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 12:05pm:

Shark attacks are really quite rare.

That's ONLY because we don't swim amongst them. They are a little further out from the coastline, chasing the mackerel and bonitos.

Swim amongst them like Cubans in the waters between Cuba and Florida ~ and you'll soon find your toes being nibbled. Ditto ships sunk during WW2. Oceanic Whitetips in a feeding frenzy.


The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 12:05pm:

The drive down to the beach is far more dangerous than going in the water. Even in the water, far more people drown than are ever taken by sharks. So we really should get things in perspective.

Every person who ever got killed by a shark used to intone this very same mantra.

It didn't help them in the end.

"She'll be 'right, mate" cost them dearly.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 2:36pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 12:05pm: olde.sault wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:57am: If hunted when they came near the shore, some sharks might get the message and keep at sea - a very large expanse in which to prey. Sharks arn't like dogs, they can't be trained. Also If you start killing sharks near the shore the carcases will only attract more sharks which will make the problem worse. Whaling harpoon guns. The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 12:05pm: Shark attacks are really quite rare. That's ONLY because we don't swim amongst them. They are a little further out from the coastline, chasing the mackerel and bonitos. Swim amongst them like Cubans in the waters between Cuba and Florida ~ and you'll soon find your toes being nibbled. Ditto ships sunk during WW2. Oceanic Whitetips in a feeding frenzy. The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 12:05pm: The drive down to the beach is far more dangerous than going in the water. Even in the water, far more people drown than are ever taken by sharks. So we really should get things in perspective. Every person who ever got killed by a shark used to intone this very same mantra. It didn't help them in the end. "She'll be 'right, mate" cost them dearly.

The statistics are that we'd be safer in the sea than out of it.

I sometimes go down to The Point and am perpetually amazed at the lone board surfers out there around sunset.  A  golden rule, like diving, is never surf alone and not at sunset.

I call them 'shark fishermen'....

UN committee person comes down to the shore of The Great South land, with a committee group from Parl-ee-a-ment, and spies a boat racing around off the heads, towing on water skis a group of asylum seekers.

"Wow", she says, "That looks like they are truly welcome here!"

One Aussie politician in the group turns to the next, and says:-

"Damned UN don't know much about shark fishing round here, do they?"

GA wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 2:41pm:

The statistics are that we'd be safer in the sea than out of it.

Are you talking about Loan Sharks?

I'll have to agree with you there.

olde.sault wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 6:23am:

Untrue, the sea belongs to everyone, at least, for those who can swim. The reason why sharks don't attack us on land is because they haven't legs nor can breathe on land.

And we don't have fins or gills & can't breathe under water ::)..... the sea belongs to sea creatures

we enter at our own risk

Is it any different to Lions, Tigers & bears?

We may not be their usual tucker ..... but they will eat us...

& I'm sure they do it purely to eat & survive....

If there is anything that may condition sharks to humans is all these nongs who go out "chumming" up sharks to the backs of boats to take photos or show tourists....

dumb idea

Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 2:46pm:

I sometimes go down to The Point and am perpetually amazed at the lone board surfers out there around sunset.  A  golden rule, like diving, is never surf alone and not at sunset.

Correct.

I've wondered about these Death Wish psychopaths ever since I was chased out of the water by a shark at Manly beach around 1964.

I'm convinced there's a chemical in their brain that simply blocks the fear gland ... amygdala.

It's not a normal healthy person who can float around beyond the breakers on a surfboard knowing that sharks view humans as being more delicious than Beef Wellingtons or Prime Rib roasted with crackling.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/January%202013/meal_zps3dd9d667.png

Gnads wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 10:44am:

And we ... can't breathe under water ::)..... the sea belongs to sea creatures ...

Dolphins ... whales ... porpoises ... crabs ... oceanic turtles ... mermaids ... sea snakes ... sea otters ...

tsk  ::)

olde.sault wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 10:57am:

GA wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 9:20am: olde.sault wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 6:23am: Untrue, the sea belongs to everyone, at least, for those who can swim. The reason why sharks don't attack us on land is because they haven't legs nor can breathe on land. Crap! Sharks generally aren't man-eaters. It's Aussie complacency that's responsible for these deaths more than are the sharks. If for example sharks actually preyed on people, then no-one could safely go in swimming at a beach. And if when a person were attacked they would be ripped to pieces in seconds. But this is not what happens. Sharks 'mistake' humans for prey. To a shark, a body is just a body. . . why would they think of us as "special"? Perhaps because of our clothing  (not much cloth in a budgee or bikini!) If hunted when they came near the shore, some sharks might get the message and keep at sea - a very large expanse in which to prey.

I suspect that has actually played a significant role in reducing shark attacks. Sharks are hunted, either directly or indirectly. A shark that bites anything meaty it comes across does not last long. Sharks are very timid now. They investigate closely before biting. All fish are. If the protection of sharks works well and there is an increase in their numbers, expect to see more attacks. Not just because there are more of them, but because they are hungrier and not learning the tough lessons they were in past decades.


Quote:

I've wondered about these Death Wish psychopaths ever since I was chased out of the water by a shark at Manly beach around 1964.

