Good Press on Protecting Sharks

[andreaC]

Boston Globe: 20th annual shark catch draws anglers, protests to Vineyard

"In the 1970s, a mechanical monster terrorized the shores of Martha's Vineyard, and sharks were never seen the same way again. But now the island resort is the focus of an advocacy group seeking to protect the predator.

Members of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals descended on the Vineyard last week to protest the annual Oak Bluffs Monster Shark Tournament, which finished its 20th run yesterday. Advocacy groups have argued for years that such contests glorify the deaths of the underwater creatures."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...ark_catch_draws_anglers_protests_to_vineyard/


Cape Cod Times: Sharks and island's honor both suffer
"Tournament supporters have presented a host of red herrings to the public as if to justify the cruelty, claiming even that the carnage is scientifically beneficial and necessary. Most shark scientists agree that, because tournaments target the largest sharks, measurements and samples cannot be considered representative of a shark population. Shark tournaments like Oak Bluffs' simply cannot provide the essential information needed to understand and protect shark populations. At most, this is an after-the-fact rationalization."
http://www.capecodonline.com/archives/7days/fri/myview.htm

Also:
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=149513
http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=149362
http://www.wbur.org/news/2006/59638_20060724.asp

 

[mfalco]

"Most shark scientists agree that, because tournaments target the largest sharks"
That is what someone from the mspca says, not what the actual shark scientists say

 

[gangrel441]

*sigh* Are we gonna' have to go through all this again?

http://www.scubaboard.com/showthread.php?t=150358

See every post from #5 on. Andrea, you still haven't addressed the questions of your own credibility in that thread.

Mods, isn't there something in the TOS about bombarding a forum with threads on the exact same topic?

 

[andreaC]

I've been involved with environmental and wildlife advocacy groups for years, as I'm sure a number of people on this forum have been. I've been interested in sharks for years and I feel that if we want people to start caring about reducing the number of shark deaths (either from commercial shark fisheries or as bycatch from other fisheries) we need the public to dramatically change their view of sharks. High profile events like the Monster Shark Tournament continue to degrade sharks and promote the idea that sharks are useless and not worthy of conservation and respect.

Not all scientists are on the same page on recreational shark killing. Here is a quote from Dr. Robert Hueter, Director of Mote Marine Laboratory's Center for Shark Research: "We ask fishermen not to kill sharks for sport and to remember that shark populations have been severely depleted by over-fishing." http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/0629hammerhead.html?imw=Y

From a 2004 study from the Shark Reseach Center in Nova Scotia: "However the size composition at the [shark] derbies was not representative of the population: small sharks were poorly represented (due to derby catch restrictions) and large males were over-represented (due to their being targeted by derby participants)."

 

[gangrel441]

I've been involved with environmental and wildlife advocacy groups for years....

Now there's a surprise...

One of them wouldn't be HSUS, would it?

...as I'm sure a number of people on this forum have been. I've been interested in sharks for years and I feel that if we want people to start caring about reducing the number of shark deaths (either from commercial shark fisheries or as bycatch from other fisheries) we need the public to dramatically change their view of sharks. High profile events like the Monster Shark Tournament continue to degrade sharks and promote the idea that sharks are useless and not worthy of conservation and respect.

I agree that sharks need to be portrayed differently in the media, but tournaments are not what is tarnishing the image of the shark in the media. Hyped-up reports of attacks are what is tarnishing that image.

Not all scientists are on the same page on recreational shark killing. Here is a quote from Dr. Robert Hueter, Director of Mote Marine Laboratory's Center for Shark Research: "We ask fishermen not to kill sharks for sport and to remember that shark populations have been severely depleted by over-fishing." http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/0629hammerhead.html?imw=Y

A quote I generally agree with, but twisted a bit out of context. How exactly do you think the scientests at Mote acquire the data necessary to make statements such as the one above? I would venture a guess it is not by going diving with a chumsicle. They have to have samples to base their research off of. Some of those samples are caught and released, some are killed and brought back for examination. The fishermen in a position where their sport fishing activities are nearly directly alligned with the interests of the researchers and, ultimately, the best interests of the shark populations as a whole. The catch was quite limited, and a large amount of data was collected in return on the specimens not kept.

From a 2004 study from the Shark Reseach Center in Nova Scotia: "However the size composition at the [shark] derbies was not representative of the population: small sharks were poorly represented (due to derby catch restrictions) and large males were over-represented (due to their being targeted by derby participants)."

Fifty sharks were killed in this tournament. Thousands, on the other hand, were caught and released. The data collected from those released were far more valuable to the scientists than the data collected physically from the ones that were brought in. You are quoting out of context on the basis that no data is collected on the released sharks. As is typical with organizations like HSUS, you have taken the one sound byte that says what you would like your message to be, then founded your whole argument around that quote. This is the main reason why organizations like HSUS, PETA, and Greenpeace are dangerous and counterproductive. Woods Hole practically hosts this tournament because of the vast amounts of data they collect from the results. If there is anyone in this country I would trust to have the sharks' (not necessarily shark's) best interest in mind, they are the guys.

