View Full Version : stingrays being mutilated and kill because of that ***** Steve Erwin death
sharkhunter
14-09-2006, 23:29
Has anyone seen this :eek: :mad:
September 14, 2006 11:39am
[taken of the news.co.au website (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20410435-5008780,00.html)]
FEDERAL Environment Minister Ian Campbell has appealed to Australians not to show their grief over the death of conservationist Steve Irwin by senselessly killing stingrays.
His comments came after authorities said as many as 10 stingrays had been found mutilated on Queensland beaches since Irwin died from a stringray strike last week.
"Like most Australians I'm terribly saddened by Steve Irwin's untimely and accidental death," Senator Campbell said.
"Steve was a colourful, inspirational and quintessential Australian driven by an enormous and deeply held commitment to the environment and the protection and conservation of our unique wildlife.
"No matter how greatly he is missed, he would deplore such cruel attacks on the creatures and wildlife he dedicated his life's work and energy to protecting."
Senator Campbell said while the sad events of last week had undoubtedly created some fear of stingrays, it would be better if people were to replace that fear with cautious respect.
"Leaving aside the senseless cruelty of these acts, people need to remember that cutting the tails from these animals exposes you to danger," he said.
"I call on the Queensland Government to look into these reports as a matter of urgency and to ensure the protection of the Queensland coastal environment as well as the safety of those enjoying the coast."
Bloody typical.....it had to happen didn't it, the idiots (I can think of a stronger term for them) have started taking revenge on the poor innocent critters. I'd just like to catch one persons doing such a terrible act and I'll soon show them the sting in my tail!!!!!!!!!!!!! Makes me really mad!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Isn't your tag sharkhunter.....aren't stingrays in the same family as sharks (elasmobranchs IIRC please correct me if I'm wrong).....you see where I'm going with this....
In all seriousness tho you have to worry about the mentality of some people!
sharkhunter
15-09-2006, 10:43
Isn't your tag sharkhunter.....aren't stingrays in the same family as sharks (elasmobranchs IIRC please correct me if I'm wrong).....you see where I'm going with this....
In all seriousness tho you have to worry about the mentality of some people!
:p , very funny Lou, I just knew someone would have to pick up on that.
My ID tag Sharkhunter comes from my DOXA watch (http://www.doxawatches.com/collection.htm), which is called a Sharkhunter (see picture below), created and developed by DOXA for US Divers and Jacques-Yve Cousteau back in the 60's and was worn by Jacques-Yve Cousteau and his team on his many dives. Also DOXA are one of my clients. ;)
http://www.thesharkhunter.com/watch_pictures/sub750t_shark_02.jpg
Yes I hunt sharks, but only with a camera (see pictures below) :D
I love sharks and all the critters in the sea, the sting rays are one of my favourite members of the shark family to swim and dive with....they are very friendly and playful (http://www.thesharkhunter.com/movies/stingray.htm), if you know what your doing and how to act with them...same goes for most reef sharks. The sea would be a very dull place without them for us divers. :(
http://www.studio808.co.uk/photos/wus/bahamas_01.jpg
http://www.studio808.co.uk/photos/wus/bahamas_02.jpg
Like you say the mentality of some people is way beyond belief. :mad:
John Bantin
15-09-2006, 20:53
Please remember that you are getting your information from the media. After Steve Irwins unfortunate death, journalists are now interested in killer stingrays, hence the drawing of the stingray next to a diver in the Daily Mail:
What's the maximum wing-span of a ray? (Six metres? That'll be a manta) So they draw a sting-ray proportioned up to be twenty feet across and show it alongside a much smaller diver. Well, I certainly would not go near one of those!
The next story I read is that stingrays have been caught off the coast of Britain! Wow! What's new? What is skate and chips?
Stingrays have been found dead off the coast of Queensland. Yes, along with a lot of other bits of fish that fishermen didn't want.