I saw that happen at Newcastle once. The guy pretty much pood himself and kept running up the beach, even after he was out of the water. He felt safe once he reached his towel and was then prepared to turn around and look.

It was jut a seal.


Quote:

That's ONLY because we don't swim amongst them. They are a little further out from the coastline, chasing the mackerel and bonitos.

Crap. The ones that attack us most are the ones that live in the estuaries and beaches - eg bull sharks. There are sharks wherever there is salt water, even in some fresh water.

kill lots of sharks

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 1:04pm:

I saw that happen at Newcastle once. The guy pretty much pood himself and kept running up the beach, even after he was out of the water. He felt safe once he reached his towel and was then prepared to turn around and look. It was jut a seal.

I was the second from last one onto the beach of a crowd of about 20.

I'd been swimming for around 40 minutes ~ and then the shark spotting cessna came around the headland and immediately the big bell at the club house started ringing like crazy.

My first thought was: "Sh!t! The shark's had a full 40 minutes at least to come in amongst us ... "

I was never a strong swimmer, but that day I realised for the first time my Olympic potential ...

There was me out on the beach, and that left a fat guy screaming in the surf as he knew he was the only meal left for Mr Sharky and his toothy grin ... I felt really embarrassed for him screaming like that in front of the whole beach, poor fellow.

Over the years I swam there many times again, but I had learnt an important lesson: Sit on the beach and wait for the shark-spotter patrol to fly over the beach again, and then swim for no more than 20 minutes or so.

But then as everyone knows, the biggest killer in the Sydney area is rock-fishing, followed by rip-tides, followed by scuba-diving accidents, followed by boat accidents, followed by drowning while drunk, followed by bull-sharks in the harbour and up the Parramatta river, followed by gangland killings and being dumped out at sea wrapped in chains or wearing concrete shoes, followed by ... (insert your own) 

**********


Quote:

That's ONLY because we don't swim amongst them. They are a little further out from the coastline, chasing the mackerel and bonitos.

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 1:04pm:

Crap. The ones that attack us most are the ones that live in the estuaries and beaches - eg bull sharks. There are sharks wherever there is salt water, even in some fresh water.

Double crap. Sharks chase the shoals, and most shaols don't loiter in shallow waters but out in the channels around the reefs.

Where we swim among sharks ~ we get bitten and sometimes killed.

Bull-sharks -Yes. They like the rivers and are adaptable to both salt and fresh water.

Quote:

Over the years I swam there many times again, but I had learnt an important lesson: Sit on the beach and wait for the shark-spotter patrol to fly over the beach again, and then swim for no more than 20 minutes or so.

It's funny how people can draw different lessons from the same event.


Quote:

Double crap. Sharks chase the shoals, and most shaols don't loiter in shallow waters but out in the channels around the reefs.

Sharks chase food. There is food in the estuaries, and sharks chasing it. If you were referring to a single species you may have a point, but you are referring to a broad range of species.

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 1:53pm:

Quote: Over the years I swam there many times again, but I had learnt an important lesson: Sit on the beach and wait for the shark-spotter patrol to fly over the beach again, and then swim for no more than 20 minutes or so. It's funny how people can draw different lessons from the same event.

What other lessons?


freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 1:53pm:

Sharks chase food. There is food in the estuaries, and sharks chasing it. If you were referring to a single species you may have a point, but you are referring to a broad range of species.

I rest my case ... which was: where sharks and people swim in the same waters, that's where the deaths happen.

And sharks being in the estuaries and up the rivers is often because they're ..

a) Old

b) Sick

c) Pregnant.

Re: sharks being in rivers & estuaries because they are old, sick or pregnant is not correct. They inhabit these areas as normal parameters of their range & in all phases of a healthy existence. And not just bull sharks... Tigers, black tips, hammerheads.

Btw what point we're try to make when you quoted my comment about not being able to breath under water & listed all those air breathing marine mammals?

Gnads wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 8:00pm:

Re: sharks being in rivers & estuaries because they are old, sick or pregnant is not correct. They inhabit these areas as normal parameters of their range & in all phases of a healthy existence. And not just bull sharks... Tigers, black tips, hammerheads.

Wow! Okay ... (slowly backing out of the room .. )


Gnads wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 8:00pm:

Btw what point we're try to make when you quoted my comment about not being able to breath under water & listed all those air breathing marine mammals?

You said if it can't breathe under water then it's not supposed to be in the sea.

Another one's Salt Water crocodiles. The good old 'Saltie'. 

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 9:09pm:

Gnads wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 8:00pm: Re: sharks being in rivers & estuaries because they are old, sick or pregnant is not correct. They inhabit these areas as normal parameters of their range & in all phases of a healthy existence. And not just bull sharks... Tigers, black tips, hammerheads. Wow! Okay ... (slowly backing out of the room .. ) Gnads wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 8:00pm: Btw what point we're try to make when you quoted my comment about not being able to breath under water & listed all those air breathing marine mammals? You said if it can't breathe under water then it's not supposed to be in the sea. Another one's Salt Water crocodiles. The good old 'Saltie'.

