Rosie O'Donnell the Shark murderer. And Mark the Shark charters

[adurso]

I keep asking this and no one seems to want to answer: Just because it is legal- does it mean it should be done? What if NO ONE steps in to take his place- but instead he is replace by an operation with a more environmentally sound philosophy, and that permeates the industry? Until we change the mindset of people like Mark, Mike and yourself, it will make it increasingly difficult to change the laws. And just like in medicine- sometimes you have to eliminate the minor symptoms before you can treat the disease.

I will answer your question: there are many things that were lawful, that now are not, which resulted in Superfund sites.

Many things that are lawful should not be done

Targeting apex predators is one of them.

 

[gcarter]

I keep asking this and no one seems to want to answer: Just because it is legal- does it mean it should be done? What if NO ONE steps in to take his place- but instead he is replace by an operation with a more environmentally sound philosophy, and that permeates the industry? Until we change the mindset of people like Mark, Mike and yourself, it will make it increasingly difficult to change the laws. And just like in medicine- sometimes you have to eliminate the minor symptoms before you can treat the disease.

You are obviously making assumptions about my mindset based on information not yet in evidence.

* Although I have both fished and hunted and see nothing wrong with either activity, I have never supported trophy fishing / hunting. I do think it is wrong, regardless of its legality.
* It is not my mindset you need to change. It is the mindset of the consuming public, his customer base. As long as people are willing to pay for this, someone will be willing to provide the service. To believe otherwise is naive and ignores human nature. To play "what-if", although an interesting intellectual exercise, does not change that human nature. Here's a what-if: You persecute this guy, shut him down. What if your persecution of him creates a backlash against the mob and causes MORE people to want to hunt sharks? 2 shops to spring up in his place? Think it can’t happen?
* I believe in the rule of law. I do not believe in persecuting people who are engaged in legal activity. Educate, yes. Persecute, no. The attitudes and behaviors in evidence here are prosecutorial, not educational. The attitude and the packaging DO make a difference.
* You have multiple avenues open to you to effect changes in law, at the local, state, and federal levels. Ranting about one operator (which screams personal agenda) on a web forum, particularly one like this, doesn't advance your cause since most here are already in favor of species preservation, and I doubt many here have any involvement in the making of laws at any level.

It is my opinion that the way this thread has unfolded has served no purpose, other than to alienate people with the excessive use of over-the-top hyperbole. I do not see how it has advanced your cause at all.

(BTW, Rosie is an idiot. Always has been.)

 

[Allison Finch]

Well, you have attributed too much to MY posts. Nowhere was I advocating shutting this man down. But, to say he is "small potatoes" is incorrect. He is part of the whole. This man boasts of killing adults and pups adding to up to 100,000 sharks. How is this insignificant?

My posts were more to educate WHY this is not just a small part of the problem and that the sum of all of these "small potatoes" adds up to a big problem. Education is the first step to legislation. To say this thread serves no purpose? REALLY? Too sad for you, then.

 

[gcarter]

Well, you have attributed too much to MY posts.

As this is my first response to you in this thread, I feel safe in saying I have attributed nothing to your posts.

Nowhere was I advocating shutting this man down.

As I have not previously responded to you, I obviously did not make any statement as to what you were or were not advocating.

But, to say he is "small potatoes" is incorrect. He is part of the whole. This man boasts of killing adults and pups adding to up to 100,000 sharks. How is this insignificant?

Please show where I said any of those things.

My posts were more to educate WHY this is not just a small part of the problem and that the sum of all of these "small potatoes" adds up to a big problem. Education is the first step to legislation.

Isn't that what I was saying? "Educate, yes." are the words I wrote. So if that is what you believe, why do you feel the need to respond in this manner?

To say this thread serves no purpose? REALLY? Too sad for you, then.

Not sad for me per se, but sad for those seeking to advance this cause. The thread is the sum of all of the posts, and regardless the intent of any individual poster, there has been such an excess of venom and vitriol that anything worthwhile IN MY OPINION has been lost in the noise.

As example look no further than your own unreasoned response to my post. You attribute words and intent to me that is not in evidence.

As I am sure that my attempt to be reasonable is also being lost in the noise, I will not be responding further.

 

[Mike]

I would agree if Mark the Shark was the only fisherman going after sharks, but he's not and thus the additive depletion from everybody like him (including shark finning) contributes to the problem of overfishing the shark resource. What's worse is he glorifies it by hanging the wasted carcasses on the docks. I find no reason to go leaping to his defense on this matter.