I am with you on preserving the wild-life. See:http://www.divernet.com/opinion/0304deepb.shtml
1.3 billion Chinese people want to eat sharkfin soup and the rest of the world is giving them the money to pay for it. You included!
sharkhunter
15-09-2006, 21:36
Please remember that you are getting your information from the media. After Steve Irwins unfortunate death, journalists are now interested in killer stingrays, hence the drawing of the stingray next to a diver in the Daily Mail:
What's the maximum wing-span of a ray? (Six metres? That'll be a manta) So they draw a sting-ray proportioned up to be twenty feet across and show it alongside a much smaller diver. Well, I certainly would not go near one of those!
The next story I read is that stingrays have been caught off the coast of Britain! Wow! What's new? What is skate and chips?
Stingrays have been found dead off the coast of Queensland. Yes, along with a lot of other bits of fish that fishermen didn't want.
I am with you on preserving the wild-life. See:http://www.divernet.com/opinion/0304deepb.shtml
1.3 billion Chinese people want to eat sharkfin soup and the rest of the world is giving them the money to pay for it. You included!
Thanks for posting.
Yes I agree international media (UK being worst) gets it wrong, but my info is straight from Aoz, the appeal was by Environment Minister Ian Campbell, so if they are making an appleal to Australians then I think there must be more to it than just press sensationalism don't you think. See statement below as issued by Environment Minister Ian Campbell.
FEDERAL Environment Minister Ian Campbell has appealed to Australians not to show their grief over the death of conservationist Steve Irwin by senselessly killing stingrays.
His comments came after authorities said as many as 10 stingrays had been found mutilated on Queensland beaches since Irwin died from a stringray strike last week.
"Like most Australians I'm terribly saddened by Steve Irwin's untimely and accidental death," Senator Campbell said.
"Steve was a colourful, inspirational and quintessential Australian driven by an enormous and deeply held commitment to the environment and the protection and conservation of our unique wildlife.
"No matter how greatly he is missed, he would deplore such cruel attacks on the creatures and wildlife he dedicated his life's work and energy to protecting."
Senator Campbell said while the sad events of last week had undoubtedly created some fear of stingrays, it would be better if people were to replace that fear with cautious respect.
"Leaving aside the senseless cruelty of these acts, people need to remember that cutting the tails from these animals exposes you to danger," he said.
"I call on the Queensland Government to look into these reports as a matter of urgency and to ensure the protection of the Queensland coastal environment as well as the safety of those enjoying the coast."
:p , very funny Lou, I just knew someone would have to pick up on that.I have snipped the self promotion.
Retaliation against the poor old stingray was innevitably tragic.
How do you feel about shark feeding?
John Bantin
16-09-2006, 09:17
I have snipped the self promotion.
Retaliation against the poor old stingray was innevitably tragic.
How do you feel about shark feeding?
What about people feeding? Are we doing too much of it?
Everywhere I go in the world, I see people. Millions of them. No, billions of them. It's an infestation! There is no co-incidence that the two best places for watching nature at its most natural are Bikini Atoll and Chernobyl. No people there, you see. So if you really want to help the world there is one small sacrifice you can make. You know what you have to do. Recycle yourself. You might come back as a tree!
This posting is made tongue-in-cheek - but there is an element of seriousness. As a young man I castigated a Brazilian friend for his country decimating its rain-forest. "Why shouldn't we cut it down?" he retorted. "You cut down yours!"
It is very hard to live in and get the benefits of an industrialized society and point a moral finger elsewhere. As for the stingrays, there will always be those brave macho types who want to prove their superiority of the wildlife. It starts with pulling the wings off flies.:)
Andy Wade
16-09-2006, 09:38
What about people feeding? Are we doing too much of it?
Everywhere I go in the world, I see people. Millions of them. No, billions of them. It's an infestation! There is no co-incidence that the two best places for watching nature at its most natural are Bikini Atoll and Chernobyl. No people there, you see. So if you really want to help the world there is one small sacrifice you can make. You know what you have to do. Recycle yourself. You might come back as a tree!
This posting is made tongue-in-cheek - but there is an element of seriousness. As a young man I castigated a Brazilian friend for his country decimating its rain-forest. "Why shouldn't we cut it down?" he retorted. "You cut down yours!"
