Rosie O'Donnell the Shark murderer. And Mark the Shark charters

[merxlin]

That's just it, you think it's about 'sides'. Allison gave it to you straight, it's not about sides. Maybe if you figured that out, you'd be more inclined to open your eyes, ears and brain about what's being posted here instead of being obstinate to everything but "your side".

Your statements verify everything I said about people who post this garbage, hysterical non-sense. It's all based on emotion and not reality. You ignore all facts unless they are from your 'side'.

And as Alison said, if you're done with the conversation, all you have to do is walk away, you don't need our permission to do so and non of us need to know you're leaving. Just do so, simple as that. Unless of course you're one of those that must announce he's taking his ball and leaving, then you've done so. Adios.

You know what Mike, you are right. Announcing I was leaving was a dig at you, sort of getting the last word in and leaving the room. Not fair. So I apologize that I let my frustration get the best of me.

So I will try one more time to explain my position. Hopefully you will at least consider my point of view and see where I am coming from. If not, at least I tried to give you another perspective.

Sharks are a vital part of the ocean ecosystem, and therefore the earth's ecosystem. They must be saved if we are to continue to live on this planet. That is not just my opinion, but the opinion of science. If you remove the apex predator, the ecosystem goes to hell in a hand-basket, and all sorts of bad things happen. Sharks are in peril because of being dramatically over-fished, primarily by commercial entities outside the US. Unless worldwide laws are strengthened and enforced, we may never be able to allow the shark populations to recover. Do we agree so far?

So that brings us to this thread. What started out as a blast against Rosie for her then legal fishing trip and catch, evolved into a discussion about the impact and responsibility of recreational fishing.

In my opinion, the only way to change the laws worldwide are to get people to understand what is happening to the world shark populations, and then get them to care enough to take some sort of action. This is starting to take place as shark fin products are now being outlawed in a number of countries, including Asian countries. But that fact remains that most people only hear about sharks either from "Jaws", during "Shark Week" on the Discovery Channel, or when one bites someone off a beach someplace. These are not the images we want people to have when they see someone asking them to help protect these vital creatures.

When Mark The Shark uses his particular brand of promotion it is sending a negative message to people about what sharks are, and what they mean to our oceans. It is hypocritical to say you want to protect something, then hang them up and show them as trophies while bragging about how you are killing them. He does not care about the welfare of these animals and has said so. We've published his quotes. He has also been convicted of skirting the law. It was some time ago and there is nothing to show he continues to do so, but it does speak to his character. Again, my opinion is that if this guy went out of business it would be a good thing for sharks, my hobby and my planet.

You have several times asked people to actually read what is posted, so I will do the same to you. If you go back and reread my posts and still perceive my posts as being garbage, emotional and hysterical non-sense then I obviously am not expressing myself well. You on the other hand seem to be of the opinion (and if I am wrong, I apologize) that all I and others who agree with me want is to shut down recreational fishing. I've never said that nor do I believe it should be done. I do believe we need better controls and laws, and those are being passed. I also assume the majority of operators will abide by them. I think that they can be a valuable asset in this fight. What I would like to see is one specific operator (and any more like him) to change his marketing and stop the vilification of an animal that is fighting for it's existence.

So yes, I do see us as being on different sides. You seem to think that there areas that do not have enough of an impact to warrant our attention, and that the only attention that is needed is against commercial fishing and the shark-fining trade. That's where we differ. I do not think you can save these animals without a very concerted effort to look at all those involved with them, and change their mindset.

[Mike]

If public opinion of what animals are to be saved because they are well liked, or are cute then only animals like this



and not animals like these


would be protected, even though they are.


I understand why you think that sharks have to be liked and loved to be protected, but its not true. As in the case of these nasty snakes, rats or spiders that plenty of people would run from, or kill with a shovel, they are on the endangered species list and is protect, so can sharks. They don't have to be loved and end up in petting zoos before they can be considered worthy of protecting.

Somebody going out all day and catching a shark on a rod and reel isn't the problem. It's somebody going out for a week and killing 2000 at a time on a 12 mile long line that is.

The movie Jaws is not stopping the world from protecting sharks against shark finning and neither is Mark the Shark, his website, his patrons or any other sports fisherman who catch sharks. Money is the problem. The multi-billion dollar shark fin business is the problem. Money, politics and influence, not the cuddlyness factor.

[smellzlikefish]

The cuddliness has been a huge marketing factor in the success of the save the whales campaign. Now we are seeing the results of positive influence on the protection of charismatic megafauna in the rebound of whale populations, even with the small take by isolated countries. Most people don't maintain the same fond-ness for sharks, in fact most people are scared $%&-less which is exactly the emotion that Mark panders to. How are those rats and snakes and spiders doing in comparison to the success of more liked animals like wolves, bison and bald eagles? Protection doesn't guarantee conservation, but a positive public image guarantees the money to get something done about it.

