Swimmer killed by shark off New Zealand North Island

[Tigerman]

How about for a start because most sharks is endangered, while the bear and dog is not?
Also the dog is domesticated and bred to be predictable and stable, whereas a bear or a shark is not.
On top of that a lot of wild animals that get too close to populated areas is relocated rather than put down..

 

[manni-yunk]

How about for a start because most sharks is endangered, while the bear and dog is not?
Also the dog is domesticated and bred to be predictable and stable, whereas a bear or a shark is not.
On top of that a lot of wild animals that get too close to populated areas is relocated rather than put down..

If we are going to have a philospohical and analogous conversation/debate about animals and how society may appropriately react to these situations, lets at least be factual. MOST sharks....are not endangered. Even the most liberal analysis shows about 143 out of 450 species as some sort of "endangered" - and that is a stretch documented by environmental groups with an agenda. Please dont think that I dont understand the senseless killing and finning of certain sharks in some parts of the world - but - to add drama and color to the conversation by insinuating that "most" sharks are endangered, is ridiculous. Sharks, as a whole, are certainly worth protecting from the senseless slaughters - but lets "keep it real".

And, if a rare breed or endangered animal on land attacked a person, An attempt to hunt that specific animal would occur. In fact - even in ZOO atacks, when the human is 100% at fault - the animal is often put down - regardless of its position on the endangered list. Domestication is irrelevant.

Again, Im not condoning the killing of random sharks in revenge - only pointing out the hipocracy of how we react to similar situations.

 

[drrich2]

I don't think any of us will argue there's no hypocrisy in human reactions!

I wonder whether there's any reason to believe a shark that's killed a human is at substantial risk to do so again? Then the question becomes was it a mistaken identity hit in murky conditions vs. good viz., did the shark 'taste test' & swim off vs. stick around and maul/eat the person, etc...

Richard.

 

[manni-yunk]

I don't think any of us will argue there's no hypocrisy in human reactions!

I wonder whether there's any reason to believe a shark that's killed a human is at substantial risk to do so again? Then the question becomes was it a mistaken identity hit in murky conditions vs. good viz., did the shark 'taste test' & swim off vs. stick around and maul/eat the person, etc...

Richard.

Very good point, but I would counter with.......its the same. Zoo animals, domesticated animals, etc - when they attack - no one asks whether or not we really need evidence towards belief that the attack is in and of itself, enough to think that the attack could be repeated by the offending animal. The solution is always to put it down.

I dont have the answer - I just thought it was an interesting hipocracy.

 

[sethw]

If we are going to have a philospohical and analogous conversation/debate about animals and how society may appropriately react to these situations, lets at least be factual. MOST sharks....are not endangered. Even the most liberal analysis shows about 143 out of 450 species as some sort of "endangered" - and that is a stretch documented by environmental groups with an agenda. Please dont think that I dont understand the senseless killing and finning of certain sharks in some parts of the world - but - to add drama and color to the conversation by insinuating that "most" sharks are endangered, is ridiculous. Sharks, as a whole, are certainly worth protecting from the senseless slaughters - but lets "keep it real".

I understand, in this sad story, we're talking about one shark here, not even the tiniest drop in the bucket. Not worth a lot of discussion.

But, do you have some "real" data on the sustainability of shark populations that you could share? There are dozens of studies from the past decade that all suggest shark populations are collapsing in all the oceans of the world. Just this week one of the largest studies ever done on declining shark populations was published by researchers at a Canadian university - they estimate that nearly 100 million sharks are killed annually, 20 to 30 million for the shark fin trade alone. Do you really think all that data is just "stretched" by people with an agenda? Is it really okay if "only" 140 species disappear?

Cheers,
Seth

 

[Tigerman]

If we are going to have a philospohical and analogous conversation/debate about animals and how society may appropriately react to these situations, lets at least be factual. MOST sharks....are not endangered. Even the most liberal analysis shows about 143 out of 450 species as some sort of "endangered" - and that is a stretch documented by environmental groups with an agenda. Please dont think that I dont understand the senseless killing and finning of certain sharks in some parts of the world - but - to add drama and color to the conversation by insinuating that "most" sharks are endangered, is ridiculous. Sharks, as a whole, are certainly worth protecting from the senseless slaughters - but lets "keep it real".

And, if a rare breed or endangered animal on land attacked a person, An attempt to hunt that specific animal would occur. In fact - even in ZOO atacks, when the human is 100% at fault - the animal is often put down - regardless of its position on the endangered list. Domestication is irrelevant.

Again, Im not condoning the killing of random sharks in revenge - only pointing out the hipocracy of how we react to similar situations.

arguing shark numbers aside, even if its "only" a third rather than over half the species thats endangered..

