I wrote a letter to the editor of my paper denouncing a story about shark diving

[fairybasslet]

I found it interesting when I was explosed to more info...
The general info like, according to statistics, sharks like to attack moving objs with bright color, do not panic and swim like you're struggling, besides the detection of movements around, the sharks have electrical receptors to detect electrically... don't get into waters if you have any cuts etc...

We can pick up those and be aware, but when sharks are hugry for food, there are always very little we can do about it. As a result, we heard accidents happened in different parts of the world.

Academically, we can talk about between the sharks and us, who is at the top of the food chain, or we should be mutually exculsive for our food and respect each other's right. We can talk, but yet there are only very little we can do once we are in the water and when the shark has decided what to do.

Again we can do a lot of surveys and study about which kind of sharks under what kind of conditions would they attack... but once we are diving we have volunteered to enter their habitat. We don't want to extinct the species, sure, but practically we need to find more efficient ways to protect ourselves, after all, none of us can affort to carry a shark cage around. According to what I have seen, we are still in a relatively primitive stage in terms of this.

I truly doubt any shark finning fishermen are in grave danger. It seems like you're suggesting that we kill sharks to make the waters safe for divers. What nonsense. You 're worried about sharks? Stop diving in their habitat. Dive in a lake or quarry.

 

[alo100]

I truly doubt any shark finning fishermen are in grave danger. It seems like you're suggesting that we kill sharks to make the waters safe for divers. What nonsense. You 're worried about sharks? Stop diving in their habitat. Dive in a lake or quarry.

Just a thought here, not trying to create argument...
Ocean is their habitat, we are the space invaders for them. I can see the reason behind it and I think this is a valid stmt to a certain degree. On the other hand, I think it all goes back to, if human has the right to manage the planet. Maybe a more meaningful/urgent statment is, how come we cannot find a way to protect ourselves efficiently in front of this animal while we are trying to figure out how to protect them.

Another interesting point of view is: if we can keep sharks just as other live stocks e.g. cows and chicken
Can we then eat them? Is it just the fact that they are going to extinct that's why
we care about? I also do not want to see them extinct, but is this the only reason, I am also thinking...

Yes, the fishermen do not worry, but in general every swimmers and divers do worry. Long time ago, I read a news report, the last sentance left by a swimmer was, "Help! I lost my leg."
If this is a human being hurting another, we have the corresponding law to judge and punish, but if it is a shark, we may not even be able to find it. Then if we found the hunter shark, we still need to ask if it is legal to kill. Just wondered what's the logic behind.

 

[alo100]

I am no expert on animal behavioral science, nor do I support any form of animal slaughtering. There are some examples I wanted to tell:

When people study marine science, sharks in this case, they usually go to the habitats, and studying the wild animal in order to capture the genuine nature of specie. So, we can see documentaries which has some guys swimming together with sharks and show to the public that: therefore shark is a peaceful creature, see. Those sharks are not explosed to human frequently. On the other hand, we would keep on hearing reports from all over the world, about accidents caused by sharks. So, is shark on this side of the spectrum or on the other side of the spectrum, which way is the truth? As I mentioned before, we are doing some sampling among sharks only we cannot conclude a lot just by sampling like this. We may know which type of sharks are more aggressive, but we cannot predict what would happen when a shark show up in front of swimmers or divers. Sharks are not hunting for human only, but sharks would not refuse to eat human when they need to eat. What I am trying to bring up here is yet another example: the behavior of sharks can change when the environment changed.

The place that I am visiting currently, there are islands, and a peninsula. Shark attacks are not very frequent, once every 2, 3 years or so.
About 15 years ago, because of political factor, people were using boats to get across the sea for freedom. Some made it, some did not. When bodies were left at the middle of the ocean, the sharks took it. This, in turn, changed the behavior of the sharks around. They started to show up more around the coast line, including public beaches. The frequency of shark related accidents jumped up as a result. A lot of people were killed during those 5, 6 years. When the political season changed, less shark attacks were found.

I hate to use this analogy for the serious topic, but, let's talk about it.
How many people in this country (back in America) like Sushi?
I didn't start until I was a teenager, before that, I hated raw fish. Now it's ok.
I guess some of you like it, but to some of you, it's still a no no.
Do you see what I am getting at?

We cannot control the behavior of other creatures, but how to protect ourselves and how to make reasonable laws are what we can do. Another example, another documentary about wild elephants in India. As you may know, they are sacred animal to their country. So whoever kill an elephant is not only violating the law, but the person would potentially be killed by the other fellow villagers. Here's the scene, when a group of wild elephants were hugry, they would attack the village during night time, the huts would be crushed while people were in their dreams, many would be injured or even stepped to death (by the elephants by accident) or by the collapsing hut. Among the favorate food of the elephants, there are fruits and wine. Yes, spirit. The villagers do home made spirit at home with large containers, and the animal likes drinking. People were afraid to counter attack, the best they could do were to drive them away, if possible.

