FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Does the human population over react with bigger animals?





Blaster
With watching shark week this past week I thought about this question. Its seems that every time someone gets bit by a shark we want to kill the shark that did it. To do this we kill every shark we can. This used to be the old way of doing at least.

But have we ever sat back and thought about other animals that do the same thing to us daily. Think about how many times we have been bit my mosquitoes and spiders or stung by a bee. Do we run around trying to kill everything in revenge.

So why do we overreact when it comes to such a big thing as sharks. Lets look at how many things we kill for food and such. Is it really that bad that some of us are having this same thing happen to us?

Now yes it is sad that we lose people to shark attacks. But your more likely to be struck by lighting than be attacked by a shark.
deanhills
Blaster wrote:
So why do we overreact when it comes to such a big thing as sharks. Lets look at how many things we kill for food and such. Is it really that bad that some of us are having this same thing happen to us?

Now yes it is sad that we lose people to shark attacks. But your more likely to be struck by lighting than be attacked by a shark.
Blaster. I've lived close to the Indian Ocean at one time, and wow, you should see the havoc a Great White Shark can create. They are really nasty creatures. There has been numerous times that surfers have been pulled off their boards, and either killed or badly maimed. If they stay in the deep ocean, away from the beach, then yes, one should leave them alone, but when they are preying on surfers for example, with deadly intent, then I have no problem with them being killed.
Peterssidan
I think it's the same with small animals too. If I have an mosquitoe on my leg I will try to kill it, but if it escape my hand I will probably let him escape. A spider I probably throw away because they are harmless (at least where I live) and it doesn't feel right to kill it. I think the reason we over react to bigger animals is that they are often more dangerous and we believe they can do it again. Humans kill more sharks than sharks kill human so it's not more than right that the sharks kill some of us, in a way Wink
LittleBlackKitten
Another massive difference here is something you already stated; size. Size dictates power, and in most cases, power dictates temperment, and deadly side effects. The reason we "over react" as you so interstingly coined, is because it's our self-defense mechanism. The bigger they are, the more likely they are to kill us. There are excpetions, of course; like the Brown Recluse spider, or the cottonmouth snake, or mosquitos carrying disease, or the tse-tse fly, all of which are perfectly capable of killing humans without really trying, or being very large. But consider the difference between a little critter biting or stinging you, and something that's bigger than you are trying to make you lunch. It's a self-preservation mechanism to kill these things before they kill you, and it's a species protection mechanism hard wired into the human psyche to kill or eradicate that which makes a threat on life, such as sharks too close to shore, or an infestation of rodents in a home. It's not over-reacting; its a basic instinctual response to a threat on life. The smaller it is, the less chance there is that it will kill, and therefore, we leave it alone (generally; I'm not talking about those unrealisticly histrionicly afraid of spiders, bugs, snakes, and rodents...), and we leave it alone because of that very reason. Too small = can't kill me. That assumption right there causes us to want to kill the big threats, and leave the smaller ones alone. What would you rather have bite you; a mosquito or spider, or a shark, tiger, or elephant?
Bikerman
There are so many exceptions to that rule that it calls it into question.
1) Many of the largest animals are no direct threat as preditors because they are herbivores.
2) If evolution bases the fear response on size then why are we afraid of sharks but seemingly not afraid of much bigger whales?
3) If it were instinct to kill such creatures then mankind would have gone extinct millenia ago.
4) You give an example of sharks, and in the same sentence, rodents (pretty small).
5) There seems to be a fairly universal fear of spiders and snakes amongst humans. This makes sense and indicates that any 'instinctive' reaction is more sophisticated than simply reacting to the size of the creature.
Blaster
deanhills take this into account we are in there environment. It is there place that they live. Sharks are confused with surfers because they are close looking to a sharks natural food, a seal. So can you blame the shark for wanting to eat. Lets put this in perspective of a human. If you were in your home and you saw something that looked like a chicken and you ate it without really thinking would you be wrong. Should you be killed because in stead you ate something else that looked like a chicken. Maybe a bad example but lets face it that's what it is.

Bikerman you brought up the same point I was going to bring up. We can't look at just size. The hump back camel is bigger than us and people ride them every day to get where they need to go. Look at animals like whales. We actually like whales because they keep away sharks.

LittleBlackKitten If an elephant were ever to bite you let me know. I would really like to see that.
deanhills
Blaster wrote:
deanhills take this into account we are in there environment. It is there place that they live. Sharks are confused with surfers because they are close looking to a sharks natural food, a seal. So can you blame the shark for wanting to eat. Lets put this in perspective of a human. If you were in your home and you saw something that looked like a chicken and you ate it without really thinking would you be wrong. Should you be killed because in stead you ate something else that looked like a chicken. Maybe a bad example but lets face it that's what it is.
I beg to differ on this. Human beings are in charge of the beach and surf, and need to protect their own species. So if they are threatened by sharks, then I'm all for sorting the sharks out. You obviously have not come face to face with an aggressive shark yet, I'm sure your philosophy will completely change when you have had, or when close friends of yours can share their experiences with you, if they have survived that is. The Great Whites are very aggressive, dangerous and nasty creatures. The surf is also not their natural habitat either.
Bikerman
Great whites are intelligent and nowhere near as dangerous as made out. They are certainly efficient predators - in the marine envioronment you need to be. Humans, however, are no part of their diet. We are way too bony and skinny to interest the Great White - they prefer something with real bluber and bones that it can swallow without getting stuck in its teeth.

Strange how you get all misty-eyed about river dolphins and then advocate slaughtering an equally, if not more, intelligent species, which is also on the 'endangered list'*, just because it has killed a few humans.** Would you also advocate the killing of other animals, responsible for many more deaths than the Great White? Hippos? Elephants? These are direct competitors, unlike the Great White. Hippos live on land that humans occupy so if we apply your rather odd logic that these animals live where we 'are in charge' then it makes sense to shoot them. I would actually love to know what this 'we are in charge' actually means. Does it mean that we have a moral right to kill anything that encroaches on our habitat? Who put us in charge? Did they tell the bacteria?

Jaws has a lot to answer for - and Peter Benchley was very much aware of it, and put a lot of effort, before his death, into correcting the misleading impression given by the film.
http://www.sharkfriends.com/sharks/PBarticle.html

* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/7268636/Great-white-sharks-more-endangered-than-tigers.html

** The Great White is responsible for about 30-50 attacks on humans per year, of which 10-15 are normally fatal. That is an insignificant number compared to other causes of mortality. To put it in perspective, the odds of dying from a shark attack are about 1 in 300,000,000. For comparison, the odds of dying from having a coconut fall on your head are about 1 in 240,000,000; dying from falling out of bed is much more likely - 1 in 2,000,000 (20 people a year die in Britian alone from this).
missdixy
yea, i definitely think it has to go with the size of the animal. at least, most of the time. more like, the threat to human life. and yes, people do want to kill mosquitoes a lot. there are many people who kill or try to kill every mosquito they see because of west nile virus (aka a threat to human life/well-being) as opposed to a little june bug or spider.
Bikerman
missdixy wrote:
yea, i definitely think it has to go with the size of the animal. at least, most of the time. more like, the threat to human life. and yes, people do want to kill mosquitoes a lot. there are many people who kill or try to kill every mosquito they see because of west nile virus (aka a threat to human life/well-being) as opposed to a little june bug or spider.

