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

[giantfan]

You guys really believe that this Azzhat Mark has really killed over 100,000 sharks? Come on....

 

[Mike]

Some one admitted finally that the 100,000 number was created with fuzzy math by multiplying lost generations of sharks for every one was killed by him. It's not how many sharks he has caught. I pointed it out earlier at how ridiculous and illogical the number was, nobody believed me because they kept trying to use it to further the falsehood of how devestating sport fishing is to the shark population. Numbers don't have to be real, they just have to sound good when all your reasons against something are emotional and then you try to defend it logically. It falls apart quickly and you resort to grasping at anything that seems to back you up no matter how illogical it is. Then of course you get upset when you're easily disputed.

Their problem with Mark the shark is all personal and emotional. The man is totally irrelevant to the problem that is devastating shark populations world wide, which is Asians and their increasing demand for shark fin soup. The new exploding middle class in China over the last 10 years has created a giant consumer demand for shark fin soup and the result has been an unsustainable harvest of sharks for their fins.

Here is your enemy --

ASIANS DON'T EAT SHARKS BECAUSE THEY ARE SCARED OF THEM OR FOR THE GLORY OF DRAGGING THEM BACK TO DOCK, because Mark the Shark glorifies fishing for them.

78 million sharks were killed for MONEY, to supply the shark fin soup industry. Asians eat them in a soup that the fin isn't even identifiable visually or by taste, they eat them for status. And I guarantee you not a single one of them even knows who Mark the Shark is, and not one of them was influenced to pay $90 for a bowl of shark fin soup because of Mark the Shark.


Now -- IF you really care about sharks - Watch this 15 minute documentary from Gordon Ramsay, begin to realize where your anger should be focused, and who is decimating your beloved sharks -

Gordon Ramsay eats Shark Fin Soup for the first time! - YouTube

 

[Allison Finch]

Oh, believe me, I fully understand the impact that finning has had. I see the shark "Ghost" fleets moored in the Cocos Islands to fish the amazing shark schools there. There is worldwide focus on these issues.

But, for you to say that commercial charters who focus on sharks, in this country, is having NO impact on shark populations is just ludicrous. Multiply the Marks by the thousands of other similar charters up and down the Eastern seaboard, many of whom circumvent local laws by dipping (or not) into federal waters, and OF COURSE there is a dramatic input. There are too many studies (like the bay scallop and algae studies) that point it out.

A shark may be in federal waters one day and inside, on a reef the next. Federal water fishing will, of course, impact shoreline poulations. Tagged sharks are known to cover HUGE areas.

I am not against commercial charter fishing at all. Most fish are quick to replace their culled numbers. Sharks, not so much. I believe that the US needs to update their stance on shark fishing soon. As in whales, I think a moratorium could be in order. Both of these species has an incredibly slow reproductive rate, putting them on a different level of sustainability, IMO.

Mike, you too easily slide into jabs and personal insults.

 

[Mike]

Shark populations would recover quickly if they had a 78 million shark head start every year.

Not sure why anybody would be concerned with an industry taking a few thousand sharks out of the oceans versus 78 million?

Seems to me we spend millions of dollars a year for salaries to pay people to go to work every day in this country to establish rules and regulations to protect species. They even included sharks in their work and have established laws and limits on shark fishing. Seems you're allowed to catch sharks in this country if you follow the rules these people came up with.

Don't know about those other places where 78 million sharks were slaughtered outside the United States. Seems like the problem is elsewhere to me.

 

[smellzlikefish]

There you go again with your rhetoric on laws and shark finning. Maybe if you repeat yourself again we'll get it.

Nobody is arguing with you that shark finning is bad for sharks and if you really want to discuss finning, there are hundreds of threads that focus on the issue. This thread is about the effect of sport fishing which has an admittedly smaller but noticeable effect nonetheless.

I think the law is part of the problem here. While we have outlawed finning in our waters, we have no jurisdiction in international waters and thus no control over what they are fed in China. We do have some level of control through public awareness of what happens here. Legal issues aside (please-politics bores me), there is a trend among marinas to be shark free. This means that, outside the law, marina regulators have said that nobody is allowed to come back to the docks and display dead sharks.

You have yet to answer why you are defending this guy.

 

[Mike]

The name of this thread is "Rosie O'Donnel Shark Murderer". If you need to figure out why myself and others replied with voices of moderation and reason in a thread filled with hysterical non-sense and hate about the subject, simply start with post # 1 and start reading.

And, no I don't think you'll ever 'get it'. Anybody who describes laws designed to protect a species and shark fining as 'rhetoric' obviously has an agenda already and rarely do those with an agenda allow themselves to actually be influenced by those who don't.

I counted at least a dozen different instances of miss information, twisted facts or out right lying in this thread so far by those who are perplexed by anybody voicing any reason or moderation, a thread started by someone ask you to send hate mail to somebody.

 

[merxlin]

As with most threads Mike, this one has grown and we moved on from Rosie. We have really been discussing what impact a highly public sports fishing operation, and to a lesser extent the sport fishing community can have on the shark population. You are rooted in the law and the numbers, while most of us who would like to see his operation changed or eliminated believe that his negative impact exceeds the numbers of sharks he kills, and also includes how sharks and their need to be protected gets perceived by the public. His portrayal has a negative impact on how sharks are seen, and therefore makes it more difficult to garner public support for anti shark fining regulations.