When human and sharks encountered, we need to know how to build up efficent way to protect oursleves, to put the condition under control; this is in turn protecting the animals. We know that unlike elephant, we cannot get a shot gun and fire in the air to scare them away in water, so we need to figure out other means. This is in spite of the behavior science of sharks. Sharks are beautiful creatures, so do we and our children.

 

[jennasnyder1980]

Alo100,

I am sorry, but I am not following your logic at all.

"On the other hand, I think it all goes back to, if human has the right to manage the planet."

Do you think human has the right to manage the planet? I am not sure if manage is the right term I would use. I think humans have the RESPONSIBILITY to use the earth as carefully as possible.

"Maybe a more meaningful/urgent statment is, how come we cannot find a way to protect ourselves efficiently in front of this animal while we are trying to figure out how to protect them."

How come we cannot find a way to protect ourselves from Mother Nature in general? Animals and mother nature (weather, etc) have proven themselves to be unpredictable in nature again and again. I don't think that our ability to protect ourselves (or lack of) in "their" territory should coincide with our ability or responsibility to conserve their populations in hopes of learning more about them, keeping the delicate ocean ecosystem in balance, and hopefully leave the world a better place than we found it. In other words, what does having the ability to go shark diving in a cage have to do with whether or not we should care? Should we only care about animals that are tame and not a predator.

I would like to remind you that predators are an extremely important part of ecosystems. For example, many people view wolves as dangerous because they kill their livestock and pets. However, when you decrease a wolf population substantially, you are apt to find more deer which overgraze. So, predators keep other populations in check. So, we MUST care.

"If this is a human being hurting another, we have the corresponding law to judge and punish, but if it is a shark, we may not even be able to find it. Then if we found the hunter shark, we still need to ask if it is legal to kill. Just wondered what's the logic behind."

Are you suggesting we hold animals on trial??? These are wild animals, not ones that have gone to school or can talk to us? they are unpredictable by nature and many times are acting in defense and not necessarily waking up and deciding to hunt and kill humans.

 

[alo100]

Alo100,

I am sorry, but I am not following your logic at all.

"On the other hand, I think it all goes back to, if human has the right to manage the planet."

Do you think human has the right to manage the planet? I am not sure if manage is the right term I would use. I think humans have the RESPONSIBILITY to use the earth as carefully as possible.

"Maybe a more meaningful/urgent statment is, how come we cannot find a way to protect ourselves efficiently in front of this animal while we are trying to figure out how to protect them."

How come we cannot find a way to protect ourselves from Mother Nature in general? Animals and mother nature (weather, etc) have proven themselves to be unpredictable in nature again and again. I don't think that our ability to protect ourselves (or lack of) in "their" territory should coincide with our ability or responsibility to conserve their populations in hopes of learning more about them, keeping the delicate ocean ecosystem in balance, and hopefully leave the world a better place than we found it. In other words, what does having the ability to go shark diving in a cage have to do with whether or not we should care? Should we only care about animals that are tame and not a predator.

I would like to remind you that predators are an extremely important part of ecosystems. For example, many people view wolves as dangerous because they kill their livestock and pets. However, when you decrease a wolf population substantially, you are apt to find more deer which overgraze. So, predators keep other populations in check. So, we MUST care.

"If this is a human being hurting another, we have the corresponding law to judge and punish, but if it is a shark, we may not even be able to find it. Then if we found the hunter shark, we still need to ask if it is legal to kill. Just wondered what's the logic behind."

Are you suggesting we hold animals on trial??? These are wild animals, not ones that have gone to school or can talk to us? they are unpredictable by nature and many times are acting in defense and not necessarily waking up and deciding to hunt and kill humans.

If you agree that we have the right to co-exist with the other animals, we should find a way to protect ourselves if we can, and I believe that we can, using chainmail to feed shark is doable; however, chainmail method is not something new (meaning Middle Age), believe me, we can do a lot better to protect ourselves. I believe that one of the major reason is the size of "demand" on such device, we have some now, but not efficient enough (according to the accident reports) unfortunately. The better we can do to protect ourselves, the less fatal accident it would be, it's also good for the animal, in turn.

When I use the wild elephant example, it's clear that, sometimes it is our own cultural blindspot which disable us to protect ourselves, we need to judge what kind of culture we are building. I respect the Indian culture to regard elephant as sacred, but to have a efficent way to protect the villagers is another issue. Otherwise, we cannot even co-exist with the wild animals. Now, I am not talking about extinct of human beings, but the value of lives. We have the same right living on earth.

If you allow the other animals to vote, and if they can, they would say that we are the #1 enemies towards ecosystems, e.g. just by pollution itself, it's bad enough.
I agree with you that "humans have the RESPONSIBILITY to use the earth as carefully as possible." In terms of "managing" the world, my value is positive, but I also think that we did a poor job on that, natural disaster is one of the result. It's not like that we do not know the consequence, just we lost the control ourselves as a group.