I can't see an obvious correlation between size and threat.
Elephant and Hippos are two large animals that do kill a reasonable amount of humans - but mainly because the humans 'bug' them, not because they are trying to kill humans. Others in the largest category would be:
Giraffe : pretty harmless if left alone
Elephant Seal : ditto
Blue whale : might kill you accidentally if it squashed you, otherwise no threat at all
Gorilla : harmless if left alone - veggy.
Giant Squid : only really dangerous in sci-fi
iman
Yes, humans do. Swarms of small animals can be more destructive than the large ones.
And wth, elephants are relatively harmless.
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
Blaster wrote:
So why do we overreact when it comes to such a big thing as sharks. Lets look at how many things we kill for food and such. Is it really that bad that some of us are having this same thing happen to us?

Now yes it is sad that we lose people to shark attacks. But your more likely to be struck by lighting than be attacked by a shark.
Blaster. I've lived close to the Indian Ocean at one time, and wow, you should see the havoc a Great White Shark can create. They are really nasty creatures. There has been numerous times that surfers have been pulled off their boards, and either killed or badly maimed. If they stay in the deep ocean, away from the beach, then yes, one should leave them alone, but when they are preying on surfers for example, with deadly intent, then I have no problem with them being killed.


For someone living "next to the Indian Ocean," you seem to know very little about Great White Sharks. First off, they aren't "nasty" creatures. I have never heard of a Great White Shark eating a human being... Never.

Humans are NOT on their diet. The reason that humans get bitten is that they occasionally confuse humans on surf boards to their actual food. That is why most of the people who get bitten get bitten on days when the water is murky. It makes it harder for the shark to see the person.

And I've never heard of a human being eaten. The shark will usually bite into a leg (as it is an easy place to bite) and then once the shark realizes that it's not food, they spit it out. I have heard of alligators causing more havoc than sharks (and I've been around wild alligators plenty and have never seen any real aggression). I have heard about hippos being a million times more aggressive than sharks. Great White Sharks aren't a real problem... Just look at Bikerman's statistics...

And since when and why have humans been in "charge" of the surf? That seems like an interesting idea that has no logical basis behind it...
Vrythramax
missdixy wrote:
yea, i definitely think it has to go with the size of the animal. at least, most of the time. more like, the threat to human life. and yes, people do want to kill mosquitoes a lot. there are many people who kill or try to kill every mosquito they see because of west nile virus (aka a threat to human life/well-being) as opposed to a little june bug or spider.


My niece works for mosqiutoe control in the state of Florida. They have a long standing program of trying to eradicate the little blood suckers...and all government funded. I don't think it has alot to do with the size of the animal (or insect) but more towards the danger posed by whatever it happens to be.

They still have a bounty on coyotes in the western US...and not because they pose any real danger (they do attack at at times), but they do pose a serious threat of the spread of rabies.
LittleBlackKitten
My basic point was this: size (which includes number as well as mass) is a greater threat than a little mosquito. Herbivores will attack and kill you if given the chance; usually over terretory, or a mate. You can't expect to stand 30 feet from a wild gorilla, and not get hurt in some way. Zoos excluded. But if you think about it, size and number DOES play a huge role in fear. There ARE people afraid of whales, and some have been killed by rogue pods of orcas and dolphins, divers have been nommed on and maimed by massive whales.
Vrythramax
errr...many diseases are spread via insect bite...and many more people die every year from insect "attack" than from sharks, snakes, or bears.
Utopia GFR
I think people overreact because of primal fear.

If you fall in the sea surrounding Gansbaai (South Africa) , you will encounter many white sharks (I'm just pointing out that location because it's very popular for shark amateurs).

Chances are that you will be mistaken for a seal or any other interesting prey for the shark and you will probably be severely bitten and maybe lose your life.

If I did'nt know that information, I would maybe consider a shark as some big fish (like a dolphin) and try to make friends under water.

In fact, just like any other animal I guess, before something bad happens.

Shark attacks (and most "wild" animals) have been pretty much popularized via books, movies "Jaws" and the Internet, listing sharks as dangerous animals that one should avoid at all costs.

Same thing applies to snakes, spiders, scorpions and all animals that raise fear.

If people keep on telling you that you should either run away from some animal or even kill it, well, why should you feel guilty? (you just reacted like most people and displayed your emotions).

I think, overreaction is linked to animal paranoia and social response.

Furthermore and it just applies to sharks, some people kill them for food purposes.

As far as I am concerned, I love sharks but science has proved (even though very few attacks are reported/year), that some species can be a real threat for humans.

Blaster wrote:
With watching shark week this past week I thought about this question. Its seems that every time someone gets bit by a shark we want to kill the shark that did it. To do this we kill every shark we can. This used to be the old way of doing at least.

But have we ever sat back and thought about other animals that do the same thing to us daily. Think about how many times we have been bit my mosquitoes and spiders or stung by a bee. Do we run around trying to kill everything in revenge.

So why do we overreact when it comes to such a big thing as sharks. Lets look at how many things we kill for food and such. Is it really that bad that some of us are having this same thing happen to us?

Now yes it is sad that we lose people to shark attacks. But your more likely to be struck by lighting than be attacked by a shark.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Great whites are intelligent and nowhere near as dangerous as made out. They are certainly efficient predators - in the marine envioronment you need to be. Humans, however, are no part of their diet. We are way too bony and skinny to interest the Great White - they prefer something with real bluber and bones that it can swallow without getting stuck in its teeth.
Bikerman, you don't know what you are talking about. You are rationalizing without having any practical knowledge of the first hand variety. Talk to anyone living on the East Coast of South Africa, you may get a different version. And I most definitely look differently at sharks than I do at dolphins. In fact, where dolphins are, one is usually safe, as sharks have a healthy respect for dolphins. Obviously you're not a diver, or spend lots of time in the ocean, or are you? Sharks are carnivorous, period. They are very intelligent which makes them much more dangerous, since they are always on the prowl for victims, are equipped with extra senses that make them probably the most dangerous hunters of the ocean. To think they are not dangerous is a joke!!!!! Tell that to those who have been badly maimed. I don't have a problem with all sharks, but if there were a Great White around, you must definitely won't find me in his environment.
Quote:
A great white shark primarily uses its extra senses (i.e, electrosense and mechanosense) to locate prey from far off. Then, the shark uses smell and hearing to further verify that its target is food. At close range, the shark utilizes sight for the attack.

Great white sharks’ reputation as ferocious predators is well-earned, yet they are not (as was once believed) indiscriminate “eating machines”. They typically hunt using an “ambush” technique, taking their prey by surprise from below. Near the now-famous Seal Island, in South Africa’s False Bay; studies have shown that the shark attacks most often occur in the morning, within 2 hours after sunrise. The reason for this is that it is hard to see a shark close to the bottom at this time. The success rate of attacks is 55% in the first 2 hours, it falls to 40% in late morning and after that the sharks stop hunting.

The hunting technique of the white shark varies with the species it hunts. When hunting Cape fur seals off Seal Island, South Africa, the shark will ambush it from below at high speeds and hit the seal at mid-body. They go so fast that they actually breach out of the water. They have also been observed chasing their prey after a missed attack. The prey is usually attacked at the surface.


Source: http://www.fearbeneath.com/sharks/great-white-sharks/

For stats: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Sharks/statistics/statsw.htm
ocalhoun
It's the fear factor mainly.
People are scared, and choose a (long term) fight or flight response.
Some choose flight by staying out of the water, some choose fight by killing sharks.
The more reasonable/informed ones don't bother having fear of the sharks because the actual risk of an attack is low.

