Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is it time to cull man-eating sharks?

dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 5:07:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Not a day seems to pass lately where there isn't a serious shark attack somewhere in the world. The surfing and diving communities seem to bear the brunt of these attacks but recreational swimmers have suffered casualties too. Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean, before the plane wreckage was washed up there in the last few days, was better known for having had 16 shark attacks (7 of them fatal) since 2011. The locals are terrified of the water.

The Mick Fanning incident has, of course, brought the issue of sharks into the media spotlight again.

Now I am as green as the next person and I believe in conservation, but aren't these arguments about sharing the ocean with man-eaters wearing a bit thin? The sharks don't want to share. We are on the menu.

When we are very small our parents read us stories but tell us that there really aren't any monsters, to reassure us. Well, I'm here to tell you that the monsters do exist and they are patrolling our beaches hunting for food. Humans are food to them.

Here in Australia one of our states (WA) introduced a policy of capturing and killing sharks in 2014 (it has since been abandoned).

https://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not aware that any deaths occurred on Perth beaches whilst this policy was in place.

My question to the forum is, given the seeming rapid increase in the rate of shark attacks and the trauma it causes to victims (non-fatal) and their families, do we need to re-examine our squeamishness to this issue and introduce shark culling around swimming and surfing beaches? Or is it a necessary evil which we just have to tolerate as part of our stewardship of the planet?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 9:21:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 5:07:42 AM, dee-em wrote:
Given the seeming rapid increase in the rate of shark attacks and the trauma it causes to victims (non-fatal) and their families, do we need to re-examine our squeamishness to this issue and introduce shark culling around swimming and surfing beaches? Or is it a necessary evil which we just have to tolerate as part of our stewardship of the planet?

Dee-Em, there's a nice web-site here by shark attack survivors, listing all shark attacks by year: http://sharkattacksurvivors.com... Although each year might list say, 140 incidents, despite a bigger planetary population in the water than ever, there are typically only ten or twenty so fatalities worldwide. [http://www.animaldanger.com...]

That may sound like a lot, but malaria kills about 660,000 per year; tsetse flies kill about 9,000; and bee stings kill 50 to 100 per year. In fact, globally, even lightning kills between 6,000 and 24,000. So shark deaths are rare -- and unlike mosquitoes, tsetse flies, bee-stings and lightning -- completely avoidable.

Why do they bother us so, then?

We don't have many predators, and perhaps death to predation is scarier than death to lightning or bee-sting. However, sharks aren't humanity's fiercest predator. That honour goes to the crocodile, who may kill 2,000 per year.

And if what scares us are big animal attacks, then we are killed more by elephants (500+), hippos (300+), and Cape buffalo (200+) -- with lions struggling to overtake the buffalo.

So if we're going to kill dangerous animals, we'd do better for the planet to eliminate the malarial mosquito. If we're too terrified of predators to live with them we should probably kill crocs and lions before we worry about sharks; and if we can't stand the idea of any big animal killing us, we ought to do away with elephants, hippos, and Cape buffalo too.

Hope that may help. :)
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 12:08:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 9:21:48 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/31/2015 5:07:42 AM, dee-em wrote:
Given the seeming rapid increase in the rate of shark attacks and the trauma it causes to victims (non-fatal) and their families, do we need to re-examine our squeamishness to this issue and introduce shark culling around swimming and surfing beaches? Or is it a necessary evil which we just have to tolerate as part of our stewardship of the planet?

Dee-Em, there's a nice web-site here by shark attack survivors, listing all shark attacks by year: http://sharkattacksurvivors.com... Although each year might list say, 140 incidents, despite a bigger planetary population in the water than ever, there are typically only ten or twenty so fatalities worldwide. [http://www.animaldanger.com...]

That first site seems to show an upward trend in attacks (not necessarily fatalities) since 2000. It may just be me but sharks have been in the news a great deal lately. There was another today, hence the OP.

That may sound like a lot, but malaria kills about 660,000 per year; tsetse flies kill about 9,000; and bee stings kill 50 to 100 per year. In fact, globally, even lightning kills between 6,000 and 24,000. So shark deaths are rare -- and unlike mosquitoes, tsetse flies, bee-stings and lightning -- completely avoidable.

Why do they bother us so, then?

We don't have many predators, and perhaps death to predation is scarier than death to lightning or bee-sting. However, sharks aren't humanity's fiercest predator. That honour goes to the crocodile, who may kill 2,000 per year.

I was coming to crocodiles!

And if what scares us are big animal attacks, then we are killed more by elephants (500+), hippos (300+), and Cape buffalo (200+) -- with lions struggling to overtake the buffalo.

It's not just that they're big, it's the thought of being eaten that induces fear. Being crushed or gored is not quite the same. (Some risk it for sport in the running of the bulls in Spain). I don't know about overseas but most of the crocodile deaths here in Australia are by people ignoring warnings, acting stupid when drunk or failing to take adequate precautions. That's the problem with sharks (and perhaps lions too). There aren't really many precautions you can take whilst you are out for a swim or on your surfboard waiting to catch a wave. It's the random nature of when death can come at you whilst you are just out there having some fun in the water.

So if we're going to kill dangerous animals, we'd do better for the planet to eliminate the malarial mosquito.

Or develop a (better) vaccine.

If we're too terrified of predators to live with them we should probably kill crocs and lions before we worry about sharks; and if we can't stand the idea of any big animal killing us, we ought to do away with elephants, hippos, and Cape buffalo too.

All those animals have territories and reasonable precautions can be taken against them in many instances. With sharks the only sure precaution you could take would be to stay out of the water, ceding them the coastline. That obviously is not going to happen, so it seems to me that another solution is needed. Many beach councils have used nets in the past but that has its own problems and some are dismantling them.

Hope that may help. :)

A thoughtful contribution as always, Ruv. :-)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 1:44:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 12:08:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/31/2015 9:21:48 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
There's a nice web-site here by shark attack survivors, listing all shark attacks by year: http://sharkattacksurvivors.com...

That first site seems to show an upward trend in attacks (not necessarily fatalities) since 2000. It may just be me but sharks have been in the news a great deal lately. There was another today, hence the OP.

Yes. it could be biological (e.g. loss of key fisheries), or it could simply be better reporting.

We don't have many predators, and perhaps death to predation is scarier than death to lightning or bee-sting. However, sharks aren't humanity's fiercest predator. That honour goes to the crocodile, who may kill 2,000 per year.

I was coming to crocodiles!

Apparently, the worst are Nile crocs. Though smaller than the saltwater crocodiles seen in Northern Australia, they're ambush-predators are happy to wait hours, days or weeks by the side of roads, up to 50m from the water, and prefer to hunt at night.

Scary crocs!

There aren't really many precautions you can take whilst you are out for a swim or on your surfboard waiting to catch a wave. It's the random nature of when death can come at you whilst you are just out there having some fun in the water.

Lightning is a bigger killer on the water, though. A US survey of lightning-strike fatalities had 37% as being water-related, which at 6,000 - 24,000 lightning fatalities per year, might translate to 2220+ lightning-strikes in or on the water. However, being struck while swimming was only 8%, compared to boating at 23% and fishing at 48%. So you may be safer in the water facing 20 shark fatalities and 177 swimming-related lightning-strike fatalities per year, than in a boat, facing 0 shark fatalities and 510 lightning-strike fatalities. :) [http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov...]

So if we're going to kill dangerous animals, we'd do better for the planet to eliminate the malarial mosquito.

Or develop a (better) vaccine.

If we're too terrified of predators to live with them we should probably kill crocs and lions before we worry about sharks; and if we can't stand the idea of any big animal killing us, we ought to do away with elephants, hippos, and Cape buffalo too.

All those animals have territories and reasonable precautions can be taken against them in many instances. With sharks the only sure precaution you could take would be to stay out of the water, ceding them the coastline.

That obviously is not going to happen

As someone who used to love diving with sharks (no cage), I suppose I view things a bit more philosophically. Like diving, swimming and surfing are recreational activities, but we need to realise we are in wilderness the moment we enter the water. It's not 'the beach', but the border of a vast aquatic desert with ancient, toothy pelagic predators that have been eating one another since before the first dinosaurs walked on land -- in fact, since before anything with a spine dragged itself out of the water. It's their space, as every diver fully understands. They're faster than us, have better senses than us, and for every practical purpose, in that domain they're half a billion years smarter than us.

If we went posie-picking in a savannah full of lions and got attacked, we'd know it was because we'd done something reckless. But for some reason we think of beaches as parks and not wilderness.

so it seems to me that another solution is needed.
Uh, better education?