I never said "if it". ..... I said "we" as in us humans. And I can assure you that most air breathing marine mammals & reptiles can hold their breath under water for much longer than any human...... Because if they couldn't they'd starve. We are not a marine creatures.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 9:09pm:

Gnads wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 8:00pm: Re: sharks being in rivers & estuaries because they are old, sick or pregnant is not correct. They inhabit these areas as normal parameters of their range & in all phases of a healthy existence. And not just bull sharks... Tigers, black tips, hammerheads. Wow! Okay ... (slowly backing out of the room .. ) Gnads wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 8:00pm: Btw what point we're try to make when you quoted my comment about not being able to breath under water & listed all those air breathing marine mammals? You said if it can't breathe under water then it's not supposed to be in the sea. Another one's Salt Water crocodiles. The good old 'Saltie'.

Salt Water crocodiles are one of the few creatures on earth that actually prey upon human beings.

GA wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 10:02am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 9:09pm: Gnads wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 8:00pm: Re: sharks being in rivers & estuaries because they are old, sick or pregnant is not correct. They inhabit these areas as normal parameters of their range & in all phases of a healthy existence. And not just bull sharks... Tigers, black tips, hammerheads. Wow! Okay ... (slowly backing out of the room .. ) Gnads wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 8:00pm: Btw what point we're try to make when you quoted my comment about not being able to breath under water & listed all those air breathing marine mammals? You said if it can't breathe under water then it's not supposed to be in the sea. Another one's Salt Water crocodiles. The good old 'Saltie'.  Salt Water crocodiles are one of the few creatures on earth that actually prey upon human beings.

They used to make great hand-bags and shoes I'm told - and some swear by croc sangers..

GA wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 10:02am:

Salt Water crocodiles are one of the few creatures on earth that actually prey upon human beings.

The rest of the animal kingdom have moral scruples about stalking us as a food source ...  ::)

Dingos will stalk, attack, and kill children for food.

Of all the different bear types, the Black bear and the Polar bear will stalk and kill humans for food. You can survive a grizzly or a Kodiak bear but you'll never survive a Black bear or a Polar bear attack.

Anacondas will make a meal of you if you fall asleep in their locality.

Most large sharks such as Tigers, Mako, Bull, White-Tip, Great White, etc are opportunist eaters. Contrary to what the luvvies would have you believe, they don't have any religious objections to eating humans.

Wolves. Jackals. Hyenas. Lions. Tigers. Panthers. Jaguars.

These and many more will sniff the breeze and anticipate making a dinner of you.

Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 12:19pm:

They used to make great hand-bags and shoes I'm told -

They still do. The government grants a yearly licence for a limited quota to be sold each year to overseas buyers of pelts and skins for the fashion markets.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:48am:

olde.sault wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:57am: To a shark, a body is just a body. . . why would they think of us as "special"? Correct. It's all part of the luvvie culture among the bearded university marine biology set that sharks are really 'A Man's Best Friend' ~ and anyone denying this is a racist, a xenophobe, a bigot, and quite possibly doesn't believe in gay marriage, and even supports Abbott's Border Protection initiatives. Sharks aren't choosy eaters. If you've got protein hanging off your bones, then quite rightly they think of you as their Next Meal. When ships sink at sea, the greatest fear is .... sharks. Oceanic whitetip sharks, to be more precise.

Actually the research shows they are. Either they 1. Mistake us for something they like, give us a test bite
2. Are ill or short of food they like and get desperate

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 1:53pm:

Actually the research shows they are. Either they 1. Mistake us for something they like, give us a test bite 2. Are ill or short of food they like and get desperate

The 'research' has been contradicting itself since Year Dot, and became a moral crusade by the lefties to sanitise their reputation as man-eaters because it's not nice of us to be nasty with such accusations.

Sharks always give a 'test-bite' to check if something is edible. Once the blood starts flowing it's not long before you are the centrepiece of a thrashing, broiling, churning, bubbling mass of sharks ripping you apart and coming in for more.

Sharks may mistake us for seals etc, but they don't apologise and move away when they find out. On the contrary ~ they enjoy a change of diet whenever they happen upon a human bean.

   

Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 12:19pm:

GA wrote on Apr 7th, 2014 at 10:02am: Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 9:09pm: Gnads wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 8:00pm: Re: sharks being in rivers & estuaries because they are old, sick or pregnant is not correct. They inhabit these areas as normal parameters of their range & in all phases of a healthy existence. And not just bull sharks... Tigers, black tips, hammerheads. Wow! Okay ... (slowly backing out of the room .. ) Gnads wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 8:00pm: Btw what point we're try to make when you quoted my comment about not being able to breath under water & listed all those air breathing marine mammals? You said if it can't breathe under water then it's not supposed to be in the sea. Another one's Salt Water crocodiles. The good old 'Saltie'.  Salt Water crocodiles are one of the few creatures on earth that actually prey upon human beings. They used to make great hand-bags and shoes I'm told - and some swear by croc sangers..

And there's nothing wrong with harvesting them now that their numbers are back to normal, provided that are used completely, and not just for their skins. The indigenous people should be put 'back' in charge of doing this, and also the control (by havesting) of carp etc. Policing of the local river here in Queanbeyan is being done to a degree (it's unofficial) by the local Kooris . Part of the policy of a patriots movement would be to put the native people back in charge of the waterways. And to also have them develop some of the native birds for farming.