Quote:

But have we ever sat back and thought about other animals that do the same thing to us daily. Think about how many times we have been bit my mosquitoes and spiders or stung by a bee. Do we run around trying to kill everything in revenge.

But wasn't Bikerman advocating the extinction of mosquitoes just a little while ago?l

Apparently some people do want to kill them.
Bikerman
Dead wrong as usual Dean. I am indeed a quite experienced diver. I did my PADI decades ago before it was actually called the PADI. I have dived a few hundred times in various locations around the world - including off the Great Barrier Reef where the Great White can be found.
You can witter on all you like about stuff you just looked up, but the facts remain - 15 people a year killed by the Great White. A tiny tiny number. Of course no diver wishes a close encounter with a Great White, but I was far more worried about box jelly than GW sharks when diving the barrier reef and the divemaster told us that he has personally about a dozen sightings of the GW, and neither him nor any diver in any of his parties, nor any diver he knows has ever been even slightly inconvenienced by a GW.
Of course they are dangerous but so what? You want to kill an animal just because it is good at what it does? You stand more chance of dying falling out of bed than being killed by a GW, as I said, so your characteristation of this evil shark is not only over the top, it is rather silly.
As long as dolphins play nice and are not dangerous then we should save them and kill the sharks?
That is entirely too inconsistent and anthropomorphic for me. You just go for the cute animals, admit it.

Oh - and I really wish you wouldn't invent things that you think I said.
Quote:
To think they are not dangerous is a joke
Which is why I have never said, hinted or alluded to the fact that they are not dangerous. I gave an exact accounting of how dangerous. 15 people a year. They didn't die by tickling. I said they are not as dangerous as made out - by people like you and films like Jaws. They don't attack boats and they don't pull 4 barrels down to the bottom before setting off on a ramming course. Fiction, Dean, it is called fiction.
As I also said, the maker of Jaws - Peter Benchley - was deeply regretful about the impact of the film - scores of Oiks hiring boats and going after GW sharks with everything from fishing gear to explosives. He spent much of the rest of his life trying to set the record straight.

Occalhoun - yes indeed I did and do think that if we could wipe out the mossie then I would say do it. The GW is a slightly different case. I'm pretty sure the intelligence of a mossie is not going to register on many charts, but the GW is as intelligent as a dolphin and has a highly developed nervous system, so I apply my normal ethics (which I also talked about) which is consciousness is the measure I go by. The more an animal has the less it should be stressed, damaged, hunted or killed.

PS - correction to above (I just dug out my dive records) I have only done 196 dives, not several hundred as I said - my mistake (it feels like more over the last 20 years, but the dive logs don't lie).
Blaster
Bikerman some people go diving to see sharks so i wouldn't say that no diver wants to see them. Just saying

And Dean bikerman is right. Look at the statistics. I don't know where you are coming from thinking that we "own" this world. We are simply members of it. Just look at the statistics on this website http://animals.howstuffworks.com/fish/most-dangerous-shark.htm it has a lot of great statistics involved with shark attacks. Some of which bikerman stated some of which he did not.

Is it maybe that we don't respect the shark? How many shark attacks are provoked each year?

Also where would we be without the shark? It is a vital part of the food chain. So if we were to cause it to go extinct what would that mean for the rest of the ocean? I'm not 100% sure but i know i don't want to find out.



In relation to fire safety, approximately 500 people die and 11,000 are seriously injured in the UK each year from fires.* Yet without fire we as humans can't survive. Lets face it we use it just about everyday without even thinking about it. So what makes this better than sharks?

*http://www.videojug.com/expertanswer/fire-safety-explained/how-many-people-die-in-fires-each-year
ocalhoun
Blaster wrote:
Lets face it we use it just about everyday without even thinking about it. So what makes this better than sharks?

... Uh ...
We don't use sharks everyday without even thinking about it?
Rolling Eyes
Bikerman
Blaster wrote:
Bikerman some people go diving to see sharks so i wouldn't say that no diver wants to see them. Just saying
Oh yes, I've been in with a whale shark, a hammerhead and a shark I don't know the name for (only about 3ft long). I wouldn't set out to go in with Great Whites though - not unless I had a steel cage or someone I really, really trusted who knew exactly what they were doing. They are not toys and they are well capable of doing you in with one bite if they really mean it. They are quite beautiful (only seen pics and vids) but I have a rule about diving - no false bravado, no showing off and if you don't feel good about the dive then don't dive. I think I would be too nervous to feel good about seeking out the great white...I know my limits Smile
Blaster
Thats a good call Bikerman I don't blame you one bit.

And ocalhoun thats not the point I was trying to get at. The point i'm getting at is that we arn't afraid of it because we got used to it. Maybe we need to do the same with sharks. We need to understand there importance in our environment
deanhills
Blaster wrote:
And Dean bikerman is right. Look at the statistics. I don't know where you are coming from thinking that we "own" this world. We are simply members of it. Just look at the statistics on this website http://animals.howstuffworks.com/fish/most-dangerous-shark.htm it has a lot of great statistics involved with shark attacks. Some of which bikerman stated some of which he did not.
Well hopefully we are allowed to have a different opinion on this. I can assure you unequivically that I am not alone in this opinion. Statistics don't have a place when a Great white is radaring on you and he usually does it by stealth. I would be very cautious if there are any reports about the presence of a Great White around. Other sharks are OK, I've seen those frequently, at a respectable distance when I was diving in Sharm El Shaik I think it was at Jack's Point. But Great White, no way.

One factor that has played a role as well is people feeding the Great White so that they can see it in cages. I find that also completely out of place and almost primitive. That is really fiddling around with something that can only backfire in the long run, as it has in Cape Town a few years ago:
Bloomberg June 2005 The article is quite objective about the Great White, covering both sides of the debate. Mine is completely on the side of keeping a very respectable distance, and if known to be around, you won't find me in the surf. And most definitely not diving in that area. I can't imagine PADI would consider that either.
Bikerman
You weren't talking about keeping your distance, you advocated 'sorting the shark out' - ie killing it. Since it is a very endangered species, as I said, I think you display double standards.

The PADI diving qualification doesn't specifically cover wildlife threats, but that would be the responsibility of your divemaster who would know the region. Such considerations are part of the divemaster training. You should know this if you dive - or have you not qualified?
Blaster
Dean bikerman is again right. You before stated you wanted to kill the shark if they came close to the beach. Now you are saying to stay a distance away from it. Well that just sounds reasonable now. I wouldn't just go in and dive with great white sharks.

Also there are certain times that the shark feeds primarily. These are at dusk and dawn. Also the shark will fly up to the surface if you appear to be a seal and go to eat you. Once it realizes you are not a seal then it usually lets you go and goes on its way. The shark may only have one shot at it so therefore it can't confirm it first.

This is even worse when in murky water. The shark relies just as much on its eyes as it does its other senses. So therefore in murky water the shark is even more likely to attack a wrong being.

Other times seem to be when you have something the shark once. For example you are a spear fisherman and just hit a fish. Well the shark smells the blood as well as senses the vibrations of the flickering of the fish before it is complete dead.
deanhills
Blaster wrote:
Dean bikerman is again right. You before stated you wanted to kill the shark if they came close to the beach. Now you are saying to stay a distance away from it. Well that just sounds reasonable now. I wouldn't just go in and dive with great white sharks.
I did not say I was going to kill the sharks, I however said that if they posed a threat to a beach where people surf and swim, that it would be perfectly justifiable if the particular Great White were to be hunted and exterminated. Bottomline being, that if there is a threat to the human species in their territory, then humans should come first. In reverse, I would stay very far away from their territory.

