Well, of course no one is okay with being killed by a shark. I'm sure if approached by a great white, and given the option of being A) eaten, or B) the shark swimming away peacefully, we would all go with option B. But A is a possibility, no matter how astronomically low, and if we do not accept that risk we shouldn't be in the ocean. I certainly don't want to be bitten by a shark, or mauled by a bear next time I am in Yosemite, but if it happened, and there is an afterlife, I'm sure I'll be cursing my own idiocy and bad luck rather than the shark or bear.
Rarely do people simply accept risk at face value. They usually try to mitigate it, which is what the cull, right or wrong, is attempting to do. Personally, I think it will prove to be wrong but I understand the motivation. If I were only responsible for my own safety I could accept all sorts of compromises, and in fact did/do. When you are charged with the safety of others, your POV changes.
When advocates show great concern for animals but little to no concern for humans they do their cause a disservice. To the common man, or those who have to make public safety decisions, they appear unbalanced and are easy to marginalize. It is very easy to begin painting them as "anti human". Saying humans can just stay out of the water is one of those flippant sounding comments that marginalizes ones position. Does anyone really think a government of an island nation with a multi-billion dollar tourism industry is going to settle for that as a solution? Really? No, it just makes the government feel it cannot turn to those advocates for a sensible solution and drives them towards the other extreme.
This is a big optics problem that environmental advocacy groups face these days. There is a public perception that many care more for animals than people - which doesn't really appeal to governments or the common man. Some may say "who cares about appealing to them" but then one is not really trying to effect change, because those are the people who need to change. I'm not against a petition but I do believe that the real turning point will come when advocates can offer government a win/win shark/man solution. Not a win/lose one.
Grizzly Man is a great documentary, and as they point out in the documentary: Treadwell would definitely not have wanted the bear that ate him to be killed in turn. Treadwell accepted the risks in his lifestyle, and the Wildlife officers achieved absolutely nothing in killing that bear. This wasn't the middle of Suburbia with a man-hungry bear running around, it was in remote wilderness. The logic of, "Well, that animal killed one of us, so we'll kill him in turn! An eye for an eye!" seems arbitrary and barbaric to me.
To me, Treadwell was a person who deluded himself into anthropomorphizing bears, believing they were kindred spirits that he could live among. He neither understood their true nature or the risks involved. He convinced a girl of that same idea with fatal consequences. He would also have been deluded to believe that wildlife officers wouldn't kill the bear that ate two people. Just because you wish something doesn't make it so. Acting on those wishes harmed others (human and animal).
Bears and sharks are very similar. Both are large apex predators. Beautiful. Powerful. Live on the fringes of human populations but mostly avoid contact. Usually resist human predation because of the perceived risk involved to themselves. Occasionally attack by accident or when provoked. Will attack if hunger overrides the risk reward ratio enough. Neither love humans or even care about them with more than casual curiosity.
In Canada we have learned that the best protection for bears and man are to keep the two far apart. Proximity, and linking humans to food sources, being tops on the list of causal factors for negative interactions. Where are the petitions against the habituation to humans and linking of humans to food that the diving tourism industry promotes?
Every time a diver feeds a shark or tries to pet it, they erode the existing uncertainty barrier that keeps sharks from seeing man as an easily attained food source.