Serious suggestion. :D

Of the 512 or so shark species globally, there are about a dozen that will attack you unprovoked (like the mako, hammerhead, bronze whaler and white-tip), but only three that drive coastal shark fatalities into double digits: the great white, tiger shark, and bull shark. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. The tiger-shark is a night-hunter and prefers islands. The bull-shark is the one you'll most often find in warmer coastal waters, since it likes shallow water and will even swim up estuaries. I've encountered some myself while diving. It's often responsible for the bites blamed on other species. The great white can be found anywhere, but mostly hunts where it can eat -- typically near seal colonies and similar. I've dived with seals several times, but never seen one.

So if you were to cull them off popular Australian beaches, you'd mostly be killing off bull sharks and the occasional great white. But bull sharks are near-threatened due to being common fishing bycatch, and the use of their fins in Chinese soups, while the great whites are classed as vulnerable due to overfishing.

It just seems to me that putting pressure on vulnerable species because an ape finds it fun to skid a plank down a wave might be an odd way to balance short-term and long-term species interests.

The loss of a human is always tragic, but we don't punish the clouds when fishermen are hit by lightning; I don't quite see the point of punishing sharks because we make ourselves available to be eaten.

Which isn't to say we won't do it anyway. :p
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 2:15:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 5:07:42 AM, dee-em wrote:

So, you basically value humans over sharks. Your argument is one of reciprocity -- sharks kill humans, .: humans kill sharks to prevent recidivism. There are much, much better ways of preventing getting killed by sharks -- surfing, for example, is *us* encroaching into their territory and vice versa. Think of a moral justification for it.

On a more pragmatic note, let me tell you why shark conservation is actually important. Basically, they have a net positive impact to the ecosystem. Much more than those humans killed. A University of Miami study showed that killing large sharks has a direct link with the ecosystem exploding with multiple numbers of those shark's prey, resulting in immense levels of animal casualties and damage to the ecosystem [http://www.sciencedaily.com...]. Sharks also aid us against heavy metal poisoning. There are *immensely* large numbers of people who die of mercury poisoning from fish, and sharks actually eliminate them by absorption into skin.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 9:55:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 5:07:42 AM, dee-em wrote:
Not a day seems to pass lately where there isn't a serious shark attack somewhere in the world. The surfing and diving communities seem to bear the brunt of these attacks but recreational swimmers have suffered casualties too. Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean, before the plane wreckage was washed up there in the last few days, was better known for having had 16 shark attacks (7 of them fatal) since 2011. The locals are terrified of the water.

The Mick Fanning incident has, of course, brought the issue of sharks into the media spotlight again.

Now I am as green as the next person and I believe in conservation, but aren't these arguments about sharing the ocean with man-eaters wearing a bit thin? The sharks don't want to share. We are on the menu.

When we are very small our parents read us stories but tell us that there really aren't any monsters, to reassure us. Well, I'm here to tell you that the monsters do exist and they are patrolling our beaches hunting for food. Humans are food to them.

Here in Australia one of our states (WA) introduced a policy of capturing and killing sharks in 2014 (it has since been abandoned).

https://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not aware that any deaths occurred on Perth beaches whilst this policy was in place.

My question to the forum is, given the seeming rapid increase in the rate of shark attacks and the trauma it causes to victims (non-fatal) and their families, do we need to re-examine our squeamishness to this issue and introduce shark culling around swimming and surfing beaches? Or is it a necessary evil which we just have to tolerate as part of our stewardship of the planet?

Dee-em, you surely are aware of the super-high (sarcasm) frequency of shark attacks, right? That alone should be enough to prevent you for writting this thread. But moreover, the very reasoning of the thread is really not something I can approve, because being reductive, it goes like this: I like to swim, so let's kill sharks!

I remember a couple of years ago when a bank of jellyfish was lost and reached the shores of my city. The solution taken was to kill them all... I remember thinking: Are they killing all those jellyfish so we can swim in the sea? Is it really such a VITAL necessity... to swim at the beach? :/
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 12:55:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 5:07:42 AM, dee-em wrote:
Not a day seems to pass lately where there isn't a serious shark attack somewhere in the world. The surfing and diving communities seem to bear the brunt of these attacks but recreational swimmers have suffered casualties too. Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean, before the plane wreckage was washed up there in the last few days, was better known for having had 16 shark attacks (7 of them fatal) since 2011. The locals are terrified of the water.

The Mick Fanning incident has, of course, brought the issue of sharks into the media spotlight again.

Now I am as green as the next person and I believe in conservation, but aren't these arguments about sharing the ocean with man-eaters wearing a bit thin? The sharks don't want to share. We are on the menu.

When we are very small our parents read us stories but tell us that there really aren't any monsters, to reassure us. Well, I'm here to tell you that the monsters do exist and they are patrolling our beaches hunting for food. Humans are food to them.

Here in Australia one of our states (WA) introduced a policy of capturing and killing sharks in 2014 (it has since been abandoned).

https://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not aware that any deaths occurred on Perth beaches whilst this policy was in place.

My question to the forum is, given the seeming rapid increase in the rate of shark attacks and the trauma it causes to victims (non-fatal) and their families, do we need to re-examine our squeamishness to this issue and introduce shark culling around swimming and surfing beaches? Or is it a necessary evil which we just have to tolerate as part of our stewardship of the planet?

I'd say protect the waters in those areas but at least use the shark for any uses they have. So if they are good eating, get them somewhere to be eaten. Or if they make fish or pet food, etc. Make sure their killing is not in vein. Apprrciate the shark's life by getting as much use out of it as is possible.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 3:22:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 1:44:41 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/31/2015 12:08:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/31/2015 9:21:48 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

There aren't really many precautions you can take whilst you are out for a swim or on your surfboard waiting to catch a wave. It's the random nature of when death can come at you whilst you are just out there having some fun in the water.

Lightning is a bigger killer on the water, though. A US survey of lightning-strike fatalities had 37% as being water-related, which at 6,000 - 24,000 lightning fatalities per year, might translate to 2220+ lightning-strikes in or on the water. However, being struck while swimming was only 8%, compared to boating at 23% and fishing at 48%. So you may be safer in the water facing 20 shark fatalities and 177 swimming-related lightning-strike fatalities per year, than in a boat, facing 0 shark fatalities and 510 lightning-strike fatalities. :) [http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov...]

I understand that. I would rather die a quick and clean death from a lightning strike (God's preferred method of dispatching atheists) than by being mauled by a lion, with my head in the mouth of a crocodile, or being chomped up by a shark. It's not the number of deaths but the manner of death.

If we're too terrified of predators to live with them we should probably kill crocs and lions before we worry about sharks; and if we can't stand the idea of any big animal killing us, we ought to do away with elephants, hippos, and Cape buffalo too.

All those animals have territories and reasonable precautions can be taken against them in many instances. With sharks the only sure precaution you could take would be to stay out of the water, ceding them the coastline.

That obviously is not going to happen

As someone who used to love diving with sharks (no cage), I suppose I view things a bit more philosophically. Like diving, swimming and surfing are recreational activities, but we need to realise we are in wilderness the moment we enter the water. It's not 'the beach', but the border of a vast aquatic desert with ancient, toothy pelagic predators that have been eating one another since before the first dinosaurs walked on land -- in fact, since before anything with a spine dragged itself out of the water. It's their space, as every diver fully understands. They're faster than us, have better senses than us, and for every practical purpose, in that domain they're half a billion years smarter than us.

If we went posie-picking in a savannah full of lions and got attacked, we'd know it was because we'd done something reckless. But for some reason we think of beaches as parks and not wilderness.

The point is we do. The why is irrelevant. As long as we do, there's going go be a problem.

so it seems to me that another solution is needed.
Uh, better education?

Serious suggestion. :D

Semi-serious answer: do you think the man-eaters check on our level of education before they attack?

Of the 512 or so shark species globally, there are about a dozen that will attack you unprovoked (like the mako, hammerhead, bronze whaler and white-tip), but only three that drive coastal shark fatalities into double digits: the great white, tiger shark, and bull shark. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. The tiger-shark is a night-hunter and prefers islands. The bull-shark is the one you'll most often find in warmer coastal waters, since it likes shallow water and will even swim up estuaries. I've encountered some myself while diving. It's often responsible for the bites blamed on other species. The great white can be found anywhere, but mostly hunts where it can eat -- typically near seal colonies and similar. I've dived with seals several times, but never seen one.

