Arubandi07
Contributor
Fact?? I give up ...
Last edited by a moderator:
Swimmer killed by shark off New Zealand North Island
- Thread starter peterbj7
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Fact?? I give up ...
manni-yunk
Contributor
The number of sharks listed as endangered isnt even up for debate - it is fact??? You have made no point?
---------- Post added March 3rd, 2013 at 10:08 AM ----------
This thread has been an exact example of why people cant have rational discussion around emotional issues. You guys love sharks. I get it, we all do.
My point is simple. I am as against the thoughless slaughter of millions of sharks as you are.
BUT - I also have no problem with the killing of a SINGLE shark - if, that shark is certain to have killed a human. Thats all. My OPINION is that by removing that offender - you reduce the likelihood of repeat offense. I used crocs,gators, dogs, and bears as an anology to how many on land agree with that theory. EXAMPLE- Polar Bears are endangered - AND, in the rare occurence that one attacks - IT IS KILLED, if found. Why is that OK, but the same practice considered a mortal sin to shark lovers?
Very interesting.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apparently the cop that shot rounds in to the (probable) GW is in hiding.
Police officer That Shot At Killer Shark Goes Into... | Stuff.co.nz
Personally I think the cop made the right call. Shoot a few rounds in to the fish and drive it off the body so as to retrieve it for burial. That is a whole lot different from calling 'open season' on sharks as they did in Egypt's Red Sea after the attacks at Ras Nasrani a couple of years back.
The argument above is a bit bollocks IMO. Not all sharks are endangered- but the ones big enough to take on a human are on the decline. GWs are protected and rightly so.
Driving off (or even killing) this shark was the right thing to do. Fish are not as 'developed' as mammals such as bears or dogs. Relocation would never work for a fish capable of covering such massive distances. GWs migrate regularly between NZ and Australia where they chew on a few Ozzies each summer. That's the way God intended these things to happen... and who's to argue with God?
"The shark was going for the person for 25 minutes while we were there, just insistently. It didn't seem to be frightened of anything. It wasn't frightened of being shot," Walley said.
The great white reared up at the officer and he put two rounds in its head, he said. The officer believed he killed the shark
Police officer That Shot At Killer Shark Goes Into... | Stuff.co.nz
Personally I think the cop made the right call. Shoot a few rounds in to the fish and drive it off the body so as to retrieve it for burial. That is a whole lot different from calling 'open season' on sharks as they did in Egypt's Red Sea after the attacks at Ras Nasrani a couple of years back.
The argument above is a bit bollocks IMO. Not all sharks are endangered- but the ones big enough to take on a human are on the decline. GWs are protected and rightly so.
Driving off (or even killing) this shark was the right thing to do. Fish are not as 'developed' as mammals such as bears or dogs. Relocation would never work for a fish capable of covering such massive distances. GWs migrate regularly between NZ and Australia where they chew on a few Ozzies each summer. That's the way God intended these things to happen... and who's to argue with God?
"The shark was going for the person for 25 minutes while we were there, just insistently. It didn't seem to be frightened of anything. It wasn't frightened of being shot," Walley said.
The great white reared up at the officer and he put two rounds in its head, he said. The officer believed he killed the shark
Arubandi07
Contributor
Let's be rational, then ... The only fact about that number is its existence, the number of 143? species listed is, at best, an 'educated guess', as no one is in the position to accurately determine just how many Shark species should actually be listed as endangered. Therefore you can't really use that number as a sound basis for asserting that "most species are not endangered".
Last edited by a moderator:
manni-yunk
Contributor
The difference is that "endangered" is an actual, official classification - not just an opinion or idea. When I say most sharks are not endangered - Im referring to the specific title given to endangered species. Once again, its a fact, not an opinion.
You can debate the merits of the clasification, and you could contend that perhaps more SHOULD be listed - but then you would need better species by species metrics that do not exist.
---------- Post added March 3rd, 2013 at 11:42 AM ----------
Very interesting. Why would he need to go into hiding?
sethw
Contributor
I agree with Supergaijin. IMO shooting this shark is a non-issue in the larger scheme of things, and I bet most of us would shoot a shark to try to save a person, or recover a body.
But to justify doing so because “only 143” species are endangered is silly. The IUCD Red List of Endangered Species has 6 assessment categories. In the “Critically Endangered” and “Endangered” categories, there are around 50 species of fairly rare or uncommon sharks and rays, almost none of which any of us have heard of or will ever see outside an aquarium. But in the next 2 categories, “Near Threatened” and “Vulnerable,” there are 249 species of sharks and rays that include pretty much every shark and ray any of us on this board has ever seen, or will ever see in the wild (or could name off the top of our heads):
Search Results
And that is now. What will it be in ten or 20 years at the rate we are going.
