Should killer sharks be left alone?

[Robert G]

In shallow waters on Australia's east coast a young woman swimmer recently had her arms bitten/torn off by a shark, and she later died. Fortunately such incidents are rare - about one per year - but yet again there was talk of hunting down the individual shark responsible and, presumably, killing it.

I ask: What is the point? And how will the hunters know they've found the killer?

While I have sympathy for the victim and her family and friends, the shark is surely innocent of any crime. It did what comes naturally in its own natural habitat, and Australians have had at least 50 years of bitter experience now to learn this fact. Although the risk is slight, it is foolhardy for humans to play in the sharks' habitat.

[kippasnappa]

I fully agree with robert g on this. If someone said " here's a bag of poisonous snakes,why don't you stick your hand in it "- 99 out of 100 people would be sensible enough to resist the offer. The person who accepted would be thought stupid by anyone with an ounce of common sense.It's quite simple isn't it - DON'T SWIM IN SHARK INFESTED WATERS!! Is there anything difficult about understanding this?

[lepers]

my point was that there have been on occasion sharks that have, it appears, targetted humans. i didn't say all sharks did this, and i didn't say that the might of ignored other potential food sources and i didn't suggest that they have some kind of personal vendetta or 'hatred' for humans.

yes if u are swimming in the water then u have to accept that other things live there. i never disagreed with that point. but i did say that if a shark is in an area and humans are repeatedly being attacked then perhaps something should be done.

[joko]

The tone of your posts implied thats what you meant.

But, yes lepers, you are right - something should be done!

How about - Stop swimming in the water!

not launch a "kill sharks" campaign!

[lepers]

well, u must have a fun life not doing things in case u get injured, watch out for those roads!!

[joko]

If you call swimming in known shark infested waters, fun - then pass me the slippers and horlicks!

enjoy playing in the traffic

(but don't forget to blame the cars if they hit you!)

[lepers]

think u'll find there are plenty of people who get hit by cars and it's not their fault.

and i never said swimming in shark infested waters was fun. my point was if u constantly worry about the risks involved in ure actions u wouldn't leave the house, or in fact do anything in ure house.

[joko]

if you stand in the middle of the road and get hit - its your fault.

if you swim in shark infested waters and get eaten - its your fault.

how do you suppose not swimming in shark infested waters is 'being a killjoy and worrying unnecessarily'???

you are arguing a ridiculous point that no-one else agrees with - try actually reading some of the responses properly

I cannot be bothered to keep talking about this - you are wrong and everyone else on here is right - just accept it!

[brooklyn77]

Lepers - "If humans keep getting attacked something should be done" and Joko was right "Stop swimming in shark infested waters" thats what should be done !

Lepers - I take it by that comment you agree with bears in Alaska and USA being killed when they attack humans - despite the fact that bears only attack humans when we have encroached on their natural habitat - Should we just NOT encroach on their land?

And you agree with Tigers and Lions being killed when they attack human villages - Even though those villages were built knowing that tigers and lions share those areas? - How about just not building villages there?

Sharks, Bears, and Tigers and Lions and all the other magnificant beasts of this planet should have the same right as us to share this planet. And when our paths cross through our own stupidity then we should learn to suufer the consequences - or get out. Simple as that.

And I might add in case anyone says "but we are intelligent they are not....we are top of the food chain" etc...let me say this....They kill to eat...to live...to feed their young. There is no other example on this planet where animals kill in revenge. Except us. Yes they kill for territory, but thats survival...we are intelligent enough to not stray on to their territory. If we kill because of our own ignorance, that just makes us the worst animals in this Kingdom. The sooner our species dies out the better.

[brooklyn77]

Thought I might add one more thing...Just in case it has crossed anyones mind....

What if flies/cockroaches/bees/ants etc...started to take over the world because of their numbers and threatned our existance or at least threatned world crops..are we entitled to kill them then?

I say yes. Because then it is about survival. And that is a natural instinct.

But then, are they not just also feeding? Are they not just surviving? They cant surely know that what they are doing is killing off another species? Are we still right to kill them?

I still say yes. But its interesting to think about.

[lepers]

all i've ever said is that if an animal becomes a greater risk than normal then perhaps something should be done about them. i've never once said anything about revenge.

if a dog savages a child why is that dog is destroyed? because it has been supposedly domesticated?

it appears to me that is impossible for anyone to have a balanced opinion as if u can see both sides u get shouted down! i have said that u have to accept the risks but my point if the danger becomes greater than that of just being in that area then i don't see anything wrong with dealing with the problem. i have not said mass culls of animals should be carried out.

and joko by ure reasoning if i'm crossing a road and i get hit by a car its my fault, in the same way that if i'm swimming in the ocean and i get eaten by a shark its my fault? and i've never said not swimming in shark infested waters mad someone boring!