So if you were to cull them off popular Australian beaches, you'd mostly be killing off bull sharks and the occasional great white. But bull sharks are near-threatened due to being common fishing bycatch, and the use of their fins in Chinese soups, while the great whites are classed as vulnerable due to overfishing.

It just seems to me that putting pressure on vulnerable species because an ape finds it fun to skid a plank down a wave might be an odd way to balance short-term and long-term species interests.

You assume that it is our job to preserve the status quo. I could make the counter-argument that the man-eaters losing out to humans is evolution in action (survival of the fittest).

The loss of a human is always tragic, but we don't punish the clouds when fishermen are hit by lightning; I don't quite see the point of punishing sharks because we make ourselves available to be eaten.

Clouds can't be punished. It's not about punishment anyway. Punishment is a behaviour modification method and that doesn't apply here. It's about creating a safer environment for humanity. We have been doing that since the year dot without sentimentality. That's why the wolve has almost been wiped out. Of course, I would be happy with a non-lethal solution if it were possible and reliable.

Which isn't to say we won't do it anyway. :p
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 3:38:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 2:15:17 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/31/2015 5:07:42 AM, dee-em wrote:

So, you basically value humans over sharks.

Yes, every time.

Your argument is one of reciprocity -- sharks kill humans, .: humans kill sharks to prevent recidivism.

Huh? I'm talking about culling as a safety measure for recreational use of beaches.

There are much, much better ways of preventing getting killed by sharks -- surfing, for example, is *us* encroaching into their territory and vice versa. Think of a moral justification for it.

For what, culling? I have one. To keep people (perhaps your loved ones) safe.

On a more pragmatic note, let me tell you why shark conservation is actually important. Basically, they have a net positive impact to the ecosystem. Much more than those humans killed.

I'm sure that's a great comfort to the victim's families.

A University of Miami study showed that killing large sharks has a direct link with the ecosystem exploding with multiple numbers of those shark's prey, resulting in immense levels of animal casualties and damage to the ecosystem [http://www.sciencedaily.com...].

Animal casualties? You mean it's better for them to be eaten by large sharks?

Sharks also aid us against heavy metal poisoning. There are *immensely* large numbers of people who die of mercury poisoning from fish, and sharks actually eliminate them by absorption into skin.

Nonsense. Sharks accumulate mercury by eating smaller fish, the same as us. If anything we should avoid eating large predator fish (including sharks).

Besides, I'm talking about culling man-eaters around recreational beaches, not extermination of all sharks.
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 3:42:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 3:38:14 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/31/2015 2:15:17 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/31/2015 5:07:42 AM, dee-em wrote:

So, you basically value humans over sharks.

Yes, every time.

Please justify.


Your argument is one of reciprocity -- sharks kill humans, .: humans kill sharks to prevent recidivism.

Huh? I'm talking about culling as a safety measure for recreational use of beaches.

Recreation is more valuable than life? Wake up.


There are much, much better ways of preventing getting killed by sharks -- surfing, for example, is *us* encroaching into their territory and vice versa. Think of a moral justification for it.

For what, culling? I have one. To keep people (perhaps your loved ones) safe.

Kill sharks so that we can safely enjoy ourselves for unnecessary purposes. Sure, extremely moral. Our recreation is more important than lives.


On a more pragmatic note, let me tell you why shark conservation is actually important. Basically, they have a net positive impact to the ecosystem. Much more than those humans killed.

I'm sure that's a great comfort to the victim's families.

I would kill 3 to save 4.


A University of Miami study showed that killing large sharks has a direct link with the ecosystem exploding with multiple numbers of those shark's prey, resulting in immense levels of animal casualties and damage to the ecosystem [http://www.sciencedaily.com...].

Animal casualties? You mean it's better for them to be eaten by large sharks?

Yes, because otherwise there's extinction. But you know why conservation is important.


Sharks also aid us against heavy metal poisoning. There are *immensely* large numbers of people who die of mercury poisoning from fish, and sharks actually eliminate them by absorption into skin.

Nonsense. Sharks accumulate mercury by eating smaller fish, the same as us. If anything we should avoid eating large predator fish (including sharks).

Besides, I'm talking about culling man-eaters around recreational beaches, not extermination of all sharks.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 3:47:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 9:55:46 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 7/31/2015 5:07:42 AM, dee-em wrote:
Not a day seems to pass lately where there isn't a serious shark attack somewhere in the world. The surfing and diving communities seem to bear the brunt of these attacks but recreational swimmers have suffered casualties too. Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean, before the plane wreckage was washed up there in the last few days, was better known for having had 16 shark attacks (7 of them fatal) since 2011. The locals are terrified of the water.

The Mick Fanning incident has, of course, brought the issue of sharks into the media spotlight again.

Now I am as green as the next person and I believe in conservation, but aren't these arguments about sharing the ocean with man-eaters wearing a bit thin? The sharks don't want to share. We are on the menu.

When we are very small our parents read us stories but tell us that there really aren't any monsters, to reassure us. Well, I'm here to tell you that the monsters do exist and they are patrolling our beaches hunting for food. Humans are food to them.

Here in Australia one of our states (WA) introduced a policy of capturing and killing sharks in 2014 (it has since been abandoned).

https://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not aware that any deaths occurred on Perth beaches whilst this policy was in place.

My question to the forum is, given the seeming rapid increase in the rate of shark attacks and the trauma it causes to victims (non-fatal) and their families, do we need to re-examine our squeamishness to this issue and introduce shark culling around swimming and surfing beaches? Or is it a necessary evil which we just have to tolerate as part of our stewardship of the planet?

Dee-em, you surely are aware of the super-high (sarcasm) frequency of shark attacks, right? That alone should be enough to prevent you for writting this thread.

It's not the quantity, it is the quality.

But moreover, the very reasoning of the thread is really not something I can approve, because being reductive, it goes like this: I like to swim, so let's kill sharks!

I haven't swum in the ocean for many, many years.

By your reasoning America should not be spending billions annually on anti-terrorism measures as part of homeland security. I mean, how many people are being killed per annum by terrorist acts in the USA since 9/11? It's about the manner of death, not the numbers.

I remember a couple of years ago when a bank of jellyfish was lost and reached the shores of my city. The solution taken was to kill them all... I remember thinking: Are they killing all those jellyfish so we can swim in the sea? Is it really such a VITAL necessity... to swim at the beach? :/

Obviously someone thought so. What is your point?
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 3:56:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 3:42:13 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/2/2015 3:38:14 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/31/2015 2:15:17 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/31/2015 5:07:42 AM, dee-em wrote:

So, you basically value humans over sharks.

Yes, every time.

Please justify.

I'm human.

Your argument is one of reciprocity -- sharks kill humans, .: humans kill sharks to prevent recidivism.

Huh? I'm talking about culling as a safety measure for recreational use of beaches.

Recreation is more valuable than life? Wake up.

A human life over a fish's? Sure.

There are much, much better ways of preventing getting killed by sharks -- surfing, for example, is *us* encroaching into their territory and vice versa. Think of a moral justification for it.

For what, culling? I have one. To keep people (perhaps your loved ones) safe.

Kill sharks so that we can safely enjoy ourselves for unnecessary purposes. Sure, extremely moral. Our recreation is more important than lives.

Are you seriously suggesting that we cease all ocean swimming and surfing?

On a more pragmatic note, let me tell you why shark conservation is actually important. Basically, they have a net positive impact to the ecosystem. Much more than those humans killed.

I'm sure that's a great comfort to the victim's families.

I would kill 3 to save 4.

What?

A University of Miami study showed that killing large sharks has a direct link with the ecosystem exploding with multiple numbers of those shark's prey, resulting in immense levels of animal casualties and damage to the ecosystem [http://www.sciencedaily.com...].

Animal casualties? You mean it's better for them to be eaten by large sharks?

Yes, because otherwise there's extinction. But you know why conservation is important.

As I said, I'm not suggesting total extermination of all sharks everywhere.

Sharks also aid us against heavy metal poisoning. There are *immensely* large numbers of people who die of mercury poisoning from fish, and sharks actually eliminate them by absorption into skin.

Nonsense. Sharks accumulate mercury by eating smaller fish, the same as us. If anything we should avoid eating large predator fish (including sharks).

Besides, I'm talking about culling man-eaters around recreational beaches, not extermination of all sharks.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 7:46:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 3:22:03 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/31/2015 1:44:41 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
so it seems to me that another solution is needed.
Uh, better education?