Blaster wrote:
Also there are certain times that the shark feeds primarily. These are at dusk and dawn. Also the shark will fly up to the surface if you appear to be a seal and go to eat you. Once it realizes you are not a seal then it usually lets you go and goes on its way. The shark may only have one shot at it so therefore it can't confirm it first.
Now you are playing with roller dice. The Great Whites eat anything that has lots of fat in it. And that includes humans as well. One of the cases reported in Cape Town was a surfer that got eaten completely. Agreed, that they do let go of of human prey, but then that is perhaps because they don't think they would be a good snack. Not because the prey is not a seal. I'm not even sure that it distinguishes between different prey except for their ingredients as a square meal by Great White standards.
hamza1122
yes they do. they immediately feel threatened because they are bigger than them and shoot them or try to kill them or something.

A lot of people say this, and it's true, the animal is probably more scared of you than you are of that animal.

If we just stay out of their way then we won't be in any harm but not many people listen.
Arty
Blaster wrote:
Also there are certain times that the shark feeds primarily. These are at dusk and dawn. Also the shark will fly up to the surface if you appear to be a seal and go to eat you.


Are you insane? We're talking about GREAT WHITES here, not NURSE sharks. Great whites will eat anything that moves, INCLUDING humans.

IF there is a great white prowling a beach, killing every human surfer it comes across, then we have a choice. Kill it, wait about 20 years for it to die, or wait until it changes feeding grounds, God knows how long that would take.
Blaster
Humans do not own any part of the ocean. It isn't our territory it is that of the sharks and other marine life. Think about how many sharks fishermen catch and kill in there nets each year. How is that fair to the shark?

Arty you can't be serious when you say that great whites will eat anything that moves. How many people swim with great whites and don't get bit? Many people swim with sharks each year without any problem.

How would you feel if someone came in your home. Started interacting there. Then you touched them trying to get them out and they kill you? The ocean is not ours... If people think like this i guess we need to make our own private oceans for surfers and everyone else like you guys. Because its plain old selfish to think otherwise.
Bikerman
[quote="Arty"]
Blaster wrote:
IF there is a great white prowling a beach, killing every human surfer it comes across, then we have a choice. Kill it, wait about 20 years for it to die, or wait until it changes feeding grounds, God knows how long that would take.

a) Great Whites don't generally 'prowl beaches' because they prefer deep water.
b) The attacks from Great Whites are recorded and we know how many people they attack. It is a tiny number compared to the number they could attack if they were intent on using humans as food.
c) There are people who free-dive with the GW. It wouldn't be my choice, as I have said, but the notion that they immediately attack any human nearby is simply not true. cage-diving with the GW is now a fairly routine tourist attraction in Australia and South Africa and the sharks don't generally try to get at the humans - they are mostly just curious. To get the sharks to appear frightening they usually have 'bait' them with chump.
deanhills
OK. This is Adelaide in 2004. Two Great Whites attack a surfer and completely demolishes him. So do we tell the people who surf and the parents of that surfer not to worry, Great Whites ordinarily don't frequent the surf, they like to stick with the deep waters. It was just an oops, maybe these glorious species mistook their son for a seal! And everything is OK? Besides which, the occurence of Great White attacks is not that frequent? That would make the parents feel better?

When one human being kills another, then there is some sort of prosecution. The person who did the killing gets to be heard in a court and then sentenced. But it is OK for a Great White to kill a human being. Because it really did not mean to be in the surf? Does not make sense to me. When a leopard has attacked human beings, it is OK to hunt and kill him, but not a Great White?
Bikerman
Also from the article
"The last fatal shark attack off an Adelaide beach was in 1991" (and that was a Pointer shark).

The surfer was not in shallow water - he was being towed by a boat 300m offshore (ie in deep waters).
People choose to partake in dangerous sports - that is up to them. No native Australian could possibly be unaware that the GW shark is to be found around large parts of the coast, just as they are aware of Box Jellyfish and other dangers. If they choose to disregard the danger then so be it. It is unfortunate, but that's life.
Using your logic you would have to destroy all GW sharks, all Pointer sharks, all Mako sharks - in fact any species that could kill a human.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Using your logic you would have to destroy all GW sharks, all Pointer sharks, all Mako sharks - in fact any species that could kill a human.
That is rediculous Bikerman. Turning things completely around. My point was that if a shark has killed a human being that there should be some retribution. You have pointed out in your usual expert way that there are not that many attacks on human beings. So obviously that won't effect all sharks.
With regard to the Adelaide Shark Attack, do you regard 300m from the beach as deep sea?

PS - I accidentally clicked edit rather than quote. I have replaced the posting but you will need to finish the last para again because I lost the quote. Bikerman
Bikerman
You did not say only those sharks which kill - you said any sharks which were a danger - which as you have also said, is ANY GW shark. Try to keep up with your own postings at least!

The depth of water (I said deep water not deep sea) at 300m from the coast is likely to be 20-50m - that is plenty deep.

PS - the notion of 'retribution' against a creature that is acting instinctively is bizarre.
LittleBlackKitten
Something I should point out, is animals do not have the ability to associate one thing with another. They don't go "Oh those humans killed a brother of mine last week, I should eat that one to make them hurt!" they're following instinct. All they know, is we can look like seals, and seals = food. Simple as that.
Blaster
So are you saying we should kill every snake that kills a human? We should kill every jelly fish who kills a human. If a rock falls off a mountain we should destroy the mountain? Lets face it the human population takes risks. When we take these risks we get a surge of Adrenaline. The adrenaline comes from knowing that you are doing something dangerous. Most of the people who do get bit are, like bikerman said, in deeper water. And deeper water is where the sharks are... at least for the GW's sake.
ankitdatashn
Well I differ from the opinion of the topic starter, I feel whenever anyone harms us there is a natural tendency to go against that group of animals. For example if there is an ardent animal lover and if later he gets attacked by any voracious dog then he would develop an anti feeling towards all dogs, this is more of a natural process rather than a thought process. And moreover as I have yet not seen any whale so for me mosquitoes have more dangerous quotient.
mshafiq
I guess bad hunters have different approach.

Generally we try to remain safer. so it is probably OK to eliminate the chances of bad occurrences /accidents.
Afaceinthematrix
You know, I grew up on the border of the Mojave and Sonoran desserts... When I was young, I used to go out and "play" with rattlesnakes... I would catch them, hold them, try and get them to rattle at me, etc. I have never been bitten by a snake, but had I been bitten, I wouldn't have been mad at the snake. It was my fault... I loved the snakes and I understood the risk (although I am slightly smarter now and I haven't touched a rattle snake in quite some time).

I used to also love free climbing rock cliffs (ropes and harnesses were annoying to me). I never fell, but had I, I wouldn't have been mad at the rock. I knew the risk I was taking.

People that are actually victims of these unfortunate events seem to have this same mindset. I watched a lot on sharks this week here in the U.S. because it was "Shark Week" on the Discovery Channel. Not one of the shark attack survivors interviews held any grudge against the shark. They all understood that by surfing, they were taking a certain risk. They continued to surf, knowing the risk, because they understood that the chance of being bitten was minimal - only a few times per year in the ENTIRE world...

If you want "retribution" towards animals that hurt humans, then you might as well hunt down all hippos. My logic is that you, with absolutely no basis, claimed that humans have control over the surf (even though you do realize that we're land animals, right?). So why wouldn't we also have control over the rivers? And GW sharks kill very few people (about 20 per year) and when they do, it's by ACCIDENT. Whereas hippos kill MANY people per year PURPOSELY. The hippos are an EXTREMELY dangerous and territorial animal and is feared more than any other in Africa. So why shouldn't we take them out so that we can safely raft and canoe the rivers?