So in my opinion: what he is doing is wrong; it is not non-sense, and certainly if there is hate it is for the pointless extinction of a species. Is commercial shark fining the predominant cause of shark deaths? Absolutely. Should more be done on an international scale to stop it? Absolutely. Should we turn a blind eye to everything BUT commercial shark fining? Absolutely not.

I've asked the question but now will make the statement: In my opinion just because it is legal, doesn't make it right.

 

[Mopar]

 

[smellzlikefish]

The name of this thread is "Rosie O'Donnel Shark Murderer". If you need to figure out why myself and others replied with voices of moderation and reason in a thread filled with hysterical non-sense and hate about the subject, simply start with post # 1 and start reading.

And, no I don't think you'll ever 'get it'. Anybody who describes laws designed to protect a species and shark fining as '​

rhetoric' obviously has an agenda already and rarely do those with an agenda allow themselves to actually be influenced by those who don't.

I counted at least a dozen different instances of miss information, twisted facts or out right lying in this thread so far by those who are perplexed by anybody voicing any reason or moderation, a thread started by someone ask you to send hate mail to somebody.

Is Rosie or Mark's desire to kill a shark just for the sake of killing it morally (not legally) more important than that shark's right to live?

 

[Allison Finch]

Mike will you read and comment? Is there really no evidence of overfishing? Even NOAA claims sharks are being overfished in US waters. You prefer rhetoric and character assassination when describing anyone concerned with U.S. shark overfishing. So, comments of empirical data, please.

SHARE: Overfishing of sharks causes shellfish decline mongabay.com March 29, 2007 Overfishing of large sharks is reducing the abundance of shellfish reports a study published in the March 30 issue of the journal Science. A team of Canadian and American biologists has found that population declines in large predatory shark species -- including bull, great white, dusky, and hammerhead sharks -- due to overfishing has led to a boom in their ray, skate, and small shark prey species along the Atlantic Coast of the United States. Now these smaller species are depleting commercially important shellfish. "With fewer sharks around, the species they prey upon — like cownose rays — have increased in numbers, and in turn, hordes of cownose rays dining on bay scallops, have wiped the scallops out," said co-author Julia Baum of Dalhousie. "This ecological event is having a large impact on local communities that depend so much on healthy fisheries," said Charles Peterson, a professor of marine sciences biology and ecology at the Institute of Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and co-leader of the study. Blue shark photo by Greg Skomal (sanctuaries.noaa.gov). Examining research surveys from 1970-2005, the authors found a sharp declines in many shark populations, including a possible 97 drop in scalloped hammerhead and tiger sharks, and more than a 99 percent fall in bull, dusky, and smooth hammerhead sharks. "Large sharks have been functionally eliminated from the east coast of the U.S., meaning that they can no longer perform their ecosystem role as top predators," explained Baum. "The extent of the declines shouldn't be a surprise considering how heavily large sharks have been fished in recent decades to meet the growing worldwide demand for shark fins and meat." Worldwide, 26 million to 73 million sharks are killed each year for their fins estimated a 2006 study published in Ecology Letters, while research published last December in the journal Current Biology said that overfishing is causing a population collapse on Australia's Barrier Reef, generally considered one of the world's healthier marine ecosystems. Shark fin is a popular delicacy in Asia -- especially China, where it is typically served in shark fin soup weddings, business dinners, and other celebrations. Shark fin soup can fetch up to $120 per bowl. Fins are usually sliced off as the shark, often while still alive, which is then thrown back into the ocean. While most people think of sharks as dangerous animals, shark attacks are exceedingly rare. The annual survey of shark attacks, released two weeks ago, showed that it is far more likely to be killed by a falling coconut than a shark. Globally, four people were killed in unprovoked shark attacks in 2006. 0329shark_1024 In the coastal Atlantic, the decline in large shark populations has triggered an explosion in rays and smaller sharks. The researchers say that the east coast cownose ray population may now number as many as 40 million. These species are voracious predators of bay scallops, oysters, soft-shell and hard clams, they add. "Increased predation by cownose rays also may inhibit recovery of oysters and clams from the effects of overexploitation, disease, habitat destruction, and pollution, which already have depressed these species," said Peterson. "Our study provides evidence that the loss of great sharks triggers changes that cascade throughout coastal food webs," says Baum. "Solutions include enhancing protection of great sharks by substantially reducing fishing pressure on all of these species and enforcing bans on shark finning both in national waters and on the high seas." "Maintaining the populations of top predators is critical for sustaining healthy oceanic ecosystems," says Peterson. "Despite the vastness of the oceans, its organisms are interconnected, meaning that changes at one level have implications several steps removed. Through our work, the ocean is not so unfathomable, and we know better now why sharks matter." Renowned fisheries biologist Ransom Myers at Dalhousie University was co-lead author of the article. UPDATE: Ransom A. Myers, lead author of the study and a fisheries biologist whose work brought global attention to collapsing fish stocks, died on Tuesday in Halifax, Nova Scotia. He was 54. Myers had been suffering from glioblastoma multiforme, a brain cancer, since last fall, according to Dalhousie University. He is survived by his wife Rita Myers, and five children, Emily, Rosemary, Sophia, Carlo and Gioia CITATION: Cascading Effects of the Loss of Apex Predatory Sharks from a Coastal Ocean Ransom A. Myers,1 Julia K. Baum, Travis D. Shepherd, Sean P. Powers,2 Charles H. Peterson (2007).