Serious suggestion. :D

Semi-serious answer: do you think the man-eaters check on our level of education before they attack?

No, but we can check our own knowledge and informed consent before we enter the water. Once we do that, we are responsible for our own outcomes, just as any wilderness adventurer is.

It just seems to me that putting pressure on vulnerable species because an ape finds it fun to skid a plank down a wave might be an odd way to balance short-term and long-term species interests.

You assume that it is our job to preserve the status quo.

I explicitly don't assume that, Dee-Em. I'm strongly in favour of engineering the planet for our species' best long-term interests.

However I think we have both a pragmatic and a moral obligation to balance short-term individual interests and long-term species interests. And I'd ask whether it's really a community responsibility to eliminate our risks in a wilderness leisure activity that we voluntarily undertake, knowing the risks? If it is, does that mean we need water-fountains on desert treks too, and must human governments fence the African savannah so we can watch elephants and lions safely through the wire? :D

I could make the counter-argument that the man-eaters losing out to humans is evolution in action (survival of the fittest).

You could but I think you wouldn't, for any of five reasons. :D

Firstly, I think you know that slogan gets evolution wrong. Secondly, it defines fitness retrospectively and therefore circularly. Thirdly, it's an application of the is-ought fallacy: that we can eliminate a species is no argument that we should. Fourthly, evolution itself kills off highly successful species and inflicts untold misery on individual generations, so it's probably not a great idea to worship it. And finally but most importantly, there's no evidence that putting pressure on ancient predators to better support a casual leisure industry is a nett long-term species benefit.
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 10:31:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 3:47:05 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/31/2015 9:55:46 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 7/31/2015 5:07:42 AM, dee-em wrote:
Not a day seems to pass lately where there isn't a serious shark attack somewhere in the world. The surfing and diving communities seem to bear the brunt of these attacks but recreational swimmers have suffered casualties too. Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean, before the plane wreckage was washed up there in the last few days, was better known for having had 16 shark attacks (7 of them fatal) since 2011. The locals are terrified of the water.

The Mick Fanning incident has, of course, brought the issue of sharks into the media spotlight again.

Now I am as green as the next person and I believe in conservation, but aren't these arguments about sharing the ocean with man-eaters wearing a bit thin? The sharks don't want to share. We are on the menu.

When we are very small our parents read us stories but tell us that there really aren't any monsters, to reassure us. Well, I'm here to tell you that the monsters do exist and they are patrolling our beaches hunting for food. Humans are food to them.

Here in Australia one of our states (WA) introduced a policy of capturing and killing sharks in 2014 (it has since been abandoned).

https://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not aware that any deaths occurred on Perth beaches whilst this policy was in place.

My question to the forum is, given the seeming rapid increase in the rate of shark attacks and the trauma it causes to victims (non-fatal) and their families, do we need to re-examine our squeamishness to this issue and introduce shark culling around swimming and surfing beaches? Or is it a necessary evil which we just have to tolerate as part of our stewardship of the planet?

Dee-em, you surely are aware of the super-high (sarcasm) frequency of shark attacks, right? That alone should be enough to prevent you for writting this thread.

It's not the quantity, it is the quality.

I'm kind of confused with that assertion. Are you suggesting that the whim of people to bath at dangerous waters, is worth a species mass killing?


But moreover, the very reasoning of the thread is really not something I can approve, because being reductive, it goes like this: I like to swim, so let's kill sharks!

I haven't swum in the ocean for many, many years.

By your reasoning America should not be spending billions annually on anti-terrorism measures as part of homeland security. I mean, how many people are being killed per annum by terrorist acts in the USA since 9/11? It's about the manner of death, not the numbers.

Not a very good analogy imo. Terrorism is not done to kill a person, but done to frighten everyone that is not killed, hence "terror"ism. As a consequence of this, a lot of aspects of one's life are affected: people start to think they could die at any moment, they start being racist towards muslims, they stop consuming and start saving money out of fear, etc. It's a big big problem. Plus even if terrorists do kill just a little people per year or decade, their terror is still present everyday ie through their own declarations in the media, constant threats, etc.

Sharks are not terrorists, they are just animals that live only in certain waters and rarely attack anyone, and even most species attack out of confusion, which makes attacks even more rare. Moreover, terrorists are not needed, while sharks play an important role on the health of an ecosystem which, may I remind you, feeds millions of people per day. But the thing that annoys me, is that any half-developed country has protocols to know when sharks are on the coast and when and where is dangerous to swim, but still people don't care and since they can not overcome their unbridled lust for bathing or surfing that week, they throw themselves on the water. It would be cheaper, and more moral, to just hit these people in the head to bring their ego back to Earth, than to kill the sharks.

As for the very few people that really cares about shark attacks and they were bitten out of an accident, I think that's something very difficult to prevent in a satisfactory way. We could aswell desintegrate the clouds because you know, time to time, a person gets hit by lightning. Do you get my point?

I remember a couple of years ago when a bank of jellyfish was lost and reached the shores of my city. The solution taken was to kill them all... I remember thinking: Are they killing all those jellyfish so we can swim in the sea? Is it really such a VITAL necessity... to swim at the beach? :/

Obviously someone thought so. What is your point?
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 5:15:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 7:46:19 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/2/2015 3:22:03 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/31/2015 1:44:41 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
so it seems to me that another solution is needed.
Uh, better education?

Serious suggestion. :D

Semi-serious answer: do you think the man-eaters check on our level of education before they attack?

No, but we can check our own knowledge and informed consent before we enter the water. Once we do that, we are responsible for our own outcomes, just as any wilderness adventurer is.

Impractical. The mentality of most people is not so much informed consent but the attitude that "it happens to others, but it can't happen to me". Most people are in denial about their own mortality (especially when they are young), so it is naive to imagine that anyone is giving explicit or implicit informed consent for a grisly death because they have been warned of the dangers. You just had to see the shock on the face of Mick Fanning (a long-time experienced surfer) to realize that it doesn't work like that.

It just seems to me that putting pressure on vulnerable species because an ape finds it fun to skid a plank down a wave might be an odd way to balance short-term and long-term species interests.

You assume that it is our job to preserve the status quo.

I explicitly don't assume that, Dee-Em. I'm strongly in favour of engineering the planet for our species' best long-term interests.

I'm sorry, but "balancing short-term and long-term species interests" certainly sounded like it. You can't engineer the planet for humanity and not cause any impact on other species at all.

However I think we have both a pragmatic and a moral obligation to balance short-term individual interests and long-term species interests.

As a general rule, yes.

And I'd ask whether it's really a community responsibility to eliminate our risks in a wilderness leisure activity that we voluntarily undertake, knowing the risks?

I don't accept that most people go swimming or surfing with a tacit acceptance of the risks involved. We fence cliff-top edges to protect people from falling when we could just let them accept the risk of walking near the edge. Yes, it is a collective community responsibility to eliminate risk wherever possible.

If it is, does that mean we need water-fountains on desert treks too, and must human governments fence the African savannah so we can watch elephants and lions safely through the wire? :D

Already happens, Ruv. They are called lion parks and animal parks where people drive through in the (relative) safety of their cars.

I could make the counter-argument that the man-eaters losing out to humans is evolution in action (survival of the fittest).

You could but I think you wouldn't, for any of five reasons. :D

Firstly, I think you know that slogan gets evolution wrong. Secondly, it defines fitness retrospectively and therefore circularly. Thirdly, it's an application of the is-ought fallacy: that we can eliminate a species is no argument that we should. Fourthly, evolution itself kills off highly successful species and inflicts untold misery on individual generations, so it's probably not a great idea to worship it.

You're picking nits, Ruv. Darwin himself used the phrase.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from an evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."

And finally but most importantly, there's no evidence that putting pressure on ancient predators to better support a casual leisure industry is a nett long-term species benefit.

That has never been my main concern. My interest has been purely and simply in reducing or eliminating horrific death and injury to members of the species I care most about - homo sapiens. If a few monsters have to pay the evolutionary price for preying on a species that can fight back, I personally wouldn't lose too much sleep over it.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 5:44:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 10:31:47 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/2/2015 3:47:05 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/31/2015 9:55:46 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 7/31/2015 5:07:42 AM, dee-em wrote:
Not a day seems to pass lately where there isn't a serious shark attack somewhere in the world. The surfing and diving communities seem to bear the brunt of these attacks but recreational swimmers have suffered casualties too. Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean, before the plane wreckage was washed up there in the last few days, was better known for having had 16 shark attacks (7 of them fatal) since 2011. The locals are terrified of the water.