The scrub turkey appears, at least in comparison to the native American 'original', to have prospects.

Native:   http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Alectura_lathami_-_Centenary_Lakes.jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Brushturkey&h=201&w=251&tbnid=_BzryjrXZEZIRM:&zoom=1&tbnh=160&tbnw=200&usg=__xUmYsHO4YgcOOGmba8BA2Anm6rs=&docid=13IVgDFb3IAuKM&itg=1&sa=X&ei=UCdCU-_rN8eKkgWuxYCoBg&ved=0CIIBEPwdMAo

Original:   https://www.google.com.au/search?q=native+american+turkey&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=3iZCU8PoM4zOlAWD3oEQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=583#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=AM2vBUN9QYysOM%253A%3BC5r6paMNY8gw-M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252F3%252F3e%252FFemale_wild_turkeys.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FWild_Turkey%3B2816%3B2112

And the Mallee fowl too looks like a potential table bird (it already has 'white' meat):

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.australianfauna.com/images/malleefowl.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.australianfauna.com/malleefowl.php&h=170&w=256&tbnid=HhzCQcUAhoSe2M:&zoom=1&tbnh=132&tbnw=200&usg=__tQnpkqwE9FTkkUSNDrrxJID8-Ec=&docid=qQU4OemgBb18IM&itg=1&sa=X&ei=0ydCU7SDBYaDlQWmloGYDg&ved=0CIIBEPwdMAo

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 1:48pm:

GA wrote on Apr 7th, 2014 at 10:02am: Salt Water crocodiles are one of the few creatures on earth that actually prey upon human beings. The rest of the animal kingdom have moral scruples about stalking us as a food source ...  ::) Dingos will stalk, attack, and kill children for food. Of all the different bear types, the Black bear and the Polar bear will stalk and kill humans for food. You can survive a grizzly or a Kodiak bear but you'll never survive a Black bear or a Polar bear attack. Anacondas will make a meal of you if you fall asleep in their locality. Most large sharks such as Tigers, Mako, Bull, White-Tip, Great White, etc are opportunist eaters. Contrary to what the luvvies would have you believe, they don't have any religious objections to eating humans. Wolves. Jackals. Hyenas. Lions. Tigers. Panthers. Jaguars. These and many more will sniff the breeze and anticipate making a dinner of you.

None of those 'prey' on humans, apart from the larger reptiles. Dingos and the like judge potential prey by it's size, they don't feed on humans.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 2:15pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 7th, 2014 at 1:53pm: Actually the research shows they are. Either they 1. Mistake us for something they like, give us a test bite 2. Are ill or short of food they like and get desperate The 'research' has been contradicting itself since Year Dot, and became a moral crusade by the lefties to sanitise their reputation as man-eaters because it's not nice of us to be nasty with such accusations. Sharks always give a 'test-bite' to check if something is edible. Once the blood starts flowing it's not long before you are the centrepiece of a thrashing, broiling, churning, bubbling mass of sharks ripping you apart and coming in for more. Sharks may mistake us for seals etc, but they don't apologise and move away when they find out. On the contrary ~ they enjoy a change of diet whenever they happen upon a human bean.

Well whats fair for the goose is fair for the gander. I call for the culling of fisherman who kill sharks for flake.

GA wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 2:33pm:

None of those 'prey' on humans, apart from the larger reptiles. Dingos and the like judge potential prey by it's size, they don't feed on humans.

Fraser Island has a notorious reputation for the local dingoes stalking, dragging into the bush as a pack, and then feasting on small children brought there on holiday by their parents.

Any pack of wild dogs, hyenas, dingoes, jackals, etc will prey on humans if they think you can't fight back.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 5:04pm:

GA wrote on Apr 7th, 2014 at 2:33pm: None of those 'prey' on humans, apart from the larger reptiles. Dingos and the like judge potential prey by it's size, they don't feed on humans. Fraser Island has a notorious reputation for the local dingoes stalking, dragging into the bush as a pack, and then feasting on small children brought there on holiday by their parents. Any pack of wild dogs, hyenas, dingoes, jackals, etc will prey on humans if they think you can't fight back.

An adult human, due to their size, would have very little to fear from any of those animals, that's despite being incapable of defending themselves from them without being armed. These animals all have a natural fear of man.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 1:48pm:

GA wrote on Apr 7th, 2014 at 10:02am: Salt Water crocodiles are one of the few creatures on earth that actually prey upon human beings. The rest of the animal kingdom have moral scruples about stalking us as a food source ...  ::) Dingos will stalk, attack, and kill children for food. Of all the different bear types, the Black bear and the Polar bear will stalk and kill humans for food. You can survive a grizzly or a Kodiak bear but you'll never survive a Black bear or a Polar bear attack. Anacondas will make a meal of you if you fall asleep in their locality. Most large sharks such as Tigers, Mako, Bull, White-Tip, Great White, etc are opportunist eaters. Contrary to what the luvvies would have you believe, they don't have any religious objections to eating humans. Wolves. Jackals. Hyenas. Lions. Tigers. Panthers. Jaguars. These and many more will sniff the breeze and anticipate making a dinner of you.