Arbitrary numbers are derived partially from the data calculated by scientists making their best guess about the status of a fishery. Unfortunately, biases abound for any method of calculating fishery health. And while there are undeniably healthy fisheries that are harvested sustainably, the data I've seen says that the shark fishery, especially on the American east coast and Gulf of Mexico, is not one of them and so I feel the need to try encouraging change in anyone contributing to it, either by one shark or a thousand.

Please remember when watching the Discovery Channel shows that you are getting a very one-sided view through the eyes of the commercial fishers. They, too, have an important story to tell, which is why the job of a fisheries policy-maker is one of balancing the best available science with supply, livelihood of the fishery, and politics. As a scientist, I think we would all benefit in the long run from erring on the side of conservation, but my opinion isn't the only one floating around out there.

As for the subsidies, I was referring to commercial fishing in general. I found this for a start:On The Hook: Commercial Fishing Reaps Billions | Environmental Working Group I apologize for the obvious slant of the hosting website (Environmental Working Group), but they claim $6.4 billion have been paid by U.S. taxpayers to support fishery subsidies. That's a lot of yearly wages that weren't earned.

Thanks, I'm going to read your link as soon as I get a chance.

So, explain who is providing "stewardship" of the sport shark fisherman and finners. Please show studies of what constitutes "responsible harvesting of sharks". All the studies I have read have pointed out that the harvesting is grossly overreaching the abilities of the sharks populations to recover. Just WHO is carefully overseeing and managing the shark population census?

Without data, your accusations are as irresponsible as your thesis.

Commercial fishing studies of many food fisheries have been maintained and fishing seasons and quotas set accordingly. I have never seen any such study OR controls in place for sharks. Please post links to these studies.....if you can.

My comments about stewardship are in regard to the United States and US waters, which is where Mark the Shark operates and what this thread is about. There is plenty of stewardship in US waters. 10s of millions of dollars are spent on study, enforcement etc... in regard to our waters and where Mark the Shark is operating.

Where shark fining is taking place is grossly outside of our waters and our control.

Yes, fining is grossly over reaching the abilities of the sharks populations to recover, but Mark the Shark and others sport fishing is not. The problem is fining, not sport fishing, the problem is bi-catch, not sport fishing.

Mark the Shark operates in US waters where we have conservation efforts in place, as far as any of us know he operates within those rules and regulations, the powers that be have determined how he has to operate. Therefore if there is a problem there is a problem with our official conservation efforts not with Mark the Shark.

I find nothing wrong with killing fish if it doesn't negatively effect the eco system and according to our US fish and wildlife agencies, specifically in Florida, they are in agreement that Mark the Shark is doing no harm.

The real problem is what's going on outside our waters, that's where the damage is being done. My point has been the same from the start of this thread, which is to focus on the real problem instead of some witch hunt against somebody who is not a problem.

It is fine for many of you to hate Mark the Shark because you are against anyone killing any sharks, but then go ahead and say that. But don't try to say you hate him because he is ruining the eco system, it's simply not true and we have many people who earn a paycheck everyday in our government who's job it is to make those determinations and they have created laws to follow to ensure no harm is being done, and Mark is following them as far as we know.

 

[Allison Finch]

=Mike;6183268

My comments about stewardship are in regard to the United States and US waters, which is where Mark the Shark operates and what this thread is about. There is plenty of stewardship in US waters. 10s of millions of dollars are spent on study, enforcement etc... in regard to our waters and where Mark the Shark is operating.

Yes, but these are, generally, concerning fish other than sharks. Sharks seem to still be considered more vermin than a commercially viable resource needing any protections.

Where shark fining is taking place is grossly outside of our waters and our control.

So, an effort to stay out of any controls? Shark populations are not all pelagic. Reef sharks are also being targeted.

Yes, fining is grossly over reaching the abilities of the sharks populations to recover, but Mark the Shark and others sport fishing is not. The problem is fining, not sport fishing, the problem is bi-catch, not sport fishing.

Oh, I STRONGLY disagree with this. Take Mark's admitted 100,000 shark (and pup) kills and multiply that with the hundreds of other sport shark fishing charters along the east coast and it adds up to a HUGE problem. Again, we are not talking about a species of fish that has a high reproductive recovery rate. Sharks are incredibly slow in their reproduction stats and simply cannot recover from this attrition.

Mark the Shark operates in US waters where we have conservation efforts in place, as far as any of us know he operates within those rules and regulations, the powers that be have determined how he has to operate. Therefore if there is a problem there is a problem with our official conservation efforts not with Mark the Shark.

See, that is the problem. As far as I've seen, there have been few studies in an effort to set any limits on sharks. The fisheries don't seem to consider them worthy of protection, it seems. If you know differently, please enlighten us.