The Mick Fanning incident has, of course, brought the issue of sharks into the media spotlight again.

Now I am as green as the next person and I believe in conservation, but aren't these arguments about sharing the ocean with man-eaters wearing a bit thin? The sharks don't want to share. We are on the menu.

When we are very small our parents read us stories but tell us that there really aren't any monsters, to reassure us. Well, I'm here to tell you that the monsters do exist and they are patrolling our beaches hunting for food. Humans are food to them.

Here in Australia one of our states (WA) introduced a policy of capturing and killing sharks in 2014 (it has since been abandoned).

https://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not aware that any deaths occurred on Perth beaches whilst this policy was in place.

My question to the forum is, given the seeming rapid increase in the rate of shark attacks and the trauma it causes to victims (non-fatal) and their families, do we need to re-examine our squeamishness to this issue and introduce shark culling around swimming and surfing beaches? Or is it a necessary evil which we just have to tolerate as part of our stewardship of the planet?

Dee-em, you surely are aware of the super-high (sarcasm) frequency of shark attacks, right? That alone should be enough to prevent you for writting this thread.

It's not the quantity, it is the quality.

I'm kind of confused with that assertion. Are you suggesting that the whim of people to bath at dangerous waters, is worth a species mass killing?

Many people attacked by sharks would not accept that they were swimming in "dangerous waters". Where have I advocated for "species mass killing"?

But moreover, the very reasoning of the thread is really not something I can approve, because being reductive, it goes like this: I like to swim, so let's kill sharks!

I haven't swum in the ocean for many, many years.

By your reasoning America should not be spending billions annually on anti-terrorism measures as part of homeland security. I mean, how many people are being killed per annum by terrorist acts in the USA since 9/11? It's about the manner of death, not the numbers.

Not a very good analogy imo. Terrorism is not done to kill a person, but done to frighten everyone that is not killed, hence "terror"ism. As a consequence of this, a lot of aspects of one's life are affected: people start to think they could die at any moment, they start being racist towards muslims, they stop consuming and start saving money out of fear, etc. It's a big big problem. Plus even if terrorists do kill just a little people per year or decade, their terror is still present everyday ie through their own declarations in the media, constant threats, etc.

Sorry, that is very unconvincing. The analogy holds. Neither terrorism nor shark attacks result in many victims. It is the random nature of the horrific death and injury which is the real issue. As I said, governments are willing to spend billions on airport security and high-tech surveillance for very little return in terms of lives saved. You have to ask yourself why, and I've already indicated the answer.

Sharks are not terrorists, they are just animals that live only in certain waters and rarely attack anyone, and even most species attack out of confusion, which makes attacks even more rare. Moreover, terrorists are not needed, while sharks play an important role on the health of an ecosystem which, may I remind you, feeds millions of people per day.

I haven't seen the case made that an apex predator is indispensable to the environment. Besides, I am not talking about all species of shark (only a handful) and not all members of that species (only the ones which stray into the areas around recreational beaches).

But the thing that annoys me, is that any half-developed country has protocols to know when sharks are on the coast and when and where is dangerous to swim, but still people don't care and since they can not overcome their unbridled lust for bathing or surfing that week, they throw themselves on the water. It would be cheaper, and more moral, to just hit these people in the head to bring their ego back to Earth, than to kill the sharks.

Lust? Lol.

As for the very few people that really cares about shark attacks and they were bitten out of an accident, I think that's something very difficult to prevent in a satisfactory way. We could as well desintegrate the clouds because you know, time to time, a person gets hit by lightning. Do you get my point?

Sure. What I'm suggesting may be impractical except around heavily used suburban beaches. My point is that something may need to be done and soon. At least one state government thought so too for a time. I would be happy if some other equally effective,non-lethal measure could be developed. Perhaps the man-eaters could be tagged with a radio transmitter which raised an alarm with life-savers whenever they approached within a certain distance?
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 4:15:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 5:44:36 AM, dee-em wrote:
Many people attacked by sharks would not accept that they were swimming in "dangerous waters".

I agree many people can be accidentaly attacked in waters mistakenly reported as safe. But maybe we can improve on our "water danger analysis" efficiency to solve this issue.

Where have I advocated for "species mass killing"?

Where do you draw the line? For example, is the objective to kill any dangerous shark that is detected within an area of 20 kilometers from the coast?

Sorry, that is very unconvincing. The analogy holds. Neither terrorism nor shark attacks result in many victims. It is the random nature of the horrific death and injury which is the real issue. As I said, governments are willing to spend billions on airport security and high-tech surveillance for very little return in terms of lives saved. You have to ask yourself why, and I've already indicated the answer.

On the contrary, I think I indicated the answer to you. The money used to prevent/fight terrorism is used mainly to reduce or eliminate the terror generated by terrorism, which could include (not only) measures to prevent deaths.

Shark attacks do not have any impact whatsoever on the population's behaviour, consumer rates, country's international relationships, etc. Therefore, the fighting against terrorism will always require more money, and will always be a priority, over the fightning against sharks.

I haven't seen the case made that an apex predator is indispensable to the environment. Besides, I am not talking about all species of shark (only a handful) and not all members of that species (only the ones which stray into the areas around recreational beaches).

The shark that is responsible for most shark attacks is the white shark. This shark is already considered a threatened species according to IUCN. It is also the sole survivor of the gender Cacharodon. Moreover, apex predators are indeed a pretty important part of the ecosystem's self-regulation hability, something you can see in this lovely video https://www.youtube.com... (you are welcome :)). But, in any case, I wouldn't really call sharks apex predators, as most of their territory they share with the killer whale, which is a real apex predator (no natural predators known).

Also, jellyfish are responsible for more deaths than sharks. So there's probably quite a few marine species that you are willing to kill if you take both sharks and jellyfish into account. You would probably shape abruptly the coastal ecosystems where these "dangerous animals" abound, and with it, perhaps you would damage fishing, reefs, tourism, etc.


But the thing that annoys me, is that any half-developed country has protocols to know when sharks are on the coast and when and where is dangerous to swim, but still people don't care and since they can not overcome their unbridled lust for bathing or surfing that week, they throw themselves on the water. It would be cheaper, and more moral, to just hit these people in the head to bring their ego back to Earth, than to kill the sharks.

Lust? Lol.

What's the actual word I should have used? :)

As for the very few people that really cares about shark attacks and they were bitten out of an accident, I think that's something very difficult to prevent in a satisfactory way. We could as well desintegrate the clouds because you know, time to time, a person gets hit by lightning. Do you get my point?

Sure. What I'm suggesting may be impractical except around heavily used suburban beaches. My point is that something may need to be done and soon. At least one state government thought so too for a time. I would be happy if some other equally effective,non-lethal measure could be developed. Perhaps the man-eaters could be tagged with a radio transmitter which raised an alarm with life-savers whenever they approached within a certain distance?

Suburban beaches? Gross xP, how is the quality of the water on those places? I mean, are the sharks the real problem, or the carcinogenic toxins that the city pours into the sea, which are probably responsible for more deaths than sharks. I'm amazed sharks can resist those nasty places, the bad quality of the water should suffice to scare them away :p.

I don't think the radio measure would be efficient either. I mean, the capture of an entire population and recapture of youth before they bite someone, seems extremely difficult. I don't think there's a way in which we can "swim whenever we want" and be free of shark attacks. The most sensible measure that it occurs to me, is to improve our coast analysis in order to know which waters are dangerous, when are more dangerous, and just raise a flag at the beach with a shark printed on it... Of course also the standard measures like shark prevention nets, etc.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 2:15:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 4:15:41 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/3/2015 5:44:36 AM, dee-em wrote:

Many people attacked by sharks would not accept that they were swimming in "dangerous waters".

I agree many people can be accidentaly attacked in waters mistakenly reported as safe. But maybe we can improve on our "water danger analysis" efficiency to solve this issue.

To quote you a little further on "that measure is unlikely to be effective".

Where have I advocated for "species mass killing"?

Where do you draw the line? For example, is the objective to kill any dangerous shark that is detected within an area of 20 kilometers from the coast?