So...why is it that when your credibility came under fire in the other thread, you felt the need to start a brand new thread on the exact same topic?

 

[andreaC]

Well, I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree. I think shark tournaments are bad for the public's perception of sharks and you don't. We both agree that more research is needed on sharks. But I happen to feel that there are other ways to do that research than by killing sharks in tournaments. When I told some researchers that a number of tournaments still killed sharks that were caught, they were surprised and actually thought that the killing in tournaments ended years ago. The ones in Florida don't kill the sharks.

I've never seen it as a productive use of time to endlessly debate on forums with people that are never going to change their opinion, so you can believe your scientists and I'll believe mine and I think that should be the end of it.

 

[gangrel441]

Well, I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree. I think shark tournaments are bad for the public's perception of sharks and you don't. We both agree that more research is needed on sharks. But I happen to feel that there are other ways to do that research than by killing sharks in tournaments. When I told some researchers that a number of tournaments still killed sharks that were caught, they were surprised and actually thought that the killing in tournaments ended years ago. The ones in Florida don't kill the sharks.

Issue not addressed: are you denying that the scientists you talk to kill any sharks as part of collecting samples?

I've never seen it as a productive use of time to endlessly debate on forums with people that are never going to change their opinion, so you can believe your scientists and I'll believe mine and I think that should be the end of it.

And yet you still do. Furthermore, you still have not addressed why you felt the need to start a second thread in the same forum on the exact same topic. Your posts were roundly criticized by myself and several other forum members in that first thread, but rather than defend your points, you started a new thread. It is only after getting called out in the second thread that you posted any kind of response to the criticism. A common tactic for organizations such as HSUS and PETA. Easier to get the folks who respond emotionally to your argument without researching both sides of the issue than it is to actually debate your points.

Won't work here.

 

[isurus]

It is only after getting called out in the second thread that you posted any kind of response to the criticism. A common tactic for organizations such as HSUS and PETA. Easier to get the folks who respond emotionally to your argument without researching both sides of the issue than it is to actually debate your points.

Won't work here.

fwiw I'm far from comfortable with this tournament (although more concerned still about the bigger picture) as I set out in the excellent forum-generated first thread on the tournament and I'm not impressed with the line of argument or multiple posting so I'm not sure how anyone else is supposed to be.

 

[gangrel441]

fwiw I'm far from comfortable with this tournament (although more concerned still about the bigger picture) as I set out in the excellent forum-generated first thread on the tournament and I'm not impressed with the line of argument or multiple posting so I'm not sure how anyone else is supposed to be.

My understanding of your post is directly in line with the last line of my post. "Won't work here."

http://www.scubaboard.com/showpost.php?p=2062898&postcount=13

Multiple thread posting like this is designed to gather sheep to the cause. Some people out there only need to be pushed in the direction of a cause and, without research or even looking left and right before crossing the road, they jump on it. Who out there that actually has done research on PETA or HSUS still stand behind them? All of their supporters that I have ever talked to are hard pressed to present any sourses that come from somewhere other than said organization. It's like corporate middle managers who can't function if they aren't spouting an answer based off of the company line.

There were a few sheep in the first of these threads. There were a couple that got caught by this one. But when the sources came under scrutiny, the first thread was abandoned by its originator. A few days later, this thread was born of the same user on the exact same topic. Easier to start a new thread and attract new sheep than to actually take on the criticism, especially when one doesn't know how.

So as the tourney goes, I will go farther than to say you and I will agree to disagree. I will gladly take what you have to say into consideration when forming my own opinions, as I am sure you do as well. But Woods Hole's stance on the tournament does hold a great amount of weight on my thoughts, and they seem to think that not only is this tourney ok, but it is an asset to the scientific and shark conservation environment. I don't see my opinion swaying much based on that.

 

[isurus]

But Woods Hole's stance on the tournament does hold a great amount of weight on my thoughts, and they seem to think that not only is this tourney ok, but it is an asset to the scientific and shark conservation environment. I don't see my opinion swaying much based on that.

That's fair. My own thoughts on this are that tag and release shark fishing is very good because in the same way as shark feeds they put an ongoing value on sharks to the local community and therefore the incentive to make a quick buck, or allow someone else to make a quick buck, by finning them or similar is decreased and/or eliminated.

Once we get to people keeping (some of) what they catch I start to feel uncomfortable because the sustainability of this kind of fishing is a relatively inexact science and it becomes a question of where we draw the line. If woods hole approve then thats a huge pointer towards the line being drawn in the right place but I'd obviously prefer if it was entirely tag and release. In other words on balance I'd rather it was done slightly differently but its close enough that I'm not going to kick off and start writing letters about it.