Oh, and we might as well kill out all dogs (even domesticated ones kill occasionally), tigers, spiders, etc... Hell, let's kill all people because even people kill people!

What the reality of this situation is, Dean, is that you have a huge phobia over GW sharks. I am not sure if it's because you know a victim of a GW attack or something else... If you do know someone, I'm sorry. But you're using this phobia to cloud your logic... When you're in someone else's territory (because we are NOT ocean creatures), you can't blame them for accidental deaths... Surfers know the risks and they can choose another activity. But the fact of the matter is (and I'm an occasional surfer in Southern California and So.Cal. DOES have sharks) that the attacks are so rare that more people die in the U.K. each year from falling out of their beds and more people die EACH DAY from car accidents. So should we ban beds and have everyone sleep on mattresses that are on the ground (a safe height to fall from) and destroy all cars? Only 20 or so people die each year from GW attacks... It sucks if you do die that way but killing sharks for no reason isn't the solution... If it was, then we should kill all personally try to kill all other people because they may kill us! In fact, I fear walking down the streets of L.A. (especially Compton and West Hollywood) in the middle of the night way more... Every person I see roaming around at those times (in Hollywood because I don't go to Compton... And, to anyone reading this, I don't suggest going) I feel is a potential threat and may rob/shoot me...
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
What the reality of this situation is, Dean, is that you have a huge phobia over GW sharks.
Come off it Matrix. You're exaggerating. If I had such a phobia about sharks, why would I be diving without any fear? I love the ocean. And am crazy about diving. Most sharks are OK, but it would be a good idea to stay away when there is a Great white around. That is common sense ..... for me anyway. If it were your son who got killed by a Great White, maybe you would have a different perspective? I'm almost certain you won't go out and pat it on its head and say "no hard feelings".
Bikerman
If you are diving regularly without certification then I hope you have experienced dive partners. That is bad juju. Do you know your fast-ascent drill, safe depth, air recovery procedure, pressure/depth charts? If not then you SHOULD be scared.
Blaster
Afaceinthematrix I couldn't say it any better myself. That is an excellent story for the cause. (your mom must have wanted to kill you)

I'm a fire fighter. Fire kills many people each year, including fire fighters. I have personally known friends that have been hurt. I do this on a volunteer basis. I don't get paid to do this and neither do many people i know. However everytime I go to a fire I know that there is a risk of me getting hurt. Of something going wrong. However I still go out there and do it. Without it someone else might die. A person stranded on the 3rd floor of a building for example.

What im getting at here is that we can't be afraid of things like this. As Afaceinthematrix said it was Shark Week this last week in the US. Just about every person that was attacked said it wasn't the sharks faught it was there own. They didn't listen at where to go, they swam at the wrong time in the wrong conditions etc.
Ankhanu
Size is a factor, but it's more the brutality of individual events/attacks that gets people going on their "kill em all" frenzy. Shark attacks, bear mauls, crocodile attacks... these are creatures that cause a lot of pain/damage in a single effort and get a lot of media attention when they happen, setting people into fear mode, seeking vengeance.

But they're not the only situations leading to xenocidal behaviour from us. As others have mentioned there are MANY eradication programs to get rid of all mosquitoes, tse tse fly, black flies, rats, mice, termites, and many other pests... they're just not as news worthy, lacking any real kind of sensation Razz They're happening all around you and we just tend to take them for granted.

People over react, and we're supremely arrogant when it comes to dominion over life and deciding what lives and what dies. If we don't like something, whatever the reason, more often than not, we'll try to kill every last one of them Razz

Vrythramax wrote:
They still have a bounty on coyotes in the western US...and not because they pose any real danger (they do attack at at times), but they do pose a serious threat of the spread of rabies.


Actually, here on the east coast the coyotes are getting more aggressive. We had a fatal attack in a park here last fall and just had another attack (I don't have details yet) yesterday in one of the park's campgrounds. There's been aggressive behaviour in between that didn't resulted in an attack... Classically, coyotes aren't much of a threat (though like any other wild animal should always be treated with respect and as a possible threat), but they're becoming increasingly more dangerous for some as yet unknown reason.

In the past most problems were associated with coyotes that became accustomed to getting food from humans... that's seeming like it's becoming less important as a determining factor for attack, unfortunately. My province is going to be instating a bounty on coyotes this fall... not that bounties have ever been successful before, but it appeases some of the population, while incensing the rest Razz
timothymartin
Any animal can be a danger if you are not prepared. You can even be a danger to yourself.
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
What the reality of this situation is, Dean, is that you have a huge phobia over GW sharks.
Come off it Matrix. You're exaggerating. If I had such a phobia about sharks, why would I be diving without any fear? I love the ocean. And am crazy about diving. Most sharks are OK, but it would be a good idea to stay away when there is a Great white around. That is common sense ..... for me anyway. If it were your son who got killed by a Great White, maybe you would have a different perspective? I'm almost certain you won't go out and pat it on its head and say "no hard feelings".


If you really do not have a phobia over GW sharks, then you still need to find a way to answer all of these objections that you're failing to even acknowledge. The only logical explanation that I can see is that you do have a phobia - even if you're failing to admit it.

Why, after I explained that hippos kill more people than GW sharks, do you not argue that all hippos should be rounded up and killed? Hippos purposely, and frequently, kill people who are in the rivers while GW sharks rarely, and by accident, kill people in the oceans.

Why, after Bikerman showed you, do you not argue for the banning of beds since more people die by falling out of beds?

Why, after multiple people asked you, have you failed to answer our question on how you figure that people have control over the seas when we're clearly land animals?

Why are you arguing that we go out and kill all of these animals - that rarely kill humans - but not arguing that we should go out and kill animals that frequently kill humans?

You seem to have unusual standards here that you keep neglecting to explain and those unusual standards are usually brought up through fear...
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
If you really do not have a phobia over GW sharks, then you still need to find a way to answer all of these objections that you're failing to even acknowledge. The only logical explanation that I can see is that you do have a phobia - even if you're failing to admit it.
I have a very healthy respect of the damage that the Great White can do Matrix. That can hardly count as a phobia, even by a long shot. It is common sense.

I most certainly will not swim in the Zambezi river. It is infested with crocodiles. Of the verocious kind. Does that then also mean I have a phobia about crocodiles? Or is that something of common sense? And most certainly, if a crocodile killed my father or brother, or attacked them, I most definitely will kill that crocodile. Out of preservation of human life. Don't we have a right to defend ourselves?

I never said all GW sharks should be rounded up or killed. Where did I say that Matrix? Maybe you should take some time to read my postings as well. I was referring to GW sharks who killed people. Very specifically. And if they did kill people, I think it is completely OK for the GW shark/s who killed to be killed as well. Ditto a hippo. If a hippo attacked a man, then a man has the right to defend his own life. It would (common sense here again) be totally rediculous to round up all hippos and shoot them.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Maybe you should take some time to read my postings as well. I was referring to GW sharks who killed people. Very specifically.
..
I however said that if they posed a threat to a beach where people surf and swim, that it would be perfectly justifiable if the particular Great White were to be hunted and exterminated.

shurely shome mishtake moneypenny
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
If you really do not have a phobia over GW sharks, then you still need to find a way to answer all of these objections that you're failing to even acknowledge. The only logical explanation that I can see is that you do have a phobia - even if you're failing to admit it.
I have a very healthy respect of the damage that the Great White can do Matrix. That can hardly count as a phobia, even by a long shot. It is common sense.