Herbert who told you that BS?

And a Kodiak bear & a Grizzly bear are one & the same thing....

the "Kodiak" is just a location name for grizzlies on Kodiak Island.

The only reason there are more black bear fatalities is because they have a much larger range than grizzlies.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 5:04pm:

GA wrote on Apr 7th, 2014 at 2:33pm: None of those 'prey' on humans, apart from the larger reptiles. Dingos and the like judge potential prey by it's size, they don't feed on humans. Fraser Island has a notorious reputation for the local dingoes stalking, dragging into the bush as a pack, and then feasting on small children brought there on holiday by their parents. Any pack of wild dogs, hyenas, dingoes, jackals, etc will prey on humans if they think you can't fight back.

Geesus Herbert you are full of BS today .. who told you that?

Several people have been bitten of Fraser Island over the years .... & that's because they have disobeyed directives not to feed the dingoes.

There has been only one fatality on Fraser ... & that was 9 yr old Clinton Gage in 2001.

This came after years of increased tourism & desensitising them to humans by feeding bought about after the closing of sand mining in 1976 & the cessation of logging in the 1990's.

A tree hugging mob called Fraser Island Defenders Organisation (FIDO) led by a self interested cnut John Sinclair put Fraser on the map for tourism resulting in this over exposure of dingoes to people.

Herb you sure you don't work for one of those 3rd rate tabloids?  ::)

GA wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 7th, 2014 at 5:04pm: Any pack of wild dogs, hyenas, dingoes, jackals, etc will prey on humans if they think you can't fight back. An adult human, due to their size, would have very little to fear from any of those animals, that's despite being incapable of defending themselves from them without being armed. These animals all have a natural fear of man.

Are you serious?

Hint: Pack animals.

A human lying out in the wilds with a broken leg, or trapped under a buggy that's rolled onto him is a pack animal's wet-dream.

Gnads wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 7:51pm:

Herbert who told you that BS? And a Kodiak bear & a Grizzly bear are one & the same thing.... the "Kodiak" is just a location name for grizzlies on Kodiak Island.

Quote:

The Kodiak is classified URSUS ARCTOS MIDDENDORFFI. The Grizzly is classified URSUS ARCTOS HORRIBILIS. There are both genetic and physical differences.

No need to apologise, Gonads. I don't expect perfection in my fellow human beans.


Gnads wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 7:51pm:

The only reason there are more black bear fatalities is because they have a much larger range than grizzlies.

No ... what I actually said was that Black bears and Polar bears will actively stalk humans for food ~ and no, it's not because they're mistaking you for a seal or a baby walrus. It's because they actually LIKE snacking on us. Nothing to do with protecting their young ... Nothing to do with defending their territory.

Gnads wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 8:03pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 7th, 2014 at 5:04pm: Any pack of wild dogs, hyenas, dingoes, jackals, etc will prey on humans if they think you can't fight back. Geesus Herbert you are full of BS today .. who told you that?

Quote:

Aggression occurs when people get involved with dingoes that are feeding, roaming or being aggressive.

Here we go, Gonads ~ the 'money shot' ...


Quote:

Dingoes—individuals or as a small pack—display aggression when they actively stalk or circle people, lunge at them, nip or bite savagely. Dingoes are capable of killing people.

Again, don't apologise ... Just put an extra few coins in the Poor Box at church this Sunday.  :)

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 1:48pm:

GA wrote on Apr 7th, 2014 at 10:02am: Salt Water crocodiles are one of the few creatures on earth that actually prey upon human beings. The rest of the animal kingdom have moral scruples about stalking us as a food source ...  ::) Dingos will stalk, attack, and kill children for food. Of all the different bear types, the Black bear and the Polar bear will stalk and kill humans for food. You can survive a grizzly or a Kodiak bear but you'll never survive a Black bear or a Polar bear attack. Anacondas will make a meal of you if you fall asleep in their locality. Most large sharks such as Tigers, Mako, Bull, White-Tip, Great White, etc are opportunist eaters. Contrary to what the luvvies would have you believe, they don't have any religious objections to eating humans. Wolves. Jackals. Hyenas. Lions. Tigers. Panthers. Jaguars. These and many more will sniff the breeze and anticipate making a dinner of you.

WTF? Black bears are the cuddly ones. It's the grizzlies that rip your head off and feast on the goo inside.

It seems the new trendy lefty pinko thing is to get outraged at sharks being killed.
On one hand why are sharks any different to tuna or herring.
Shark killing had been done for ever, just now that the WA Liberal government does the responsible thing and tries to protect people it has become an 'outrage".

I am happy that they knock off a few of the big ones, i think they should be doing an autopsy on all the ones they kill tho, see if we can learn something.
we had been blowing big sharks up for years, they never became extinct.
Now we have been banned from killing them their numbers have built up again.
Its more about people with excessive repulsive disorder than it is about sharks.
Its all part of the new religion, the new neurosis of I am more outraged than you!
Look how green I am.

