Comments on: Why the Idea of Killing Sharks to Make Waters Safer Is Absurd

By: Mr Simon p Ryan

Mr Simon p Ryan — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 06:30:25 +0000

What or how can people be so stupid and how shamefully embarrassing of Western Australia but what else would you expect ,little enough too eat in the sea and attracted too practices of burly baiting for fishing and viewing ,what do you expect . Five unfortunate attacks in ocean waters ,how many hundreds of thousands of sharks killed that year for flake food pharmacy or sport for Christ s sake wake up you idiots sharks of some species are nearly extinct . You naughty bad shark biting a swimmer in your home .try walking across a freeway

By: Trevor Bulley

Trevor Bulley — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 08:54:29 +0000

The principle that rests on the premise “the ocean is the sharks environment therefore we have no right to impose anything on them” has little merit when we take into account the fact that humans very much impose themselves on the land, the air, rivers and oceans and every species that inhabit them. We fish and farm the oceans, killing vast numbers of fish and mammal and reptile species for recreation, food, through pollution, in the name of progress, blah blah, blah. Any or almost all the fish species that we capture and kill represent no threat to swimmers, divers, surfers et al. We kill bacteria, insects, birds, mammals in all environments, because they are inconvenient, dangerous, edible, and all because humans get to decide how the planet gets run. We destroy dogs when we consider them to be a menace, mans very best friend gets to die just because it maims or kills a human being. Is this fair or right and a demonstartion of respect for inherent canine rights? Should we not recognise that we have , frankenstein like, bred, conditioned, incarcerated and maltreated dogs to the point where they can kill and maim humans pretty much because owners have no idea to train and control their pets, yet we seem prepared to destroy these beloved animals? We have moulded dogs without any form of canine consent or moral objectivity, in effect violating all the principles we seem think appropriate to bestow on great white sharks. Why is sauce for the dog not sauce for the shark?

For dog you could read mosquito, numerous species of pelagic tuna (surely more innocent than white sharks?) camels, kangaroos, et al ad infinitum.

The above simply illustrates why the argument of “the ocean is the sharks domain” is not a rational or informed position to dictate a course of action without taking other relevant factors into consideration. GWS are listed as vulnerable, yet we have very little idea of their numbers, their breeding behavior, the possibility of conditioned responses to repeat attacks, or exposure to cage dive chumming. As sharks occupy the apex as oceanic predators (a title disputed by orcas), would their total removal simply allow another currently subordinate shark species like bull sharks or tiger sharks to step up or perhaps a more temperate water shark species (given tigers and bulls inhabit warmer waters that GWS)? Would our whale and seal/lion populations (already protected in their own right) exhibit uncontrolled and detrimental expansion damaging the delicate eco balance? Would demersal and pelagic fish species, already thought to be severely damaged by over fishing, recover in the absence of GWS?

Aside from the inevitable human politics, this is a complex scenario suffering from too little data and too much emotion, however since humans claim to have the capacity of reason, lets make an attempt to be rational instead of blindly extolling slogans like, “we have no right to do x to sharks because the ocean is their home”. The reality is that when the life of any person or their near and dear are threatened we protect this as blindly as every living organism does without regard for the consequences or morality. When the personal risk is non existent or remote, we offer political, emotive and mostly irrational self-serving arguments on how we should act. This approach distracts from the real need to act with the limited information we have, recognise that we do place human life ahead of all other species (regardless of idealist claims to the contrary), and not feel guilt in hindsight when we realise that socially mediated paralysis had won the day once again.

By: bob

bob — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 23:04:58 +0000

wow

By: db

db — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:00:54 +0000

These arguments are false.

1. We enjoy cars so we decide to take the risk of driving. As a society we have decided to take the risk.

In case of man-eating sharks, what is the benefit versus risk? Did we ever have a conversation about that, assess the benefits they have to us, and the risk? What will it do to the environment if we don’t have great whites anymore? Has anyone done research? we’re not talking ALL sharks, just the man-eating ones. Let’s do some research.

2. “Ocean is their habitat, not ours!” That’s also false. Why else are people being eaten? Obviously we want to hang out in the ocean. We have been for years. Is this even an argument??

By: Damon

Damon — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 20:09:21 +0000

Personally, I think the lives of human beings are much more important than the lives of sharks!

By: Steve Wiley

Steve Wiley — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:45:55 +0000

Having surfed for many decades, I was ashamed to see a surfer advocating killing sharks in a previous comment. I believe that a vast majority of surfers would disagree. My wife and I were once “chased” out of the water by one of the biggest great whites observed in California. Though sharks are an occasional threat to surfers, we knowingly take that chance when we go in the water.

Cheers,
Steve

By: arianne

arianne — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:48:58 +0000

we must protect their habitat, it is not ours. there are other dangerous things than sharks

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 20:17:22 +0000

Oscar, you are in the minority when it comes to water-sports enthusiasts. In general, the people most likely to encounter a shark are the most supportive of their protection. I am a diver and kayaker and spend much of my time in great white shark habitat. However, I would give up my aquatic hobbies before calling for the eradication of sharks.

If you want to surf in a shark-free zone, I’ve heard that Lake Superior has decent waves at times. Or you might try one of those indoor water parks in Disneyland or Vegas. Have fun!

By: Thom

Thom — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:17:23 +0000

if you think about topics like evolution, food chain, global warming and so on one thing gets clear pretty fast: in all the things humans interfered with nature they take second place. this will not be any different if you start killing even more sharks. the balance in the ocean will be changed and therefore other species will become more dominant and in the end a threat to mankind…

By: Corey Bradshaw

Corey Bradshaw — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 21:03:11 +0000

And some of these comments are absurd.

For more on Aussie shark attack stats, and the absurdity of Minister Moore’s ridiculous vote-scrounging proposition, see http://conservationbytes.com/2009/01/07/man-bites-shark/ and http://radioadelaidebreakfast.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/the-sharking-truth-about-sharks/