Shark kills French diver in Marsa Alam

[DocIndyDiver]

Thanks, Kai Suk!

He also only seemed interested in the diver on the surface.

Cheers!

In sharkey waters I wouldn't linger long at the surface! Get down or get out.

 

[Dadvocate]

Tigerman

I disagree that fishing sharks at the rate we are is reasonable, full stop.
It doesnt matter if you use the whole animal or just a part of it as long as the killing is not sustainable.

Yes, I do eat seafood, but not the kind that is about to be hunted to extinction..

Okay fine, if you need to disagree with someone that badly, by all means twist what the person actually says into easy to knock down straw men positions and then disagree with those so you can feel righteous or whatever else you need to feel.

Actually responding to what I said proves too difficult apparently, so I’ll leave the pulpit pounding to you and wish you luck. We’re hijacking the thread anyway.

Doc Indy Diver:

In sharkey waters I wouldn't linger long at the surface! Get down or get out.

Point well taken!

Cheers!

 

[Tigerman]

Tigerman



Okay fine, if you need to disagree with someone that badly, by all means twist what the person actually says into easy to knock down straw men positions and then disagree with those so you can feel righteous or whatever else you need to feel.

Actually responding to what I said proves too difficult apparently, so IÃÍl leave the pulpit pounding to you and wish you luck. WeÃÓe hijacking the thread anyway.

..
Cheers!

*** is your problem? I answered specifically about the killing of sharks for whatever reason and use at the current rate. I also answered your following question. Now if you want me to answer something you didnt actually ask, be informed that im not a psychic that can read your mind.
If you want me to agree that killing sharks and using the whole shark is any more sustainable than finning it and throwing it back to die, without doing something about the rate of which it happens, you wont get it..

 

[boulderjohn]

It is my understanding that shark meat in general is not particularly palatable, so it is not a good target for fishermen--they can't sell the meat.

The advantage to the finners is that they can fill a storage area with fins without keeping large caracasses for which there is no real market.

 

[Dadvocate]

*** is your problem? I answered specifically about the killing of sharks for whatever reason and use at the current rate. I also answered your following question. Now if you want me to answer something you didnt actually ask, be informed that im not a psychic that can read your mind.
If you want me to agree that killing sharks and using the whole shark is any more sustainable than finning it and throwing it back to die, without doing something about the rate of which it happens, you wont get it..

Gee, what a great idea! In fact I agree wholeheartedly:

The odds are the restaurants serving shark fin soup in the places you mention are catering to Chinese travelers anyway. And more than likely a bowl of this soup in Indonesia for example represents only a small portion of the sharks killed for their fins which are sent to China everyday. It is served all over the place in some parts of China.

The fact remains that the proliferation of finning practices has grown right along with the growing middle class in China, which has the unfortunate side effect of hearkening in people an archaic need to show prosperity in modern times using some ridiculous throwback to the emperors of yore. And unfortunately from my experience so far, things change very, very slowly in China, too slowly to hope that sharks can outlast the trend.

All of the finning practices that take place in South America, Indonesia, Malaysia, and elsewhere happen as a direct result of the demand coming out of my host country which springs from this growing middle class. Taiwan seems to be a major driving force as well. And it isn’t enough to simply not eat the soup in my opinion. If you see it on offer in an establishment somewhere, please tell the waiter or the owner that you think it is a terrible practice and leave. That is what I forced my soon to be in-laws to do when I saw shark fin soup on the menu in Langkawi on my last holiday. The waiter wasn’t too happy, which I hope translates into a change in practice if more people do the same.

No smoke and mirrors or crystal balls needed. All you have to do is read the entire post before shooting down arguments that you haven’t fully read.
Later I say this:

This consideration is an important one, I’d say, because the soup is then the product of a much more reasonable fishing practice. The wastefulness of the finning practices happening today is tied to the fact that only the fins are being used, with the rest of the animal being tossed back into the sea. This practice can be traced to China, probably southern China.

Where am I denying that the rate at which sharks are being killed is fine and that people ought to hunt sharks whole or otherwise with impunity? I don’t actually. That is what you choose to see. I simply recognize that shark fishing is not one that can be lumped into one category.
I think it is still reasonable to note that some shark fishing has been done reasonably in the past, generally as a result of using the whole animal. Do you deny this? In addition to this fact, people hunting for sharks tend to throw the carcasses overboard because they take up storage space that fins could otherwise fill. A person hunting a few sharks for the whole animal would not view the fishing practice in the same way. This is the point. The rate, not matter how you slice it, would be drastically different, not to mention less geared toward the trafficking aspects of the business. And the long lining that goes hand in hand with the finning industry is not traditionally associated with the shark fishing focused on catching the whole animal.
Again, I don’t eat shark products either, but I can recognize the differences in the practice of how these animals are fished by different people with different agendas.
Your point about rate of fishing is actually central to both our points believe it or not. You can choose to see that or not. I wash my hands of this tiff. The last word is yours, mate.

Boulderjohn:

It is my understanding that shark meat in general is not particularly palatable, so it is not a good target for fishermen--they can't sell the meat.

It is edible. Palatable is always in the gut of the beholder of course. I had shark meat many years ago in California when I was younger. I recall it as being similar to swordfish. It was served with lemon. I don't recall the species, though.

Cheers!

 

[Christian]

It is my understanding that shark meat in general is not particularly palatable, so it is not a good target for fishermen--they can't sell the meat.

The advantage to the finners is that they can fill a storage area with fins without keeping large caracasses for which there is no real market.