I find nothing wrong with killing fish if it doesn't negatively effect the eco system and according to our US fish and wildlife agencies, specifically in Florida, they are in agreement that Mark the Shark is doing no harm.

I spear fish and have since 1970. Back in the day I have speared giant grouper. Until their numbers plummeted, they were the big prize, even if they were poor food quality once they were so large. When their numbers plummeted, divers became alarmed and protected them. They have a rapid reproductive rate and have recovered in many areas of their range. It is a well known fact what the effect of of no sharks is on a marine ecosystem. Yet, where are the protections? Being born and raised in Florida, I know sharks are still considered "vermin" and not worthy of protection. So, Mark the Shark, and his ilk, are given free rein to wreak their havoc. I see the charter boats lined up at the wharves.

The real problem is what's going on outside our waters, that's where the damage is being done. My point has been the same from the start of this thread, which is to focus on the real problem instead of some witch hunt against somebody who is not a problem.

Again, I am not attacking Mark the Shark. I am attacking the ignorance and total disregard he and his ilk represent. He IS part of the problem, though. I just don't understand how you don't see that. A huge percentage of the world's population of sharks are gone. In some areas they cannot recover. That is a huge problem that will greatly affect the reefs we all love. You do like reefs....no?

It's like the drive to educate people to not break off a small piece of coral due to poor buoyancy control. Yes, it is only one small piece of coral. But multiply that with the thousands of divers who dive the same area, breaking off a small piece of coral. That one diver represents a far greater impact than is his alone.

It is fine for many of you to hate Mark the Shark because you are against anyone killing any sharks, but then go ahead and say that.

I do NOT hate Mark the Shark. I am greatly saddened by his disregard for the ecosystem and I an horrified by the impact he, and all the others like him, represent.

But don't try to say you hate him because he is ruining the eco system, it's simply not true and we have many people who earn a paycheck everyday in our government who's job it is to make those determinations and they have created laws to follow to ensure no harm is being done, and Mark is following them as far as we know.

When those people setting seasons and quotas give the same considerations to sharks that they give to all the other "food" fish, I will be quite content. However, those studies and protections have not happened. Again, in the "sport" world, sharks are still considered vermin. Few people understand their reproductive rates and how much each shark killed can impact the population. When you have fish that spawn constantly, sending thousands of eggs into the water column, it is hard to remember that sharks have to be many years old to reach breeding maturity, have a year plus gestation, only to have a few pups or eggs (depending on species). Mark the Shark could probably care less.


So, if you don't understand the problem, check out this petition to the US fish and wildlife service asking for CITES protection for sharks. Maybe you will understand better. Please read it.

http://www.projectaware.org/update/shark-conservation-move-are-you

 

[Bali Diver]

Sharks let them live,unless you are so ignorant and selfish and do not realise that so many are being slaughtered at a serious rate and that they control the eco system of our oceans and that they do not taste good are full of mercury and can make you fertile and a blooded shark does not look good in a picture with a INNOCENT CHILD

Mankind is the most dangerous, selfish and ignorant species on this planet and that is a fact and no one can be critical of me stating that fact.


@Allison finch agree with everything you said and that mark the shark is part of the problem

 

[Mike]

Yes, but these are, generally, concerning fish other than sharks. Sharks seem to still be considered more vermin than a commercially viable resource needing any protections.

This isn't actually true. Earlier in the thread there is a link someone posted to Florida's shark fishing regulations. They specifically limit which sharks cannot be killed, which ones can be killed, which ones can only be catch and released. Mark the Shark as far as we know follows these laws. If you're interested to know, you can follow the link and read it for yourself. Sharks are protected.

Florida Shark Regulations

• Hook and line are the only allowable gear for harvesting sharks and the use of natural bait when using multiple hooks is prohibited
• Minimum fork length of 54 inches for all sharks (excluding Atlantic sharpnose, blacknose, blacktip, bonnethead, finetooth and smooth dogfish)
• Maximum of 1 shark per harvester per day or 2 per vessel, whichever is less
• Sharks are to be landed in whole condition, this includes landing sharks with heads and tails intact
• All harvest of the following shark species is prohibited:

Protected (Prohibited) SpeciesThe following species of shark (or any part of any of the following species) are prohibited from all harvest, possession, landing, purchase, sale or exchange:​