[Allison Finch]

One last try. And no, I am not the "shark hugger" you claim me to be. I am just very aware of the impact shark fishing is having on the sport of diving and my love of underwater photography.

This is an excerpt from an article in Animal planet;

Recreational Shark Fishing

Recreational shark fishing wasn't a very popular activity in the United States until 1975, when a little movie called "Jaws" premiered. After "Jaws," big-game fisherman all up and down the East Coast sought to land one of the great whites they saw on the big screen. There was a macho factor involved with hauling in a so-called "man-eater," and many fishermen equated their pastime with keeping the ocean safe for their families. Another reason it gained popularity is that you don't need a boat to fish for sharks. Anyone with a large rod and reel can set up on a dock, bridge, or even on the beach and have a good chance at catching a shark.
While we can't be sure exactly how many sharks are caught and killed by recreational fishermen each year, we have some idea. The U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service estimated in 2004 that 12 million sharks,skates and rays were caught in U.S. waters alone. Only about 359,000 of these sharks were killed -- the others were evidently released back into the ocean. Many recreational shark anglers have lobbied for tighter restrictions on commercial operations, fearing that overfishing might lead to the eradication of their hobby. However, research has shown that over a 21-year span, recreational fishermen captured more sharks than commercial fisheries in 15 of those years. In California alone, tiger sharks caught recreationally outnumbered the commercial side 6-to-1 [source: sharkwater.com].
Many sharks are caught recreationally each year in fishing tournaments. One tournament in Massachusetts awards bonus points for mako, porbeagle or thresher sharks larger than 250 pounds. The porbeagle is on the International Union for Conservation of Nature endangered species list (IUCN). During two days in 2005, this same tournament saw more than 2,500 sharks caught. The tournaments mean big money as well. The total prize purse for the Ocean City Shark Tournament in Maryland is $140,000 [source:delmarvaoutdoornews.com].
More and more, shark anglers are moving toward the practice of catch and release, but even then, the large hook is often left buried in the shark's throat, mouth or gut. Sandwich maker Quiznos and the cable sports network ESPN have sponsored a catch-and-release tournament for anglers who wish to preserve the shark but still get the thrill of a big catch. They award double points for the proper and humane removal of the hook.
Unfortunately, catch-and-release tournaments are less widespread than the catch-and-kill varieties. Hundreds of these tournaments are held every year, despite the growing concerns of the shark population and protests from groups like the American Humane Society (AHS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The recreational catch combined with the commercial side has put sharks in serious jeopardy. Experts indicate that one-fifth of all sharks are threatened with extinction at this point, and if the same level of fishing continues, several species face imminent demise. For example, the hammerhead shark population has decreased by 89 percent over the last two decades [source: Dehart­].
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that roughly 800,000 tons of shark are caught and killed every year overall, with 18 different countries hauling in more than 9,000 tons each. Shark meat is eaten; fins are the key ingredient in the Asian delicacy shark fin soup. Other body parts are used in everything from lubricants, makeup and paint to soap, fertilizer and acne treatments. No one is exactly sure what the extinction of sharks would mean to the world, but we do know that they're an important part of thefood chain and the ocean's ecosystem.

here's the link, assuming you are even willing to consider input.

Recreational Shark Fishing: Saltwater Fish: Animal Planet

[gcarter]

here's the link, assuming you are even willing to consider input.

Recreational Shark Fishing: Saltwater Fish: Animal Planet

This is part of the problem with discussions like this - the assumption that lack of agreement means that the "other side" did not properly consider the input.

I am not, and nor is Mike as I read him, disagreeing with the desirability of better conservation efforts. The disagreement is largely on the method of achieving that, and the cost / benefit of going after individual operators like Mark versus expending the same effort and resources of making changes to the laws / regulatory framework.

It is my opinion (Mike is quite capable of speaking for himself LOL) that focusing on the likes of Mark is a poor use of resources. It is also my opinion that in addition to being a poor use of resources, it can actually be counterproductive as it publicizes his business, and if the rhetoric and emotion that accompanies is at all similar to what we have seen in this thread, it will do more to diminish your case than to help it. That's all.

To continually assert that not fully agreeing with you means that your case has not been considered is insulting and also does not help your credibility or your case.

[highdesert]

We need to end the vilification of sharks as "Man-eaters" and "Death from Below" and all the other Jaws related perceptions people have of them.

To that end, please view the petition I have created here ...

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/484/4...e-jaws-effect/

To those SB members who claim petitions are useless, and those who don't understand that there is just no room to do in another shark for sport, fins, or any other reason, please, just save it. You really aren't going to dissuade those who can see the "big picture". Your argument is not much different than throwing your litter out the car window on a littered highway because "no one's gonna see one more piece". You add to the problem, or you don't.