I most certainly will not swim in the Zambezi river. It is infested with crocodiles. Of the verocious kind. Does that then also mean I have a phobia about crocodiles? Or is that something of common sense? And most certainly, if a crocodile killed my father or brother, or attacked them, I most definitely will kill that crocodile. Out of preservation of human life. Don't we have a right to defend ourselves?

I never said all GW sharks should be rounded up or killed. Where did I say that Matrix? Maybe you should take some time to read my postings as well. I was referring to GW sharks who killed people. Very specifically. And if they did kill people, I think it is completely OK for the GW shark/s who killed to be killed as well. Ditto a hippo. If a hippo attacked a man, then a man has the right to defend his own life. It would (common sense here again) be totally rediculous to round up all hippos and shoot them.


What? You still make zero since. Just listen to yourself...

Quote:
I most certainly will not swim in the Zambezi river. It is infested with crocodiles. Of the verocious kind. Does that then also mean I have a phobia about crocodiles? Or is that something of common sense?


So it is common since to not swim in rivers infested with crocodiles but it isn't common since to not swim in waters with sharks? Don't you see your logical contradictions?

"I think it is completely OK for the GW shark/s who killed to be killed as well"

And how exactly do you know which sharks have killed people? That's nearly impossible to know. Furthermore, we have constantly told you that sharks kill people on accident. So what use is killing the shark? There's about an equal chance of a shark that hasn't killed people to end up killing a person.... So why wouldn't you kill all of the GW sharks? But you're against it... "I never said all GW sharks should be rounded up or killed." See that logical contradiction?

"Don't we have a right to defend ourselves?"
And you can defend yourself after you're dead, how? You keep talking about how we need to defend ourselves, but since GW kill by accident, you can only defend yourself by killing ALL GW sharks as a prevention method. The reason is obvious. If I see one GW shark, the probability of it killing me is about the same as one who has killed before... So why kill the one who has killed (out of defense, as you say) and not the one that hasn't even though there's an equal chance of it killing me? It doesn't make sense. So the only solution, according to your logic, is to kill ALL GW sharks... But you're "against that..." So there's a LOGICAL CONTRADICTION...

P.S. You're still ignoring most of the arguments people have brought up against you... Why shouldn't we ban beds since more people die falling out of them than from GW sharks?
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
And how exactly do you know which sharks have killed people? That's nearly impossible to know.
If you followed the discussion from the beginning you might have noted we were not talking about all sharks, we were specifically discussing the Great Whites. Great Whites very rarely visit the surfing area in packs, it is pretty easy to identify which Great White was involved immediately after the fact. And if not, it is logical that one would NOT go out and look for any Great White and hunt them down. That would show complete lack of common sense.
Afaceinthematrix
However, as I said, Mr. Dean, killing the shark still doesn't do anything unless you kill ALL of the GW sharks.

The reason being is, as I said, they only kill humans by accident. So killing it is only an act of petty revenge. The one that killed the person isn't any more likely than some other random shark is to killing another person.

So by killing the first shark, you aren't doing anything extra to prevent more deaths than you would if you killed some other random shark. So if killing that shark isn't going to do anything extra, then the only way to prevent the deaths is to kill ALL sharks. But you said you do not condone that. You even said that it was illogical... But is it? Killing all GW sharks would prevent ALL attacks. Killing random ones that have killed people will not reduce the amount of attacks by any more than if you killed the same amount of random sharks that haven't killed sharks...

So you are not arguing for any kind of rational prevention of shark attacks - you are just arguing for petty revenge. That, to me, seems like it should be fueled by a phobia...
achowles
Hmm... I don't know. I think we're very keen to kill off as many mosquitoes, flies, fleas and other things that plague us as we can.

The thing is, that this is completely normal. Nobody is going to think twice about swatting a fly or a mosquito. So I think that the opposite is more likely to be true here. Because rats, while tame ones can make for intelligent and friendly pets, wild ones can also be just as verminous as the fleas they carry. Yet most of us would be slightly more hesitant to use glue traps on a rat than we would fly paper on a fly.

Generally, I think that there's a connection between how intelligent an animal is and how much we should be inclined to value its life. And like I said, rats can be intelligent. But if they're diseased and / or destroying your property or crops then it's a matter of you or them.

While sharks aren't quite as hostile to us as they're made out to be, they do rather more directly prey on us. Which does explain why we're more inclined to keep their numbers down where deemed necessary.
ocalhoun
achowles wrote:
Nobody is going to think twice about swatting a fly or a mosquito.

Nobody, hm?

Some of us base our morals on more than base instinct.
I only swat a mosquito if it is trying to bite me, and I don't swat harmless flies at all; simply shooing them away is nearly always sufficient if they are getting annoying.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
achowles wrote:
Nobody is going to think twice about swatting a fly or a mosquito.

Nobody, hm?

Some of us base our morals on more than base instinct.
I only swat a mosquito if it is trying to bite me, and I don't swat harmless flies at all; simply shooing them away is nearly always sufficient if they are getting annoying.
I can't stand flies Smile Flies in the Middle East to me are different. Their flight takes them straight for people's orifices, mouth, nose, ears, etc., most unpleasant. Shooing means nothing to them, I do try that for a little while, every time, and then build up and after a while of pestering me, well it has to go. Mosquitoes I don't really have a problem with. I shoo them mostly and plaster myself with repellent most of the time.
TurtleShell
Actually, living in Southern California, we get ants in our apartment every year at around this time. They come inside for the water, I've read.

I wake up in the morning and they're on my counter. I kill them by smudging them out with my finger. I've been thinking about this lately--how I'm killing these poor ants for a little bit of trespassing. I don't want them in my house, so I destroy them.

And then I think about how nature does the same to people all the time--nature smudges people out for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I guess that's just life. But still, I would hate to be tearing apart ant families for the sake of keeping an ant-free counter, so I have a hard time reconciling my activities. I used to do the same with the mice in my apartment in New York. I would catch the mouse on a glue trap and then drown it in a bucket and dump it in the street, all just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Since I don't want to die in this way myself, this seems hypocritical and cruel.
Blaster
Dean you say that man has the right to defend himself. I agree 100% with this. No where did I say man shouldn't defend themselves. But to go out and kill every hippo just isn't fair.

If a hippo is attacking you you should do all you can to defend yourself. Doesn't every animal attempt to defend them self when getting attacked. That is a natural part of life. But antelope don't try and go kill every lion when it kills one of there kind.
Insanity
I fear things that can kill me. It just so happens a lot of these things are very big.

For what it's worth, I'm afraid of a lot of little things too.
Parkour_Jarrod
Okay just read through this thread and the Shark debate by far has to be the most entertaining thing i have read in a long time. Both sides were holding their stance rigidly and stubbornly when in fact, they were both correct in the fact sense of the word, it basically just turned itself into a bravery war.

This is the pure facts with sharks that I know without placing any of my own emotion into it.

Most sharks are HARMLESS, Sharks have no intent in eating human because to them we do NOT taste any good. Then it was the Debate about the Great White sharks, simply put, they aren't out to eat Humans, they are out to eat because they are hungry, much like a stoner eating bran flakes, usually they wouldn't eat it but they hungry so they do until they find something better.