Gnads wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 10:44am:

olde.sault wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 6:23am: Untrue, the sea belongs to everyone, at least, for those who can swim. The reason why sharks don't attack us on land is because they haven't legs nor can breathe on land. And we don't have fins or gills & can't breathe under water ::)..... the sea belongs to sea creatures we enter at our own risk Is it any different to Lions, Tigers & bears? We may not be their usual tucker ..... but they will eat us... & I'm sure they do it purely to eat & survive.... If there is anything that may condition sharks to humans is all these nongs who go out "chumming" up sharks to the backs of boats to take photos or show tourists.... dumb idea

Those who admire sharks are just posers.

Sharks are just large-mouthed eating machines.

They don't partner each other and don't tend
their young, a complete loss.

freediver wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 10:14pm:

WTF? Black bears are the cuddly ones. It's the grizzlies that rip your head off and feast on the goo inside.

Wot? Like those little chocolate Easter Eggs with the cream inside? ($1.60 ea at Coles.)?

Wrong!

Grizzlies love human beans. They are the ones that are always looking to give us a hug, but we keep running away.

Okay, enough foreplay. Here's the low-down on the Killer Black Bears:

Most fatal attacks by North American black bears during the past century were conducted by lone, male animals that stalked and then killed their human victims as prey, according to a new study* by the world's top authority on what triggers bear attacks.

Though black bears rarely kill or seriously injure people, when they do, it's most often the result of predatory behavior by males inside their wilderness home ranges and not by females protecting cubs or animals defending a carcass, said Dr. Stephen Herrero, professor emeritus at the University of Calgary and author of the classic Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance.

******

* 'new study' ~ my arse. This knowledge is as old as the hills.

*******

The study examined 59 fatal encounters between black bears and humans in Alaska, Canada and the Lower 48 during the 110 years ending in 2009. Some 88 percent of the 63 deaths were caused by a bear that exhibited predatory behavior, and 92 percent of these predatory black bears were male.

link

GA GA and Gonads owe me an apology for doubting my word.  :P U2.

olde.sault wrote on Apr 8^th, 2014 at 7:23am:

Those who admire sharks are just posers.

I'll have to disagree with you there.

They are awesome creatures for their brilliant design and the various tools that are built into them to detect prey, make a rapid 'ambush-style' attack from below (powering up at incredible speed) ~ and then finally ripping your head off to suck your innards through a straw.

They are perfection personified.

Humans, meanwhile, are still millions of years in evolutionary transit towards our final state of perfection. We've been unfurling very slowly, and we're not even halfway there yet.

Needless to say our evolutionary destiny is to end up looking like Jabba the Hutt.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 8:19pm:

GA wrote on Apr 7th, 2014 at 6:28pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 7th, 2014 at 5:04pm: Any pack of wild dogs, hyenas, dingoes, jackals, etc will prey on humans if they think you can't fight back. An adult human, due to their size, would have very little to fear from any of those animals, that's despite being incapable of defending themselves from them without being armed. These animals all have a natural fear of man. Are you serious? Hint: Pack animals. A human lying out in the wilds with a broken leg, or trapped under a buggy that's rolled onto him is a pack animal's wet-dream.

A combination of curiosity and that the 'size' of the individual has been reduced by the circumstances they are in. And even then the wild animals won't just rush in and attack, they would be nervous. It's simple hardly any animals prey upon humans, accept it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V1J2Jyk3Uw

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 8^th, 2014 at 8:29am:

olde.sault wrote on Apr 8th, 2014 at 7:23am: Those who admire sharks are just posers. I'll have to disagree with you there. They are awesome creatures for their brilliant design and the various tools that are built into them to detect prey, make a rapid 'ambush-style' attack from below (powering up at incredible speed) ~ and then finally ripping your head off to suck your innards through a straw. They are perfection personified. Humans, meanwhile, are still millions of years in evolutionary transit towards our final state of perfection. We've been unfurling very slowly, and we're not even halfway there yet. Needless to say our evolutionary destiny is to end up looking like Jabba the Hutt.

We've effectively stopped evolving, from now on the process would relate to changes in society, not so much the individuals themselves. Gendercide would be the next step that could result in a significant change. It might be that where ever advanced forms of life exist they are all female. And if our niche is intelligence, and intelligence has the maximum 'natural' value 'I', then I + 1 is still possible, but only artificially. It might be that a G.O.D. rules the universe.

miketrees wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 10:33pm:

It seems the new trendy lefty pinko thing is to get outraged at sharks being killed. On one hand why are sharks any different to tuna or herring. Shark killing had been done for ever, just now that the WA Liberal government does the responsible thing and tries to protect people it has become an 'outrage". I am happy that they knock off a few of the big ones, i think they should be doing an autopsy on all the ones they kill tho, see if we can learn something. we had been blowing big sharks up for years, they never became extinct. Now we have been banned from killing them their numbers have built up again. Its more about people with excessive repulsive disorder than it is about sharks. Its all part of the new religion, the new neurosis of I am more outraged than you! Look how green I am.

They're not all that interested in protecting people, it's tourism dollars that their protecting. Didn't anyone learn anything from watching the 70's movie 'Jaws'? And how many sharks have to be killed to halve the death rate, half the sharks? And even if it were an exponential thing, that is half the number of sharks resulting in four times less shark attack deaths, it's still an outrageous (but typical dumb vindictive Aussie) solution.