This is what the WA government did (from Wikipedia):

The use of 72 drum lines to bait and hook large sharks in Western Australian waters was implemented in January 2014. The state government, led by Premier Colin Barnett and then Fisheries Minister Troy Buswell,[3] developed the policy in response to a total of seven fatal attacks off WA in the years 2010 to 2013. The policy authorises and funds the deployment of drum lines near popular beaches: baited mid-water hooks designed to catch and kill great white sharks, bull sharks and tiger sharks. All sharks found hooked but still alive and measuring over 3 metres in length are to be shot and their bodies disposed of at sea.[4]

The principle behind the policy is to reduce the threat of shark attacks at popular coastal locations. It aims to achieve this by reducing the number of potentially life-threatening sharks by attracting them to baited hooks, rather than to human activity.

Two "marine monitored areas" have been established, stretching 1 km off shore from Quinns to Warnbro in the Perth metropolitan area, and Forest Beach to Cape Naturaliste and Prevelly in the state's south. Sharks larger than 3m found in these areas are to be hunted and killed by professional fishermen.[3]


There were 7 shark fatalities in WA between 2010 and 2013. I'm not aware of any deaths whilst culling was in place.

Sorry, that is very unconvincing. The analogy holds. Neither terrorism nor shark attacks result in many victims. It is the random nature of the horrific death and injury which is the real issue. As I said, governments are willing to spend billions on airport security and high-tech surveillance for very little return in terms of lives saved. You have to ask yourself why, and I've already indicated the answer.

On the contrary, I think I indicated the answer to you. The money used to prevent/fight terrorism is used mainly to reduce or eliminate the terror generated by terrorism, which could include (not only) measures to prevent deaths.

As opposed to the, um, terror caused by shark attacks?

Shark attacks do not have any impact whatsoever on the population's behaviour, consumer rates, country's international relationships, etc.

You must surely be jesting. Have you never watched "Jaws"?

Therefore, the fighting against terrorism will always require more money, and will always be a priority, over the fightning against sharks.

I see no difference. They are both a response to terror.

I haven't seen the case made that an apex predator is indispensable to the environment. Besides, I am not talking about all species of shark (only a handful) and not all members of that species (only the ones which stray into the areas around recreational beaches).

The shark that is responsible for most shark attacks is the white shark.

It's the Great White actually.

This shark is already considered a threatened species according to IUCN. It is also the sole survivor of the gender Cacharodon. Moreover, apex predators are indeed a pretty important part of the ecosystem's self-regulation hability, something you can see in this lovely video https://www.youtube.com... (you are welcome :)). But, in any case, I wouldn't really call sharks apex predators, as most of their territory they share with the killer whale, which is a real apex predator (no natural predators known).

List of aquatic apex predators:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Tell me if you see the Bull Shark, Tiger Shark and Great White Shark on the list.

Also, jellyfish are responsible for more deaths than sharks. So there's probably quite a few marine species that you are willing to kill if you take both sharks and jellyfish into account.

I wouldn't oppose culling of the Box Jellyfish either (if it were practical). However, the issue is the manner of death, ie. the terror. A jellyfish sting (whilst extremely painful) isn't in the same trauma league as being ripped to pieces by a big shark.

You would probably shape abruptly the coastal ecosystems where these "dangerous animals" abound, and with it, perhaps you would damage fishing, reefs, tourism, etc.

How? I'm only talking about culling in selected areas, not extermination.

But the thing that annoys me, is that any half-developed country has protocols to know when sharks are on the coast and when and where is dangerous to swim, but still people don't care and since they can not overcome their unbridled lust for bathing or surfing that week, they throw themselves on the water. It would be cheaper, and more moral, to just hit these people in the head to bring their ego back to Earth, than to kill the sharks.

Lust? Lol.

What's the actual word I should have used? :)

Love? Pleasure? Enjoyment?

As for the very few people that really cares about shark attacks and they were bitten out of an accident, I think that's something very difficult to prevent in a satisfactory way. We could as well desintegrate the clouds because you know, time to time, a person gets hit by lightning. Do you get my point?

Sure. What I'm suggesting may be impractical except around heavily used suburban beaches. My point is that something may need to be done and soon. At least one state government thought so too for a time. I would be happy if some other equally effective,non-lethal measure could be developed. Perhaps the man-eaters could be tagged with a radio transmitter which raised an alarm with life-savers whenever they approached within a certain distance?

Suburban beaches? Gross xP, how is the quality of the water on those places? I mean, are the sharks the real problem, or the carcinogenic toxins that the city pours into the sea, which are probably responsible for more deaths than sharks. I'm amazed sharks can resist those nasty places, the bad quality of the water should suffice to scare them away :p.

You must live near some mighty dirty beaches! I'm not even sure how this is relevant, but here in Australia we monitor the water quality for our suburban beaches and they have to meet stringent targets. Our beaches are generally very good except when there is heavy storm-water runoff, which is rare.

I don't think the radio measure would be efficient either. I mean, the capture of an entire population and recapture of youth before they bite someone, seems extremely difficult. I don't think there's a way in which we can "swim whenever we want" and be free of shark attacks. The most sensible measure that it occurs to me, is to improve our coast analysis in order to know which waters are dangerous, when are more dangerous, and just raise a flag at the beach with a shark printed on it... Of course also the standard measures like shark prevention nets, etc.
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 4:23:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 2:15:54 PM, dee-em wrote:
To quote you a little further on "that measure is unlikely to be effective".

According to the few deaths per year that sharks actually cause, I believe they are already pretty effective :/

This is what the WA government did (from Wikipedia):

The use of 72 drum lines to bait and hook large sharks in Western Australian waters was implemented in January 2014. The state government, led by Premier Colin Barnett and then Fisheries Minister Troy Buswell,[3] developed the policy in response to a total of seven fatal attacks off WA in the years 2010 to 2013. The policy authorises and funds the deployment of drum lines near popular beaches: baited mid-water hooks designed to catch and kill great white sharks, bull sharks and tiger sharks. All sharks found hooked but still alive and measuring over 3 metres in length are to be shot and their bodies disposed of at sea.[4]

The principle behind the policy is to reduce the threat of shark attacks at popular coastal locations. It aims to achieve this by reducing the number of potentially life-threatening sharks by attracting them to baited hooks, rather than to human activity.

Two "marine monitored areas" have been established, stretching 1 km off shore from Quinns to Warnbro in the Perth metropolitan area, and Forest Beach to Cape Naturaliste and Prevelly in the state's south. Sharks larger than 3m found in these areas are to be hunted and killed by professional fishermen.[3]


There were 7 shark fatalities in WA between 2010 and 2013. I'm not aware of any deaths whilst culling was in place.

I see. As I said, I don't like the method, but it sounds more sensible than go shark-hunting with the mentality of "apex predators are not really that important...".

As opposed to the, um, terror caused by shark attacks?

What terror? I don't think people really care about shark attacks lol. I mean, I don't think they cause half the terror of, say, travel by plane.

You must surely be jesting. Have you never watched "Jaws"?

Are you afraid of sharks because of a hollywood movie? You must be kidding...


Therefore, the fighting against terrorism will always require more money, and will always be a priority, over the fightning against sharks.

I see no difference. They are both a response to terror.

Yes de-em. Pigeons , bees and spiders are also very frightening for some people , but the phobias of an insignificant part of the population are no justification for allocating as much money to the fight against sharks as to the fight against terrorists. Btw I know you see the difference.

It's the Great White actually.

Yes.

This shark is already considered a threatened species according to IUCN. It is also the sole survivor of the gender Cacharodon. Moreover, apex predators are indeed a pretty important part of the ecosystem's self-regulation hability, something you can see in this lovely video https://www.youtube.com... (you are welcome :)). But, in any case, I wouldn't really call sharks apex predators, as most of their territory they share with the killer whale, which is a real apex predator (no natural predators known).

List of aquatic apex predators:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Tell me if you see the Bull Shark, Tiger Shark and Great White Shark on the list.

Ironicly, when I cliked Great White, I saw this: "The great white shark has no natural predators other than the killer whale." So, a cuasi-apex predator :p

I wouldn't oppose culling of the Box Jellyfish either (if it were practical). However, the issue is the manner of death, ie. the terror. A jellyfish sting (whilst extremely painful) isn't in the same trauma league as being ripped to pieces by a big shark.

So dying in pain while you drown is somehow better than dying torn to pieces. Why.

How? I'm only talking about culling in selected areas, not extermination.

Extermination on those selected areas. Or do you plan to leave one or two gigantic sharks in there?

Love? Pleasure? Enjoyment?

)

You must live near some mighty dirty beaches! I'm not even sure how this is relevant, but here in Australia we monitor the water quality for our suburban beaches and they have to meet stringent targets. Our beaches are generally very good except when there is heavy storm-water runoff, which is rare.