Sure, they're conservationists, yes numbers can be debated, but they are better than personal opinions or assertions. Does anyone have ANY alternative data supporting the idea that the current global shark fishery is sustainable??
How about this plan: we shoot every shark that attacks a person, in exchange for reducing the global shark catch by half (50 million sharks annually)? A net gain of 49,999,980 sharks.
But to justify doing so because “only 143” species are endangered is silly. The IUCD Red List of Endangered Species has 6 assessment categories. In the “Critically Endangered” and “Endangered” categories, there are around 50 species of fairly rare or uncommon sharks and rays, almost none of which any of us have heard of or will ever see outside an aquarium. But in the next 2 categories, “Near Threatened” and “Vulnerable,” there are 249 species of sharks and rays that include pretty much every shark and ray any of us on this board has ever seen, or will ever see in the wild (or could name off the top of our heads):
Search Results
And that is now. What will it be in ten or 20 years at the rate we are going.
Sure, they're conservationists, yes numbers can be debated, but they are better than personal opinions or assertions. Does anyone have ANY alternative data supporting the idea that the current global shark fishery is sustainable??
How about this plan: we shoot every shark that attacks a person, in exchange for reducing the global shark catch by half (50 million sharks annually)? A net gain of 49,999,980 sharks.
manni-yunk
Contributor
Lets be perfectly clear for those of that have a tendency to twist a point.
I posted that 143 species were endangered NOT TO JUSTIFY anything - but to refute the claim that "MOST SHARKS RE ENDANGERED". Someone tried to add drama to the situation by stating that MOST SHARKS ARE ENDANGERED - and I was showing that it was a stretch, if not a complete fabrication. Nothing more, and nothing less.
-
AND - BTW - the global fishery debate is interesting, since much of the shark harvesting is already illegal in most of the world. No one is saying that the current trend is sustainable - nor that it is LEGAL - NONE of that was part of the conversation, but, it has become a way for people to twist a point.
Last edited by a moderator:
sethw
Contributor
Do you have any reference or citation of any kind to support your "official" number of "143"? or the source of your definition of "endangered"? I posted a link to one of the most widely-cited organizations in the world on endangered species, which categorizes on their "Red List" 315 species of sharks and rays as either nearly extinct, in danger of extinction, vulnerable to extinction, or as "threatened."
Let's not split hairs about this, as individuals who presumably care about the state of the oceans and ocean life, I am sure we agree that sharks are in pretty big trouble, and we should be encouraging more, not less, concern about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
manni-yunk
Contributor
You have got to be kidding me....now we re expanding the conversation to "sharks and rays"??????????????????
Second - did you bother to read your own link? you posted not only sharks and rays, that are ENDANGERED, but for the fun of it, you reference 249 species, MANY of which are listed as near threatened, data defficient, least concern, even a few not evaluated for good measure???? AND - to make it more ridicuous, lets include decreasing, and.......any other category including healthy.
Since you used the Red list - go take a look at how many THEY believe are "endangered". I think you will see - its far less than 143. in fact, its less than 20.
I posted 143 as a liberal varrying number posted on many websites - in fact, it was the HIGHEST number (speaking about sharks only) that I could find.
AND - Once again - HOW are you twisting this into a Shark conservation debate - IT IS NOT.
I simply point out, that MOST of the species are NOT endangered - as someone else tried to state. The point was about killing a SINGLE shark - known to have killed a person - NOT abotu protecting sharks as a whole.
---------- Post added March 3rd, 2013 at 04:10 PM ----------
I reread your article - this makes more sense. He isnt in hiding...from the law - he is hiding from animals rights activists. The same type of people that I am talking about in this thread. They dont believe it is ok to shoot at a shark to protect a person.........People are irrational, and emotional on certain topics - now - a police officer trying to protect people and retrieve an injured (dead) person is being vilified because he injured a SHARk.......
unreal.
A ScubaBoard Staff Message...
In moving the thread, I also took the time to clean it up. Many of us have strong feelings about human/shark interactions, and you are welcome to express them openly here, but please remember to discuss issues and refrain from attacks on the integrity, intelligence, motives, personality, or whatever of people whose viewpoints do not mesh with yours.
Similar threads