How many sharks would you kill to protect your children?

miketrees wrote on Apr 8^th, 2014 at 2:04pm:

How many sharks would you kill to protect your children?

Well, let's get reasonable here. Would YOU kill ONE shark to protect YOUR kids?

How would you do that?

The simplest solution that should please all parties is a portable net that surfers and beachgoers can take to any coastal waters and hang like a curtain in the water.

And then swim and surf within this protective curtain.

olde.sault wrote on Apr 8^th, 2014 at 7:23am:

Gnads wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 10:44am: olde.sault wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 6:23am: Untrue, the sea belongs to everyone, at least, for those who can swim. The reason why sharks don't attack us on land is because they haven't legs nor can breathe on land. And we don't have fins or gills & can't breathe under water ::)..... the sea belongs to sea creatures we enter at our own risk Is it any different to Lions, Tigers & bears? We may not be their usual tucker ..... but they will eat us... & I'm sure they do it purely to eat & survive.... If there is anything that may condition sharks to humans is all these nongs who go out "chumming" up sharks to the backs of boats to take photos or show tourists.... dumb idea Those who admire sharks are just posers. Sharks are just large-mouthed eating machines. They don't partner each other and don't tend their young, a complete loss.

I don't admire them ... I have a healthy respect for them & their role in the oceanic food chain .... they have a job to do.


Quote:

They don't partner each other and don't tend their young, a complete loss.

There are quite a few humans like that ::)

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 8:36pm:

Gnads wrote on Apr 7th, 2014 at 7:51pm: Herbert who told you that BS? And a Kodiak bear & a Grizzly bear are one & the same thing.... the "Kodiak" is just a location name for grizzlies on Kodiak Island. Quote: The Kodiak is classified URSUS ARCTOS MIDDENDORFFI. The Grizzly is classified URSUS ARCTOS HORRIBILIS. There are both genetic and physical differences. No need to apologise, Gonads. I don't expect perfection in my fellow human beans. Gnads wrote on Apr 7th, 2014 at 7:51pm: The only reason there are more black bear fatalities is because they have a much larger range than grizzlies. No ... what I actually said was that Black bears and Polar bears will actively stalk humans for food ~ and no, it's not because they're mistaking you for a seal or a baby walrus. It's because they actually LIKE snacking on us. Nothing to do with protecting their young ... Nothing to do with defending their territory.

Quote:

The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos ssp.) is any North American subspecies of the brown bear, including the mainland grizzly (Ursus arctos horribilis), the Kodiak bear (Ursus arctos middendorffi), the peninsular grizzly (Ursus arctos gyas) and the recently extinct California grizzly (U. a. californicus)[1] and Mexican grizzly bear (U. a. nelsoni). Specialists sometimes call the grizzly the North American brown bear because the grizzly and the brown bear are one species on two continents.[1] In some places, the grizzly is nicknamed the silvertip bear for the silvery, grizzled sheen in its fur. When it received its scientific name in 1815, the grizzly was classified as a separate species from all other bears. However, modern genetic testing reveals the grizzly to be a subspecies of the brown bear (Ursus arctos). So in Eurasia, it is the "brown bear"; in North America, it is the "grizzly". In other words, the grizzly and the brown bear are one species on two continents. Currently, Rausch and others classify three subspecies of the new "North American brown bear": U. a. horribilis, middendorffi, and gyas. But more recent studies of mtDNA suggest that this three-fold division of living grizzlies needs revision. Further testing of Y-chromosomes is required to yield an accurate new taxonomy with different subspecies.[1] Coastal grizzlies, often referred to by the popular but geographically redundant synonym of "brown bear" or "Alaskan brown bear" are larger and darker than inland grizzlies, which is why they, too, were considered a different species from grizzlies. Kodiak grizzly bears were also at one time considered distinct. Thus, at one time there were five different "species" of brown bear, including three in North America.[7]

Care for another try Herbert?

As for you dingo post of a similar nature ... you were speaking about Fraser Island dingoes doing this or that .... which is complete BS.... what I said about their desensitisation because of increased human contact & feeding them is the truth ............

& why would I know anything about them?

Because I live very close to Fraser Island.

You keep "Googling" your BS ... & I'll stick to telling it how it is.

Quote:

we had been blowing big sharks up for years, they never became extinct.

Because we put a stop to it.


Quote:

The study examined 59 fatal encounters between black bears and humans in Alaska, Canada and the Lower 48 during the 110 years

I think that is slightly more common than our shark attacks.

I followed a black bear for half an hour or so once in the eastern US. It was only a small one. It was getting dark, and the flash on my camera seemed to annoy it.


Quote:

We've effectively stopped evolving, from now on the process would relate to changes in society

Why is that not evolution? Teamwork has been a part of human evolution from the beginning. Our social skills are what set us apart and are the root of our intelligence. It is credited with our success over Homo Erectus.

Quote:

The study examined 59 fatal encounters between black bears and humans in Alaska, Canada and the Lower 48 during the 110 years

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2014 at 6:58pm:

I think that is slightly more common than our shark attacks.