It is very hard to live in and get the benefits of an industrialized society and point a moral finger elsewhere. As for the stingrays, there will always be those brave macho types who want to prove their superiority of the wildlife. It starts with pulling the wings off flies.:)
I fully agree with your points John, absolutely bang on.
The same thing is happening in China with the industrialisation of their country. The pollution this will create will be devastating, but they will just say they're entitled to all the benefits of commercial and industrial prosperity as much as the western world has done. Just imagine how much will ensue when their first generation of fridges and freezers are scrapped without reclaiming the gases. We can't even dispose of ours properly.
On another point... You say you've seen billions of people? What, billions? Wow! you do get out a lot don't you? :D
Adrian Kelland
16-09-2006, 09:47
What about people feeding? Are we doing too much of it?
Everywhere I go in the world, I see people. Millions of them. No, billions of them. It's an infestation! There is no co-incidence that the two best places for watching nature at its most natural are Bikini Atoll and Chernobyl. No people there, you see. So if you really want to help the world there is one small sacrifice you can make. You know what you have to do. Recycle yourself. You might come back as a tree!
This posting is made tongue-in-cheek - but there is an element of seriousness. As a young man I castigated a Brazilian friend for his country decimating its rain-forest. "Why shouldn't we cut it down?" he retorted. "You cut down yours!"
Indeed we did. It got so bad we had laws preserving trees near the coast to build naval ships...
As for an infestation of people, definitely. Ethiopia is often presented as suffering from famine - of course it is, the population has grown from about 26m in the mid 70s, to about 65m now. Faminine and disease go hand in hand with that kind of growth. And the pop. is still growing. The UK & Europe had the same kinds of problems in the past.
Ho hum,
Adrian
There is no co-incidence that the two best places for watching nature at its most natural are Bikini Atoll and Chernobyl. No people there, you see. So if you really want to help the world there is one small sacrifice you can make. You know what you have to do. Recycle yourself. You might come back as a tree!No, no John. It's obvious we need more nuclear explosions.
"Save the planet - Blow it up"
:eek:
John Bantin
16-09-2006, 12:08
The planet has been through worse! It's just that we think our brief duration here (prehistorically speaking) is more important than the many billions of years the planet has existed. I'm sure the planet will recover, given sufficient time. It's just that there will be no humans here to make fatuous internet postings!:)
It's just that there will be no humans here to make fatuous internet postings!:)Better make the most of the opportunitys we have while we still can I guess :)
John Bantin
16-09-2006, 13:20
Did you make the wrong spelling to make a point?
or should I say:
did yuo macke a rong spilleg to macke a piont?
Did you make the wrong spelling to make a point?
or should I say:
did yuo macke a rong spilleg to macke a piont?
Print chr(78) + chr(111) + chr(46) + chr(10) + chr(13)
:confused:
Andy Wade
16-09-2006, 13:52
Whoo Hoo. Look at you, 2056 greenie points!
Lol, did I do that?
John W will be so envious...:D
sharkhunter
16-09-2006, 13:52
I have snipped the self promotion.
sorry, not sure what you mean here?
How do you feel about shark feeding?
Personally I have no problem with shark feeding as it educates people about sharks and in doing so may just same the sharks.
In places where shark feeds takes place the shark are valued more alive than dead (tourist $) so they are better protected than other places where it doesn't happen. This big thing about it creates more attacks on humans is utter rubbish and has been proved wrong, but governments bend to ignorant public and fishing industy opinions.
I have done many shark feeds and seen a big change in a persons attitude towards shark for the better after they have done a shark dive (feed). The knock on effect is huge as each person who dose it starts defending the sharks and spreading the word that they are not mindless killing machines and should be protected rather than slaughter from ignorance, or worse....a bowl of soup.
OK, seeing them in their natural element is preferred, but it doesn't change people in the same way as getting up close and personal with a shark will ever do.