Oh I actually live in the place with the most blue flags beaches in all Europe! But I didn't expect you were from the paradise that is Australia, so I apologize :) Beaches there are surely very well maintained, except for the sharks!
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 3:13:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hmmm. The tide seems to be turning (pun intended).

http://www.smh.com.au...

Surfers on the NSW north coast have overwhelmingly voted for a partial cull of sharks following an unprecedented number of attacks and sightings along the world-famous coastline.
The extraordinary development came during a heated community meeting on Monday night, in which residents were told some businesses were about to fold because visitors were too scared to come to the area for beach holidays.
"I've been in Ballina or Byron Bay all my life and I've never seen anything like it," said Ballina shire mayor David Wright.
"People who have surfed every morning for 40 years are not going in. People are pulling out of holidays from caravan parks and other accommodation.
"If you've seen the Mick Fanning footage, that's happened 10 or 11 times in this area this year."
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 1:35:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It looks like my idea of tagging sharks isn't so far-fetched after all:

http://www.smh.com.au...

The shark tagging program is to be led out of Ballina by internationally respected shark biologist Vic Peddemors.

"The campaign will involve on-water surveillance by experts as well as a targeted research program up and down the North Coast, which will involve tagging and tracking of local sharks, and significant investment in educating the public to be SharkSmart," Parliamentary Secretary for the North Coast Chris Gulaptis said.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 2:17:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Shark attack fever? One theory is that the ban on whaling is resulting in more whales and hence more sharks preying on them:

http://www.smh.com.au...

Brock, 66, is one of the rare survivors from that age of innocence. A man of few possessions now, he is a sort of badge of honour for the people of Lennox Head and lives in a friend's house which looks into the eye of Lennox Head barrels as they rifle down the point. A couple of weeks back he watched a great white have a go at a boardrider at the point.

"It's the whales. They weren't here when surfing started here in the 1960s and now they're back big time. And the great whites are here for them."
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 4:30:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So, I enjoy airsoft. Like, a lot. For those not familiar with airsoft, think "paintball" but with more realistic looking guns.

Anyhoo, the place I play at (tomorrow, weather determining, super stoked...) is an out door field. It has bugs, snakes, spiders, mosquitoes... you know, "nature". That nature can be a REAL pain in the rear, some times. Minding your own, you find you stepped in an ant mound. Or a through/at a banana spider's web. Or some frickin' snake gets uppity and snaps at you. You aren't there to hunt the wildlife, you are there for recreation, which involves hunting other people. }:)

The point is that you accept certain risks when you do it. Ant bites are hugely common. Set your watch by it "dude lay down in an antpile unwittingly for cover, missing the next game" kind of common. Its grossly unfair to the wildlife and ecosystem present to begin exterminations based on inconvenience to the players. This analogy should also extend to surfers: they know just as well as I do what inherent risks their sport/hobby holds. By punishing the natural aspects of that recreational activity, all the participant is doing is shunting responsibility of their own actions by enforcing the wild life shouldn't be there in the first place. That is a dishonorable and dishonest position to maintain.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2015 5:46:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 4:30:30 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
So, I enjoy airsoft. Like, a lot. For those not familiar with airsoft, think "paintball" but with more realistic looking guns.

Anyhoo, the place I play at (tomorrow, weather determining, super stoked...) is an out door field. It has bugs, snakes, spiders, mosquitoes... you know, "nature". That nature can be a REAL pain in the rear, some times. Minding your own, you find you stepped in an ant mound. Or a through/at a banana spider's web. Or some frickin' snake gets uppity and snaps at you. You aren't there to hunt the wildlife, you are there for recreation, which involves hunting other people. }:)

The point is that you accept certain risks when you do it. Ant bites are hugely common. Set your watch by it "dude lay down in an antpile unwittingly for cover, missing the next game" kind of common. Its grossly unfair to the wildlife and ecosystem present to begin exterminations based on inconvenience to the players. This analogy should also extend to surfers: they know just as well as I do what inherent risks their sport/hobby holds. By punishing the natural aspects of that recreational activity, all the participant is doing is shunting responsibility of their own actions by enforcing the wild life shouldn't be there in the first place. That is a dishonorable and dishonest position to maintain.

So we should re-stock all the remaining forests with wolves and bears, and next time your daughter is out on a school camping excursion and is taken by a wolf, you will wax philosophical about mankind's interaction with nature? Or your son is swimming at the local beach with his mates and a Great White rips his leg off, well, let's have some respect for the rights of the wild life to maim and dismember us?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2015 7:56:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/16/2015 5:46:33 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/15/2015 4:30:30 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
So, I enjoy airsoft. Like, a lot. For those not familiar with airsoft, think "paintball" but with more realistic looking guns.

Anyhoo, the place I play at (tomorrow, weather determining, super stoked...) is an out door field. It has bugs, snakes, spiders, mosquitoes... you know, "nature". That nature can be a REAL pain in the rear, some times. Minding your own, you find you stepped in an ant mound. Or a through/at a banana spider's web. Or some frickin' snake gets uppity and snaps at you. You aren't there to hunt the wildlife, you are there for recreation, which involves hunting other people. }:)

The point is that you accept certain risks when you do it. Ant bites are hugely common. Set your watch by it "dude lay down in an antpile unwittingly for cover, missing the next game" kind of common. Its grossly unfair to the wildlife and ecosystem present to begin exterminations based on inconvenience to the players. This analogy should also extend to surfers: they know just as well as I do what inherent risks their sport/hobby holds. By punishing the natural aspects of that recreational activity, all the participant is doing is shunting responsibility of their own actions by enforcing the wild life shouldn't be there in the first place. That is a dishonorable and dishonest position to maintain.

So we should re-stock all the remaining forests with wolves and bears, and next time your daughter is out on a school camping excursion and is taken by a wolf, you will wax philosophical about mankind's interaction with nature? Or your son is swimming at the local beach with his mates and a Great White rips his leg off, well, let's have some respect for the rights of the wild life to maim and dismember us?

There is a certain irony in this, in as much as that is exactly what you are expecting from your culling.

Now, more to the point, does your appeal to emotion in any way negate what I brought to the table?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2015 9:37:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 4:30:30 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
So, I enjoy airsoft. Like, a lot. For those not familiar with airsoft, think "paintball" but with more realistic looking guns.

Anyhoo, the place I play at (tomorrow, weather determining, super stoked...) is an out door field. It has bugs, snakes, spiders, mosquitoes... you know, "nature". That nature can be a REAL pain in the rear, some times. Minding your own, you find you stepped in an ant mound. Or a through/at a banana spider's web. Or some frickin' snake gets uppity and snaps at you. You aren't there to hunt the wildlife, you are there for recreation, which involves hunting other people. }:)

The point is that you accept certain risks when you do it. Ant bites are hugely common. Set your watch by it "dude lay down in an antpile unwittingly for cover, missing the next game" kind of common. Its grossly unfair to the wildlife and ecosystem present to begin exterminations based on inconvenience to the players. This analogy should also extend to surfers: they know just as well as I do what inherent risks their sport/hobby holds. By punishing the natural aspects of that recreational activity, all the participant is doing is shunting responsibility of their own actions by enforcing the wild life shouldn't be there in the first place. That is a dishonorable and dishonest position to maintain.

Exactly my point. I see it as extremely unfair to kill dangerous animals only because they threaten our purely recreational activities. Like if our amusement should be above the animal lifes and the health of the ecosystems that feed us in the first place.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 1:31:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/16/2015 9:37:53 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/15/2015 4:30:30 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
So, I enjoy airsoft. Like, a lot. For those not familiar with airsoft, think "paintball" but with more realistic looking guns.

Anyhoo, the place I play at (tomorrow, weather determining, super stoked...) is an out door field. It has bugs, snakes, spiders, mosquitoes... you know, "nature". That nature can be a REAL pain in the rear, some times. Minding your own, you find you stepped in an ant mound. Or a through/at a banana spider's web. Or some frickin' snake gets uppity and snaps at you. You aren't there to hunt the wildlife, you are there for recreation, which involves hunting other people. }:)

The point is that you accept certain risks when you do it. Ant bites are hugely common. Set your watch by it "dude lay down in an antpile unwittingly for cover, missing the next game" kind of common. Its grossly unfair to the wildlife and ecosystem present to begin exterminations based on inconvenience to the players. This analogy should also extend to surfers: they know just as well as I do what inherent risks their sport/hobby holds. By punishing the natural aspects of that recreational activity, all the participant is doing is shunting responsibility of their own actions by enforcing the wild life shouldn't be there in the first place. That is a dishonorable and dishonest position to maintain.