[joko]

try re-reading your own posts and remember what you said.

yes, if you walk in front of a car its your own fault - be more careful. you know its dangerous, and if you are hit it will hurt you more than the car, so don't step into the road until its clear - simple! remember your green cross code!

if the car mounts the pavement or you are thrown into the road then no its not your fault.

you then said my life is boring if i don't do things, through being afraid of getting hurt.

you said ' they specifically target humans' why would they do that - other than for revenge? if you specifically target someone to do them harm - there must be a reason! what possible reason could sharks have?

you said 'something must be done' i.e kill rogue sharks. all sharks could be seen as rogue, and all are dangerous - they sure aren't tame!' so therefore you said kill all sharks.

you are not seeing both sides, you are viewing sharks as though they are from the films 'jaws' - that was fiction. sharks aren't like that - they are not evil, twisted killing machines, whose sole aim is to hurt everything they see just for the hell of it, and won't stop until you are dead - they kill because they are hungry and you happen to be there.

think about what your words actually "say" to people, not just what they spell out!

this is getting deeply tedious

[lepers]

yeah this is tedious.

i didn't say "walk in front of a car" i said "cross the road", as in wanting to get to the other side thinking that it is clear and then being hit by a car. i didn't say leap in front of a moving vehicle to see what happens, as in i'm not saying "ooohhh lets go in the sea, splash about a bit n see if we can get a shark to attack us!" you go in the sea for a swim, and my point is if u always go, "oooh not sure i'll go for a swim i might get eaten today" the ure not going to do a hell of a lot.

why would sharks have to be motivated by revenge to attack humans repeatedly? it may just choose to ignore other food sources to attack people instead.

by 'rogue' sharks i'm not talking about sharks in general i'm talking about sharks that have become a specific danger to humans as opposed to a general danger of going in the ocean.

and i am not basing my arguements on having watched Jaws. my point was that some sharks, not all sharks ever born, have in history repeatedly attacked humans.

[Ivy jo]

I'm sure there are so many that would agree with what you wrote upon opening this posting Robert G, I am definately one of them, and can see that while there will be people devided about this issue, as controvercial as it is, I believe we, as the people of Australia, should ackwoledge that while we continue to kill the sharks that have harmed or killed humans in our waters, we cannot continue to kill all such skarks and that would lead to the death of, on average, 120,000 sharks a year alone.

I feel that, while the upmost sympathy is given to shark attack victims, animal behaviour has a tandancy to change when we humans get involved and approach, or live alongside animals in their natural habitat. And we cannot blame the animals for such reactions to our presence in their natural home.
There was a case of Chimpanzees and Gorillas, along a line of run sanctuaries in Tanzania, Africa, who, having known human contact, in the form of food being given out or just living alongside us and witnessing our way of life and living, that these apes started to attack human children and their own babies because of a growing instinct to be viscious and, totally un-natrually, to be meat-eaters.

Now as much as this hasn't got anything to do with the sharks as such, it's just a great example of how we can change animal behaviour and while some people are saying why can't we swim in safe waters without sharks trying to harm us, we have to ask ourselves if we haven't encouraged them to come perhaps out of the deeper water; out of their natural habitat to the extent where our presence has changed their behaviour and we are encouraging them come further inland and allowing this harmful and viscious behaviour from them.

[vkandaharv]

From what I have heard these shallow water shark attacks usually come from tiger sharks looking for sea turtles and mistaking a human being for one as it sees a silhouette against the surface water.

Tiger sharks are a signifigant hazard to tourists, and the first thought would be "well if theres a hazard, we should eliminate the hazard." Makes sense right off the bat, however there are unforseen consquences to doing this. Namely if you eliminate them then what they feed on will reproduce and flourish extensively. They eat almost anything, usually bony fishes, other sharks, marine mammals, seabirds, and invertebrates. Killing the sharks will allow all of those to reproduce more easily, however most of those already have a natural predator other than the tiger shark so their populations will still be kept in check. However the "other sharks" category, other sharks do not have many natural predators other than tiger sharks, so they would be allowed to reproduce extensively, this would cause the fish that they feed on to decrease in population and would then reduce catch size for many fisherman.

So now you have a problem with destroying all of the sharks, that is that the sharks that they feed on have no other natural means to keep their populations in check which will in turn cause a predator population increase and a fisherman catch decrease. I would recommend that we introduce a species that feeds on smaller sharks, similar to the Tiger shark, but also does not attack humans. If this does not work, it is also feasible to hunt these sharks to extinction and in turn increase fisherman's catches by reducing predators, allowing populations to increase. Simultaneously, there should be a government bounty for the heads of tiger sharks which would give fisherman an incentive to hunt them down and slaughter them to extinction, obviously causing an end to all tiger shark attacks on humans.