Great White are the most known to attack humans because they are a BIG shark so they like BIG food like seals, turtles and other large sea-creatures, now humans are rather LARGE in the water compared to most fish so we look like a tasty meal. Most sharks will take one bite out of you find out you taste terrible then bugger off.

Now with my emotion my response to a shark is "get me the %@#$ out of the water!!!! NOW!"
I'm not scared of sharks or death, i'm scared of pain...

Then i just noticed we had the Mosquito or Fly talk Ill admit i try to kill the buggers because i don't like them, they annoy me, and they get in the way, and where there's one in Australia there is hundreds! BUT when someones says everyone wants to kill them? Look at people who follow Buddhism, its in their culture/religion to now harm ONE living thing on the PLANET... We could all learn from them, but we are too ignorant not too.
Blaster
I never said I would stay in the water with a shark... That to me is just crazy. I don't like to take bets... Its the same with the hippo. I wouldn't go swimming in hippo infested waters. But i'm not going to kill them because I want to swim there...
Bikerman
I don't even think I would have a go at cage diving with the GW - it is becoming very popular now and with modern kit there is almost no danger. My objection is that it is too safe and it reduces a wonderful creature to a demeaning circus act. I've dived with a variety of creatures over the years - including some sharks as I said earlier (NOT the GW!). It has always been a priviledge when a monsterous creature suddenly comes into view and allows you a look - a fantastic experience. Dangling off the side of a boat in a steel cage gawking at the GW shark seems somehow cheap and tawdry compared to that...
deanhills
Blaster wrote:
Dean you say that man has the right to defend himself. I agree 100% with this. No where did I say man shouldn't defend themselves. But to go out and kill every hippo just isn't fair.

If a hippo is attacking you you should do all you can to defend yourself. Doesn't every animal attempt to defend them self when getting attacked. That is a natural part of life. But antelope don't try and go kill every lion when it kills one of there kind.
Thanks Blaster, understood. But by the same token, I never said that we should kill every hippo either. Nor every GW. That is a bit absurd don't you think by any standard?
Blaster
Obviously but if we keep up the mindset that we should be killing everything that threatens us then it seems like that is what you are saying.
Parkour_Jarrod
Blaster wrote:
Obviously but if we keep up the mindset that we should be killing everything that threatens us then it seems like that is what you are saying.


If we killed everything that threatened us nothing would exist...
ocalhoun
Parkour_Jarrod wrote:
Blaster wrote:
Obviously but if we keep up the mindset that we should be killing everything that threatens us then it seems like that is what you are saying.


If we killed everything that threatened us nothing would exist...

Killing everything that threatens us is a poor choice when we have other ways to avoid the threats... Though there are things that are not a threat.
Insanity
I think it's basic human nature to run away from things that are big and powerful. Good thing, too. Saved my life a few years back when I ran from a very large shadow.
Arty
I would like to settle on a compromise between the two of you. Instead of debating whether or not we should kill the predator, why don't we just get along and enjoy some shark fin soup? Very Happy
deanhills
Arty wrote:
I would like to settle on a compromise between the two of you. Instead of debating whether or not we should kill the predator, why don't we just get along and enjoy some shark fin soup? Very Happy
Never tasted it before Arty, but when I do get an opportunity one day, will think of you when I do have shark fin soup. Excellent suggestion!

By the way, what does it taste like? Smile
Arty
Depends on what's in it. My family usually puts it in chicken soup (only on new years day, since it's expensive as hell) with black vinegar. The shark fins itself taste smooth and rich and you can feel the strands (the fin itself is cut up into tiny pieces) as you drink it.

Though tbh even though I only have it about once a year, "imitation" shark fin tastes the same to me. So I might as well have that instead since the sharks used are extremely endangered.
Blaster
If i'm not mistaken shark fins are pretty much illegal to harvest. Its also a waste of a whole shark. You use 1 tiny bit of the shark and then the shark is left to die. Which in my mind is just horrible. This also leads me to another point. Maybe its a good thing that these animals want to kill us... look at how we abuse them. Tell me how this is any different?
deanhills
Blaster wrote:
If i'm not mistaken shark fins are pretty much illegal to harvest. Its also a waste of a whole shark. You use 1 tiny bit of the shark and then the shark is left to die. Which in my mind is just horrible. This also leads me to another point. Maybe its a good thing that these animals want to kill us... look at how we abuse them. Tell me how this is any different?
I was thinking maybe we could harvest the sharkfins off all those Great Whites that I have become notorious for wanting to kill ..... only kidding .... Wink Most definitely will not kill a shark for making shark fin soup. And Arty's description of the soup actually does not sound that appetizing either. Wonder whether Arty was kidding though, sounds almost like a rocky horror soup especially when it comes to the black vinegar and feeling the hairiness of it? Smile
Arty
Nah, I'm serious. Very Happy
I have it every time I visit my family in Malaysia. lol

I didn't make my description sound appetizing for a reason, but it is really good. =O

Quote:
This also leads me to another point. Maybe its a good thing that these animals want to kill us... look at how we abuse them. Tell me how this is any different?

It's different in that we have the tools to prevent them from killing us, whilst they don't.
deanhills
Arty wrote:
Nah, I'm serious. Very Happy
I have it every time I visit my family in Malaysia. lol

I didn't make my description sound appetizing for a reason, but it is really good. =O

Quote:
This also leads me to another point. Maybe its a good thing that these animals want to kill us... look at how we abuse them. Tell me how this is any different?

It's different in that we have the tools to prevent them from killing us, whilst they don't.
OK, if it is Malaysia, they must be spicing it up, and I like it when cooks work with spices. I'm interested again. Is it a delicacy of Malaysia, and if I should visit there would I be able to get shark fin soup in any of the restaurants?
Arty
deanhills wrote:
Arty wrote:
Nah, I'm serious. Very Happy
I have it every time I visit my family in Malaysia. lol

I didn't make my description sound appetizing for a reason, but it is really good. =O

Quote:
This also leads me to another point. Maybe its a good thing that these animals want to kill us... look at how we abuse them. Tell me how this is any different?

It's different in that we have the tools to prevent them from killing us, whilst they don't.
OK, if it is Malaysia, they must be spicing it up, and I like it when cooks work with spices. I'm interested again. Is it a delicacy of Malaysia, and if I should visit there would I be able to get shark fin soup in any of the restaurants?


It is considered a delicacy in most asian cultures. You can have it in most Chinese restaurants in the world, as it is only illegal in Hawaii. (Legal in mainland US)
deanhills
OK that figures. Will look out for shark fin soup on the menus of the restaurants over here. I have not seen it before, but that could probably only be because I have not looked for it either. When I looked at soups, my eyes sort of usually connect with sweet and sour soup in Chinese restaurants and I don't look further as soups go.
Blaster
Arty wrote:


Quote:
This also leads me to another point. Maybe its a good thing that these animals want to kill us... look at how we abuse them. Tell me how this is any different?

It's different in that we have the tools to prevent them from killing us, whilst they don't.


Sure we have the tools to prevent them from killing us. Its called stay out of where they are. Its not there fault that we come in to there territory to come and hunt them. Why are we punishing them and killing them when they do nothing to us that isn't in there instinct? If sharks started coming on land and killing us just to go back into the water to eat us then ok I could see a point in maybe killing them but they don't so how is this fair to the sharks?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Chinese restaurants and I don't look further as soups go.

Your average 'Chinese' restaurant's food has little to nothing in common with any real Asian food.