• Atlantic angel (Squatina dumeril)
• Basking (Cetorhinus maximus)
• Bigeye sand tiger (Odontaspis noronhai)
• Bigeye sixgill (Hexanchus nakamurai)
• Bigeye thresher (Alopias vulpinus)
• Bignose (Carcharhinus altimus)
• Caribbean reef (Carcharhinus perezii)
• Dusky (Carcharhinus obscurus)
• Galapagos (Carcharhinus galapagensis)
• Great hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran)
• Lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris)
• Longfin mako (Isurus paucus)
• Narrowtooth (Carcharhinus brachyurus)
• Night (Carcharhinus signatus)
• Sandbar (Carcharhinus plumbeus)
• Sand tiger (Odontaspis taurus)
• Scalloped hammerhead (Sphryna lewini)
• Sevengill (Heptranchias perlo)
• Silky (Carcharhinus falciformis)
• Sixgill shark (Hexanchus griseus)
• Smalltail (Carcharhinus porosus)
• Smooth hammerhead (Sphyrna zygaena)
• Tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier)
• Whale (Rhincodon typus)
• White (Carcharodon carcharias)
• The new measures also prohibit the possession, sale and exchange of tiger sharks and great, scalloped and smooth hammerhead sharks harvested from state waters. These sharks can still be caught and released in state waters and can be taken in adjacent federal waters. Prohibited species that die while on the line after being caught in state waters should be returned to the water immediately.The FWC is also working on an educational campaign highlighting fishing and handling techniques that increase the survival rate of sharks that are caught and released while ensuring the safety of the anglers targeting them. These techniques include:
  • Use tackle heavy enough to land a fish quickly, reducing exhaustion.
  • Release the fish while it is in the water when possible.
  • Use a de-hooking device to remove hooks safely.
  • Use non-stainless steel hooks that can dissolve if they remain in a fish.
  • Use non-offset circle hooks to avoid gut-hooking a fish.
  Florida waters are considered essential habitat for these and other species of shark, especially juveniles and pregnant females.
  Shark fishing has been strictly regulated in Florida since 1992, with a one-shark-per-person, two-sharks-per-vessel daily bag limit for all recreational and commercial harvesters and a ban on shark finning. Roughly two-dozen overfished, vulnerable or rare shark species are catch-and-release only in Florida waters.

Again, sorry to beat a dead horse but here in the United States we have laws in effect to protect sharks, we have people who go to work everyday who's job it is to protect sharks, we have people who study this and create the limits.

Again, sorry to beat a dead horse, but the problem is outside the US and the lack of regulation that allows 38-78 million sharks a year to be slaughtered for their fins.

Sports fisherman couldn't do this type of damage if they wanted to in a million years.

STRONGLY disagree with this. Take Mark's admitted 100,000 shark (and pup) kills and multiply that with the hundreds of other sport shark fishing charters along the east coast and it adds up to a HUGE problem.

More than one of you has quoted this number. I've ignored it because it's all too obvious that that number is just greatly exagerated marketing hype by Mark the Shark. Do the math and it's easy to realize that number is not logical nor possible. Talk to any professional sport fishing outfits and you'd quickly realize that if any of them could have those types of successful numbers they would be multi-millionaires many times over from the fees they would have collected to have reached those numbers. It's simply hype.

I doubt you've ever been deep sea fishing before, but let me tell you, a lot more trips are spent drinking beer and coming back to the dock with basically nothing much landed for the day. The reality is not you go out and land a monster. The reality is it's called 'fishing' not catching. You do a whole lot more fishing then catching. Far more trips aren't landing much of anything on a daily basis, rather than what you guys must think is hundreds of boats going out from a dock and killing thousands of sharks. It's simply not that simple and exaclty why Mark the Sharks marketing centers on trying to appear like a sure thing. If his marketing centers on being a sure thing, that means that he's marketing to a group of customers who obviously aren't experiencing such sure things when it comes to sports fishing.

 

[Allison Finch]

Well, as a child in Sarasota Fl I remember Eugenie Clark and her family coming over to our house all the time. I also had many dealings with MOAT, so we will likely not agree to the degree of protection in US waters. And, as has been boasted here, Mark goes outside the protected waters to do much of his joy killing. So, Fla regs are circumvented. As for deep sea fishing.....my fathers boat was often at docks where charter boats were were coming in with all kinds of sharks. I've not gone to any chartering sites to see their marketing. My comments come from first hand observation. By your own site you show great hammerheads are a prohibited species.....yet here we are, starting a thread about the killing of a magnificent GREAT HAMMERHEAD. Yup, good protection.

As for the numbers Mark claim. He was counting the destruction of years of in utero pups and eggs, as well. I never said these were accurate figures, just what he claims to have destroyed.

 

[Mopar]

Again, sorry to beat a dead horse.....

Or a dead shark.