A zoo animal that kill or maim people obviously is a serious problem as people go there to get as close they can to it and have a look at it. Yes, the people going to the zoo can be to blame or the zoo itself can be responsible, but you just cant have zoo animals attacking people anymore than you can have a dog that does it (unless its a guard dog attacking a burglar who fully deserve a bite out of their ass).
I dont quite see how you feel domestication is irrelevant as the entire concept of domestication is to make the animals familar with and often serving people. By default domesticated animals is to LIVE WITH PEOPLE and to do that you have to supress their instinct that people are something to stay away from.
A wild wolf or bear normally wont come over to you and beg for a snack, let alone want you to come close, but one that is accustomed to people will find that perfectly acceptable and the fight or flight response if youre already inside its fight radius is obvious.

And no, a wild animal getting to close or attacking people will not neccesarilly be hunted down and killed. They are often sedated and relocated to somewhere without trashcans to rummage through or streets to stomp. Maybe not where you live, but theres a lot more world out there than just our back yards..

 

[manni-yunk]

Just this week one of the largest studies ever done on declining shark populations was published by researchers at a Canadian university - they estimate that nearly 100 million sharks are killed annually, 20 to 30 million for the shark fin trade alone. Do you really think all that data is just "stretched" by people with an agenda? Is it really okay if "only" 140 species disappear?

Cheers,
Seth

In my experience - numbers are the biggest liars on the planet. Any study, medical, pharma, etc - can all be manipulated to tell whatever story someone wants to tell. And to be honest - I never mentioned data about the sustainability of sharks.....I simply referenced the number of species of sharks that are considered endangered in an effort to point out that most are not endangered.

That being said - I was simply refuting that MOST sharks are endangered. Thats all. Not justifying - not rationalizing, I made my point - MOST sharks.....are not endangered.

---------- Post added March 3rd, 2013 at 01:17 AM ----------

And no, a wild animal getting to close or attacking people will not neccesarilly be hunted down and killed. They are often sedated and relocated to somewhere without trashcans to rummage through or streets to stomp. Maybe not where you live, but theres a lot more world out there than just our back yards..

Your getting very selective with details now. "Getting close" is outside the scope of the initial analogy. Attacking people is what we were talking about and - in most of the world, if possible, the animal is hunted and killed. From Bears to Crocs, Wolves to gators, there are examples all over the globe of organized hunts for animals that kill people.

 

[Tigerman]

And theres also plenty of examples of them being relocated if you bother to look.
And I DID infact say getting close to OR ATTACKING if you read carefully..

 

[Arubandi07]

In my experience - numbers are the biggest liars on the planet. Any study, medical, pharma, etc - can all be manipulated to tell whatever story someone wants to tell. ... I simply referenced the number of species of sharks that are considered endangered in an effort to point out that most (Sharks) are not endangered. ...

So in a nutshell, numbers don't mean sh=t, but you choose to use them anyway to support your assertion??:headscratch::headscratch: ... Funny ...

 

[manni-yunk]

So in a nutshell, numbers don't mean sh=t, but you choose to use them anyway to support your assertion??:headscratch::headscratch: ... Funny ...

The numbers I posted...are a fact. the EXACT number of sharks that are listed as endangered.....pretty clear. Not a meta analysis of pooled data to estimate how many sharks exist VS how many used to exist.

Fisheries science is the biggest train wreck on the planet. Locally - there are BATTLES fought every day about how fish stocks are estimated and how flawed the data collection methodologies are.

---------- Post added March 3rd, 2013 at 09:23 AM ----------

And theres also plenty of examples of them being relocated if you bother to look.
And I DID infact say getting close to OR ATTACKING if you read carefully..

Yes you did - which is my point. Getting close - the animal usualy gets relocated.....if it kills the animal gets killed. The argumentively convenient addition was "getting close", since no where in the analogous discussion was it discussed that a shark that gets close should be harmed. But, by trying to expand the scope of the conversation and mention "getting close" with other animals - you were able to bring in the "relocation" aspect of animals. I will still contend that when animals attack and kill humans - whenever possible, the animal is killed.


You guys that dont see the logic of my point are being emotional. Shark, and ocean creatures are a very emotional conversation for most divers. I get it. Im simply pointing out the hipocracy here on how we want to treal land based animals, vs ocean dwelling animals.

Ive seen people on here and other boards debate some pretty irrational points when it comes to sharks.

To you guys that turned to name calling and attacks - Please note that I never advocated the killing of sharks, or descimation of sharks in any way. I only tried to make a rational and logical point of view opinion on how shark lovers believe that sharks are liken with angels, and that they do no wrong, and should be forgiven immediately for anything - BUT - when land animals attack and kill a person....we sit by as that specific animal is killed.