Personally, I wouldn't order shark fin soup, as I know how wasteful of sharks' lives it is, as well as the highly inhumane way it is normally gathered.
Blaster
Warning video contains semi graphical content


Please tell me you think this is fair for the shark.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Chinese restaurants and I don't look further as soups go.

Your average 'Chinese' restaurant's food has little to nothing in common with any real Asian food.

Personally, I wouldn't order shark fin soup, as I know how wasteful of sharks' lives it is, as well as the highly inhumane way it is normally gathered.
Depends which Chinese restaurant, as there are of course also Chinese restaurants who serve mainly Chinese and Asian clientele. We call them the authentic Chinese restaurants that one only really knows about by word of mouth. Generally they almost have the look of a soup kitchen with no real trimmings. Have not been in one for a very long time, as my tastes lately have been more in Thai and Southern Indian cuisine, but there are quite a few of them in Dubai.
ProfessorY91
deanhills wrote:
Blaster. I've lived close to the Indian Ocean at one time, and wow, you should see the havoc a Great White Shark can create. They are really nasty creatures. There has been numerous times that surfers have been pulled off their boards, and either killed or badly maimed. If they stay in the deep ocean, away from the beach, then yes, one should leave them alone, but when they are preying on surfers for example, with deadly intent, then I have no problem with them being killed.


I completely agree. If you want to look at it from a preservationists point of view, we are inherently animals. We've found a way to effectively defend our own in territories that are ours. Granted we will not start the next great white shark hunt. Granted, its probably wrong to kill for shark meat/fin, delicacy or not. However, if people are getting attacked by the damn things, I'm all for a harpoon brigade right off the coast or whatever. Hell even electrified nets. Its called survival of the fittest, isn't it?

Ah well, I've probably misrepresented you, deanhills, but I'm unsympathetic towards things that kill. Prefer to go with the hammurabi point of view on this one.
deanhills
ProfessorY91 wrote:
Ah well, I've probably misrepresented you, deanhills, but I'm unsympathetic towards things that kill. Prefer to go with the hammurabi point of view on this one.
The discussion in this thread was really weird Professor. The picture of me wanting to kill the Great White Sharks willy nilly is not a correct one, in fact it got so out of control that it was expanded to me wanting wild animals killed willy nilly as well. Only if they endanger the lives of human beings head-on. In general the Great Whites keep to the deep sea but if near the surf, human beings do have a reason to be fearful of them. As much as people in the Canadian woods would be fearful if there is a bear nearby, or people on a farm when there is a leopard prowling near the homestead, obviously people should be cautious when there is a Great White near the surf. To me that is common sense.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
In general the Great Whites keep to the deep sea but...

[citation needed]

Don't they do a lot of their hunting near coastlines, given that one of their favorite foods is seal?

Heck, one of the most famous hot-spots for great whites is the Los Farallones Islands... just outside of San Fransisco Bay.
(While other places have more of them, that place has unmatched concentrations of unusually huge, aggressive ones.)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
In general the Great Whites keep to the deep sea but...

[citation needed]

Don't they do a lot of their hunting near coastlines, given that one of their favorite foods is seal?

Heck, one of the most famous hot-spots for great whites is the Los Farallones Islands... just outside of San Fransisco Bay.
(While other places have more of them, that place has unmatched concentrations of unusually huge, aggressive ones.)
You're right Ocalhoun, and I stand corrected. Looks as though they are living in the coastal waters. There is also a concentration in San Francisco as you mentioned. Refer the second link below. I know they are a protected species in the Southern African coastal areas as well, also the Great Barrier Reef. I found this information on the Internet:
http://greatwhiteshark.netfirms.com/gwdist.htm
http://www.fearbeneath.com/2008/05/great-white-shark-territory/
deanhills
This is a shocker and almost unbelievable. Three Russians and an Ukrainian were seriously injured on 1 December within minutes of one another in Sharm El Sheikh. On 5 December a German woman was killed. They were all attacked in shallow water near the shoreline. I just could not believe it when I read the story today that Sharm El Sheikh beaches have been closed because of shark attacks. First of all, this time of the year the water would be relatively cold as it is Winter in Egypt, I always thought sharks preferred warmer water like the Indian Ocean. I have dived in Sharm El Sheikh at various times, and sharks have not even been considered a problem. This has to be something quite out of the ordinary and a disaster for the tourism and diving industry, as they are usually very busy during the Xmas season. The majority of tourists are from Russia and Italy.

I can't think that the authorities would have overreacted in this case when they closed the beaches from 1 to 4 December, as five attacks must have justified this. Once they thought they had caught the shark responsible for the attacks, the beaches were reopened, but then on 5 December following another attack, the beaches and all diving activities were closed indefinitely. I can't imagine people swimming again for a while. There are now experts around who are investigating the incident as many think that it was very unnatural and unheard off for it to have happened in Sharm El Sheikh.
Quote:
In response, officials closed the beaches and suspended all diving and watersports activities. Specialists from the Egyptian environment ministry were called in to investigate and caught a 2.25 metres (7.4 ft)-long oceanic whitetip shark weighing 150 kilograms (330 lb) that was claimed to be the one responsible for the attacks. The shark was "identified" by a local diver who claimed to have recognized the fish by its damaged fin. A mako shark that was 2.5 metres (8.2 ft) long and weighed 250 kilograms (550 lb) was also caught. However, divers and conservationists said that the captured sharks were not the same as the one that had been seen and photographed in the area shortly before the attacks.

The reason for the attacks is still not clear and various theories are being considered. The sheep for slaughter theory is quite an interesting one, refer below:
Quote:
The chairperson of Sharm's Chamber of Diving and Water Sports (CDWS) suggested that attacks might have been due to overfishing, which is an ongoing problem in the area. Hesham Gabr said in a statement: "It is clear from our initial discussions with shark behavioural experts that this highly unusual spate of attacks by an oceanic whitetip shark was triggered by an activity, most probably illegal fishing or feeding in the area."

Other hypotheses that have been put forward include the possibility that cattle ships transporting sheep for slaughter during the Islamic festival of Eid al-Adha on 16 November may have dumped sheep carcasses overboard, bringing sharks unusually close to the shoreline. Unscrupulous diving companies were also blamed for feeding sharks to attract them for their clients.

Source: Wikipedia
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
There are now experts around who are investigating the incident as many think that it was very unnatural and unheard off for it to have happened in Sharm El Sheikh.

*squints*
*ponders*
*squints some more*
This isn't the same shark that some Egyptians are accusing the Jews of being involved in, is it?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
This isn't the same shark that some Egyptians are accusing the Jews of being involved in, is it?
Right on. I'm sure that is not a far fetch and that probably Israel will be blamed for the sharks. As of course that part of the world - Sharm El Sheikh - is not very far from Israel.

Just checked this up on the Web - and bingo - here you have it! Laughing
Quote:
Shark attacks on tourists in the Red Sea have triggered a flurry of speculation as to what could have caused them, with suggestions ranging from overfishing to an Israeli plot to harm Egyptian tourism.

Source: Reuters
Related topics
Who All Believes In Evolution?
Seeing Patterns That Are Not There
Turkey Bird flu Spreads
Supervolcano!
"Its not natural." And that makes it bad?
...all religion aside - is it wrong to be gay?
Why a vegetarian diet is healthier than eating meat
Is the EARTH / HUMAN POPULATION screwed?
Do you think humans will become extinct ever?
Why is Vegetarian Diet the best for all....
Would the world be a better place if..
Q: 2nd law of thermodynamics & creationists
Nature adaptation to Human
Anyone able to help: Hydroponics Garden in A Storage Unit?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.