It's a no-brainer.

Where humans and Black bears cross paths, there's the possibility of a drama.

That's hardly going to happen with sharks where humans swim in shallow water, or sit in boats a little further out to sea.


freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2014 at 6:58pm:

I think that is slightly more common than our shark attacks.

I followed a black bear for half an hour or so once in the eastern US. It was only a small one. It was getting dark, and the flash on my camera seemed to annoy it.[/quote]

You obviously took no notice of the pamphlets the forestry people hand out to tourists to warn them of how to behave in bear country.

********


Quote:

We've effectively stopped evolving, from now on the process would relate to changes in society

Why is that not evolution? Teamwork has been a part of human evolution from the beginning. Our social skills are what set us apart and are the root of our intelligence. It is credited with our success over Homo Erectus.[/quote]

It's not Darwinian Evolution of the human species.

Improved social development is something entirely different and totally distinct from the human species becoming more innately honed in terms of intelligence, memory recall, calculation skills, speed of learning, etc.

Quote:

You obviously took no notice of the pamphlets the forestry people hand out to tourists to warn them of how to behave in bear country.

I actually discussed the issue with some of the officials who harassed me over something else. I had not seen any such pamphlets. But I was vaguely aware that bears are dangerous. This one was small so I thought I could outrun it if necessary, and seemed scared of me. It kept half trying to climb a tree. I was very aware of my exit paths and kept checking for mother bears. Regarding the pamphlets, I had picked up that you should not leave food in your cars in national parks, as the bears will remove the door to get to it, and that you should make loud noises if they do this to scare them off. I was a bit worried about that one as I was sleeping in a van at the time. Apparently bears are also scared of small bells. I guess they must have retained some memory of being hunted by people for a few centuries.


Quote:

It's not Darwinian Evolution of the human species.

Sure it is. Social skills are the most important of all. You need skills to impress the ladies.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 8^th, 2014 at 2:32pm:

The simplest solution that should please all parties is a portable net that surfers and beachgoers can take to any coastal waters and hang like a curtain in the water. And then swim and surf within this protective curtain.

RAAF door gunners out of Williamtown used to shoot them up in the water....

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2014 at 9:46pm:

I actually discussed the issue with some of the officials who harassed me over something else. I had not seen any such pamphlets. But I was vaguely aware that bears are dangerous. This one was small so I thought I could outrun it if necessary, and seemed scared of me. It kept half trying to climb a tree. I was very aware of my exit paths and kept checking for mother bears. Regarding the pamphlets, I had picked up that you should not leave food in your cars in national parks, as the bears will remove the door to get to it, and that you should make loud noises if they do this to scare them off. I was a bit worried about that one as I was sleeping in a van at the time. Apparently bears are also scared of small bells. I guess they must have retained some memory of being hunted by people for a few centuries. Quote: It's not Darwinian Evolution of the human species. Sure it is. Social skills are the most important of all. You need skills to impress the ladies.

Your foray into Bear Country was a veritable compendium of 'What Not to Do' and 'How Not to Behave'. If you had rolled yourself in honey and gone naked in the woods you couldn't have set yourself up for a better chance at becoming a fatal statistic.

You're lucky you made it out alive.

First off you should have bought at least one can of bear deterrent...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sme9HSirf4

Second, never go alone.

Also realise you will never be able to outrun a bear. (In this clip you'll hear a group of certifiable idiots laughing at the spectacle of sheep running for their lives).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgPUhWQxkZk

And always tell the local police you'll be back at a certain time ~ guaranteed.

Bears have an almost super-natural ability to smell the slightest scent from miles away. Don't carry any food that isn't wrapped tight in oil paper.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2014 at 6:58pm:

Quote: we had been blowing big sharks up for years, they never became extinct. Because we put a stop to it. [quote]The study examined 59 fatal encounters between black bears and humans in Alaska, Canada and the Lower 48 during the 110 years

I think that is slightly more common than our shark attacks.

I followed a black bear for half an hour or so once in the eastern US. It was only a small one. It was getting dark, and the flash on my camera seemed to annoy it.


Quote:

We've effectively stopped evolving, from now on the process would relate to changes in society

Why is that not evolution? Teamwork has been a part of human evolution from the beginning. Our social skills are what set us apart and are the root of our intelligence. It is credited with our success over Homo Erectus.[/quote]

Evolution is an 'effect' (rather than a force) brought about mostly by premature death. And as we are now preventing early deaths by all different means, those factors that lead to it in the biological sense are not being eliminated.  So we can say we are evolving socially (we aren't even doing that), but biologically we are in decline. The future could suit people of lower intelligence, logic being a late arrival can also possibly be a liability.  Don't accept this? Consider, the working class are more likely to have more children than are the higher classes, and sure the death rate among the 'hoon' types will be higher, but still that class represents a higher percentage of the population. And even if we were to have normal population control events like world wars these wont be having the same effect as they did in the past (the cannon fodder that the workers and their offspring were once used for wouldn't be needed).

And if we accept that the universe is 'Natural', then the glaring defect that will to a degree jeopardize a sustainable future would have to be the Y chromosome, something that will within the next few decades become redundant anyhow.