Exactly my point. I see it as extremely unfair to kill dangerous animals only because they threaten our purely recreational activities. Like if our amusement should be above the animal lifes and the health of the ecosystems that feed us in the first place.

Now, for a devil's advocate stance, while I am obviously against culling on wide scale, what about nuisance animals that encroach in neighborhoods?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 1:37:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/16/2015 7:56:19 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/16/2015 5:46:33 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/15/2015 4:30:30 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
So, I enjoy airsoft. Like, a lot. For those not familiar with airsoft, think "paintball" but with more realistic looking guns.

Anyhoo, the place I play at (tomorrow, weather determining, super stoked...) is an out door field. It has bugs, snakes, spiders, mosquitoes... you know, "nature". That nature can be a REAL pain in the rear, some times. Minding your own, you find you stepped in an ant mound. Or a through/at a banana spider's web. Or some frickin' snake gets uppity and snaps at you. You aren't there to hunt the wildlife, you are there for recreation, which involves hunting other people. }:)

The point is that you accept certain risks when you do it. Ant bites are hugely common. Set your watch by it "dude lay down in an antpile unwittingly for cover, missing the next game" kind of common. Its grossly unfair to the wildlife and ecosystem present to begin exterminations based on inconvenience to the players. This analogy should also extend to surfers: they know just as well as I do what inherent risks their sport/hobby holds. By punishing the natural aspects of that recreational activity, all the participant is doing is shunting responsibility of their own actions by enforcing the wild life shouldn't be there in the first place. That is a dishonorable and dishonest position to maintain.

So we should re-stock all the remaining forests with wolves and bears, and next time your daughter is out on a school camping excursion and is taken by a wolf, you will wax philosophical about mankind's interaction with nature? Or your son is swimming at the local beach with his mates and a Great White rips his leg off, well, let's have some respect for the rights of the wild life to maim and dismember us?

There is a certain irony in this, in as much as that is exactly what you are expecting from your culling.

Now, more to the point, does your appeal to emotion in any way negate what I brought to the table?

Sure. You were talking about a few ant bites and cobwebs. I'm talking about an apex predator which strikes at random anywhere along almost every coastline on the planet. It's chalk and cheese.

As I said earlier, I have some sympathy for the conservation cause. With most land species you can identify habitat and turn it into a wildlife reserve where, if you enter, you know the risks. Even with crocodiles and alligators, many fatalities are caused by people taking foolish risks. I can live with that, mostly. However, there are few preventative measures for man-eating sharks. Yes, don't swim in murky water or in early morning and late evening for some species but these tips are no guarantee to avoid attack.

Whether we like it or not surfing and swimming are popular human recreational activities. I don't accept the idea that the sharks own the coastline and we just have to live with a certain rate of casualties for the privilege of sharing with them. These platitudes coming from academia about us trespassing into their territory don't sway me one little bit. It may sound great until you or a member of your family is on the receiving end of a horrific attack. To me, it is far too high a price to pay.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 5:06:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So, I enjoy airsoft. Like, a lot. For those not familiar with airsoft, think "paintball" but with more realistic looking guns.

Anyhoo, the place I play at (tomorrow, weather determining, super stoked...) is an out door field. It has bugs, snakes, spiders, mosquitoes... you know, "nature". That nature can be a REAL pain in the rear, some times. Minding your own, you find you stepped in an ant mound. Or a through/at a banana spider's web. Or some frickin' snake gets uppity and snaps at you. You aren't there to hunt the wildlife, you are there for recreation, which involves hunting other people. }:)

The point is that you accept certain risks when you do it. Ant bites are hugely common. Set your watch by it "dude lay down in an antpile unwittingly for cover, missing the next game" kind of common. Its grossly unfair to the wildlife and ecosystem present to begin exterminations based on inconvenience to the players. This analogy should also extend to surfers: they know just as well as I do what inherent risks their sport/hobby holds. By punishing the natural aspects of that recreational activity, all the participant is doing is shunting responsibility of their own actions by enforcing the wild life shouldn't be there in the first place. That is a dishonorable and dishonest position to maintain.

So we should re-stock all the remaining forests with wolves and bears, and next time your daughter is out on a school camping excursion and is taken by a wolf, you will wax philosophical about mankind's interaction with nature? Or your son is swimming at the local beach with his mates and a Great White rips his leg off, well, let's have some respect for the rights of the wild life to maim and dismember us?

There is a certain irony in this, in as much as that is exactly what you are expecting from your culling.

Now, more to the point, does your appeal to emotion in any way negate what I brought to the table?

Sure. You were talking about a few ant bites and cobwebs. I'm talking about an apex predator which strikes at random anywhere along almost every coastline on the planet. It's chalk and cheese.

Is it? The way you are describing this, its sounds, I don't know... almost formulaic. More people go into the water, more people get attacked. I wonder what the correlation is. If you are talking about an apex predator, that would be the one debating a cull. Apex predators aren't culled. PS, I live in Florida, "Shark Bites Surfer" is a lot like reading "its going to rain" in the local paper. Much along the lines of "Gator eats pet". Or "Fishermen struck by lightning". Its almost a catalog of "duh".

As I said earlier, I have some sympathy for the conservation cause. With most land species you can identify habitat and turn it into a wildlife reserve where, if you enter, you know the risks. Even with crocodiles and alligators, many fatalities are caused by people taking foolish risks. I can live with that, mostly.

Your special pleading, though requires a....

However, there are few preventative measures for man-eating sharks. Yes, don't swim in murky water or in early morning and late evening for some species but these tips are no guarantee to avoid attack.

Sounds like a risk. The likes of which are things you know.

Whether we like it or not surfing and swimming are popular human recreational activities. I don't accept the idea that the sharks own the coastline and we just have to live with a certain rate of casualties for the privilege of sharing with them. These platitudes coming from academia about us trespassing into their territory don't sway me one little bit.

If you are referring to them as an apex predator, its not a platitude, its a statement of fact.

It may sound great until you or a member of your family is on the receiving end of a horrific attack. To me, it is far too high a price to pay.

So, to boil it down, your desire to swim in the ocean is so great is so great a few people must loose a limb or two before you decide arbitrarily to sanitize that environment.

Or, as you stated, you can know the risks and act accordingly. Hey, you know what, my bad for calling you the apex predator. My mistake. Clearly, you are just well armed chum.

Ideally, you need to ask yourself if you are responsible for the risks you take. If the answer is "yes", a cull is not necessary. If the answer is "no", then I shudder at the idea, as its just a matter of time before you find another risk that needs sanitizing. For your recreation, no less.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 7:33:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 1:31:46 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/16/2015 9:37:53 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/15/2015 4:30:30 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
So, I enjoy airsoft. Like, a lot. For those not familiar with airsoft, think "paintball" but with more realistic looking guns.

Anyhoo, the place I play at (tomorrow, weather determining, super stoked...) is an out door field. It has bugs, snakes, spiders, mosquitoes... you know, "nature". That nature can be a REAL pain in the rear, some times. Minding your own, you find you stepped in an ant mound. Or a through/at a banana spider's web. Or some frickin' snake gets uppity and snaps at you. You aren't there to hunt the wildlife, you are there for recreation, which involves hunting other people. }:)

The point is that you accept certain risks when you do it. Ant bites are hugely common. Set your watch by it "dude lay down in an antpile unwittingly for cover, missing the next game" kind of common. Its grossly unfair to the wildlife and ecosystem present to begin exterminations based on inconvenience to the players. This analogy should also extend to surfers: they know just as well as I do what inherent risks their sport/hobby holds. By punishing the natural aspects of that recreational activity, all the participant is doing is shunting responsibility of their own actions by enforcing the wild life shouldn't be there in the first place. That is a dishonorable and dishonest position to maintain.

Exactly my point. I see it as extremely unfair to kill dangerous animals only because they threaten our purely recreational activities. Like if our amusement should be above the animal lifes and the health of the ecosystems that feed us in the first place.

Now, for a devil's advocate stance, while I am obviously against culling on wide scale, what about nuisance animals that encroach in neighborhoods?

Animals that are around your neighborhood shouldn't be kicked out if they do not represent an obvious danger to neighbors. But as I said, Im against cullin with the excuse of recreational activities, not against cullin to solve a danger that you have inmediatly out of your house (although I would study some other not-so-invasive alterbative). This obviously compromises your everyday life.

But maybe you have some particular animal in mind?