Sunday, October 23, 2016

Ballina shark huggers hurting the NSW surf town's economy

A few years ago when I was living in Perth that city's coastline seemed to be the world's most dangerous when it came to shark attacks. These days West Australian waters are still risky. But Noah Central now appears to be Ballina, not all that far north of Sydney, where I now reside. There have been 12 attacks there, one fatal, in the last coupla years alone!

Sheesh! Maybe I've got something to do with it?

Has Gaia been reading this blog and upon seeing all the anti-green rants decided to launch a program of intimidation against me? Well, if that is the case the tactic is definitely working. There's no way I'm gonna take a dip at any beach in this state unless I know it's got a bloody great shark net protecting it.

That's because I know that these work. They're installed at the main metropolitan beaches and there hasn't been a fatal attack here for yonks. And that's not just because there are no sharks here, either. Hell, if there are heaps of hangry white pointers prowling off the beaches of Ballina, there's gotta be many down here, too. Sydney beaches are absolutely chockas with swimmers and surfers, too, remember.

But they don't have the nets at Ballina, in major part because of the concerted campaign by shark huggers there. Because of the clear and present danger the number of surfers out in the line up there has plummeted, as has the turnover for local surf shops.

Thankfully, it looks like the NSW Govt has seen sense and there are now plans to install nets in the area. Not surprisingly, local moonbats are outraged at this violation of animal rights (completely ignoring the fundamental human right to go for a surf without getting your legs bitten off, natch). Today, they lobbed for a group shriek and wail at Lighthouse Beach. This barmy event included what was described as a "turtle release" (which I suspect is like letting doves fly at a wedding, only waaay slower).

And, in this case it only involved one of the marine reptiles. Name was Kimba, which is an odd moniker for a reptile. (And it could also be an act of cultural appropriation. White lions have rights too, you know -- even if they are cartoons.)

After an extended stay in human hands (which could also be seen as incarceration) Kimba has been set free again. And how did he survive all this time? Well, here's his (benign) jailer on his stay in (politically correct) captivity:

Ms Southwell hopes that Kimba will be released to an ocean with enough fish to support his diet, as he has quite the appetite.

"He's eaten us out of house and home,” she said.

Fish. Exactly. And sharks are -- you guessed it -- fish. So if it's okay to kill little ones in this case (let alone eating them yourself, which I suspect the Southwells do anyway) then why such outrage over some big ones buying the farm?

And while I'm sure Kimba himself was charming company, he is still just a reptile.

Just goes to show how petty and incoherent the anti-shark net campaign is. It looks completely ridiculous, dunnit -- particularly when there are human lives at, er, steak.

1 comment:

  1. .... Ballina shark huggers hurt the New South Wales' surf town's economy ....

    Bigger picture being, of course, that those whom you accurately so label, are truly the made-mentally-ill, deranged-and-delusional product of a Statist/Leftarded government "school" indoctrination.

    Which insidious process targets every Human vulnerability and, in the susceptible individuals, manifests in such Malignant Envy as drives its sufferers into the self, own-culture and -- invariably and inevitably -- into the own-species loathing, that turns out the shark and tree huggers. And such other manifestations of evil as are heavily represented among, say, those comprising the Goebbels' Warmmongers' Industrial Complex -- and the aborttoir operators.