There's a market for shark meat, but sharkfin is worth a lot more per kilo/oz/gram, so it's bad business practice to fill up the finite space of the boat with less valuable goods. That's why they toss the body back into the water.

Problem with sharks compared to many other fish is their relative slow reproduction rate. On an avarage they can't reproduce until they've reached ten years (slight variation for different spieces). So even small scale fishing can depleat an area quite rapidly.

 

[beachn69]

Supervised Shark feeding. And what exactly does the supervision do should the Shark feel a little frisky? Thats a joke. You cannot control your enviroment. When will people learn?

 

[Jeff Toorish]

IMHO, supervised shark feeds are a bad idea! You are training sharks to relate divers with food. There are many oportunities to see sharks in thier natural environment and behavior. There is no need to bait them in with a chumsicle.

Rich --

Just wondering, do you have any empirical data to support this? I ask because I've seen this statement often but I've never actually seen any evidence to support it. I'm familiar with supervised shark feeds and I've never seen the sharks become aggressive or otherwise behave differently when divers are present without a feed being conducted.

I'm not saying your point isn't accurate, but I'd like to see the data.

One would think that where shark feeds are common there would be a lot more human/shark incidents but I've never seen any statistical correlation. In fact, in the very few instances where a diver has been bitten by a shark during a feeding, the shark seemed to be going for the food and the diver got in the way.

Jeff

 

[Dadvocate]

The issue isn’t just one of statistics. It is also related to what we have learned about sharks in recent years. They are by and large more intelligent than we used to think, which means they are capable of altering their behavior if it appears beneficial for them to get food. They have been opportunists for a very long time. This is a caveat that is related to all predatory animals I would say.

I don’ t think you are going to find hard and fast statistics that say it is safe or isn’t because from what I have seen the stats tend to be tabulated based on accidents directly related to the dives in question, not necessarily to the effects of feeding sharks on the lager ecosystem and ultimately on the behavior of sharks after the fact. I could be wrong. I am not sure.

What is pretty clear to me is that sharks can become more dangerous as a result of human behavior; as the many bull shark attacks in Recife Brazil over the last 15 years so are starting to show.

This BBC article discusses how a port development may have impacted how bull sharks in the area have congregated (females in particular) and how they are now attacking people when they didn’t before.

The other article blames changes in the natural order of things for the rise in shark attacks. Discovery Channel implies that a slaughterhouse is perhaps responsible for these attacks also because they had been illegally dumping byproducts in the water, thus creating a bad situation for people in the surrounding area.

I’m not suggesting that any of this is scientific, but the adage that is true on land could very well also be true for predatory animals in the sea: “Don’t feed the [fill in dangerous animal her]!”

Why should this be any less true in the water than it is on land?

Links:

BBC NEWS | Americas | Shark attacks terrorise Brazil

Recife: Revenge of the Sharks - Brazilmax.com

Shark Week, Day 5: Shark Rebellion (a.k.a., Discovery Realizes That Viewers Have Brains) - Divester (blog)

Cheers!

 

[Christian]

The issue isnÃÕ just one of statistics. It is also related to what we have learned about sharks in recent years. They are by and large more intelligent than we used to think, which means they are capable of altering their behavior if it appears beneficial for them to get food. They have been opportunists for a very long time. This is a caveat that is related to all predatory animals I would say.

I don t think you are going to find hard and fast statistics that say it is safe or isnÃÕ because from what I have seen the stats tend to be tabulated based on accidents directly related to the dives in question, not necessarily to the effects of feeding sharks on the lager ecosystem and ultimately on the behavior of sharks after the fact. I could be wrong. I am not sure.

What is pretty clear to me is that sharks can become more dangerous as a result of human behavior; as the many bull shark attacks in Recife Brazil over the last 15 years so are starting to show.

This BBC article discusses how a port development may have impacted how bull sharks in the area have congregated (females in particular) and how they are now attacking people when they didnÃÕ before.

The other article blames changes in the natural order of things for the rise in shark attacks. Discovery Channel implies that a slaughterhouse is perhaps responsible for these attacks also because they had been illegally dumping byproducts in the water, thus creating a bad situation for people in the surrounding area.

IÃÎ not suggesting that any of this is scientific, but the adage that is true on land could very well also be true for predatory animals in the sea: Å¥onÃÕ feed the [fill in dangerous animal her]!

Why should this be any less true in the water than it is on land?

Links:

BBC NEWS | Americas | Shark attacks terrorise Brazil

Recife: Revenge of the Sharks - Brazilmax.com

Shark Week, Day 5: Shark Rebellion (a.k.a., Discovery Realizes That Viewers Have Brains) - Divester (blog)

Cheers!

Where do you find information suggesting that shark attacks are on the rise? According to ISAF, which is the most reliable source in my book, attacks or incident where fewer in 2008 than in 2007. In the last ten years, incidents have been pretty stable around 50-60 yearly worldwide, a handful of them with deadly outcome. One should also take into consideration that more and more people go into the ocean to swim, snorkel, waterski, surf, dive etc. for every year. Tens of thousands of shark dives are conducted yearly. I think it's safe to say that diving with sharks (even baited) from a statistical perspective is extremely safe.

Personally, I think the biggest misconception when talking about sharks is that they think of us as food. This is what scares people. Sharks can bite people. But they normally don't eat us.

Another misconseption is the use of the word feeding. In the vast majority of shark diving is baiting and feeding doesn't acually take place. Fish scraps are used to create a scent trail to lure sharks closer to the divers.