My first experiences with sharks up close was snorkeling on my own in the Maldives. Even though I have always liked sharks I still had this apprehension and slight fear (for want of a better word) as all humans do. After all, it's their domain and they are the apex predator in that environment, not us. Stuff like Jaws never helped as it just fuelled fears from when I was a kid. So when I came face to face with a group of five 2 meter Lemon Sharks swimming in the lagoon I was very spooked. They did the classic swimming in circles round me getting closer and closer ( just like you see in the movies)...but they never attack and did not seam aggressive towards me, but rather they just seamed curious to what I was. As I wanted a photo I decided to loose the fear and swim to them to get a better picture and as I did their whole attitude changed, they stopped circling and started swimming in a line off to my left along the reef, so I followed as I wanted that picture to prove I'd seen big shark in the lagoon to show the wife. To cut a long story short I spent rest of my week swimming side by side with those lemon shark getting as close as 2 feet away and they didn't seam to mind my presence at all, in fact it almost seam in some strange way they accepted me as part of the group. Not once were they threatening or aggressive and I soon learnt it's more our attitude in the water and towards them that dictates how they see us and how they treat us.
Since this experience I have done research on sharks as much as possible, and I dive/snorkel with them whenever I get a chance to as I see it is as a great privilege to be able to swim with these magnificent creatures and if it means we have to feed them so people can see them up close to change their attitudes to save the poor sharks it's fine by me. A shark is as smart as a cat, and like we all know a cat will only do what it wants to do, when it wants to do it, so they come to the feeds out of choice, not because humans make them. Sometime you'll get only about 10-15 sharks turn up, other times as many as 20-30, so I guess the sharks are deciding if they want to come or not. They also swim around like normal sharks do and hunt for food as usual, so no it hasn't changed them as far as I can see. The Caribbean reef sharks attitude in the Bahamas where feeds take place seamed no different than the wild lemon sharks I'd swam with in the Maldives.
Whoo Hoo. Look at you, 2056 greenie points!
Lol, did I do that?
John W will be so envious...:DThanks Andy. There was a bit of a flurry after Friday nights post pub posting :eek:
I am not really a competitive person - more Lennon than Dylan ;). It's one of the reasons I find diving and BSAC membership such an attractive passtime. The sport's challenges are entirely personal and club membership encourages mutual support. It's a point of personal amusement and occassional stress that divers can find so many other ways to be competitive. Personally I would prefer the rep scheme wasn't weighted. I appreciate the support but using the rep system to agree with people is becoming a little scary ;)
Adrian Kelland
18-09-2006, 14:29
Thanks Andy. There was a bit of a flurry after Friday nights post pub posting :eek:
I am not really a competitive person - more Lennon than Dylan ;). It's one of the reasons I find diving and BSAC membership such an attractive passtime. The sport's challenges are entirely personal and club membership encourages mutual support. It's a point of personal amusement and occassional stress that divers can find so many other ways to be competitive. Personally I would prefer the rep scheme wasn't weighted. I appreciate the support but using the rep system to agree with people is becoming a little scary ;)
I think we can change that.
sorry, not sure what you mean here?Course not.
Personally I have no problem with shark feeding as it educates people about sharks and in doing so may just same the sharks.Is this not the same justification Steve Irwin used to justify his antics? Steve could at least claim that his actions reached a very wide audience. Whether this was self interest (he did very well out of it), or genuine interest in conservation is difficult to say.
I have swum with sharks on their terms many times. They are both majestic and impressive creatures. Having been to one shark feed I will avoid them in the future. In the morning we dived the same reef without bait. I saw a couple white tips and half a dozen grey reefs. It was very difficult to get any decent video footage as trying to approach the sharks caused them to move off. I don't agree with pursueing animals. Flight is a display of distress. Inflicting distress on animals or people is cruel IMVHO.
In the afternoon we dived the same site after chumming. A bait line was put down once the divers were in. It was an artificial and controlled experience. The sharks behaviour was completely different. A dozen white tips and several dozen grey reefs went after the bait in a frenzy. It was very easy to get personally gratifying and exciting video footage. It seemed to be at the cost of the sharks natural behaviour.
In places where shark feeds takes place the shark are valued more alive than dead (tourist $) so they are better protected than other places where it doesn't happen. This big thing about it creates more attacks on humans is utter rubbish and has been proved wrong, but governments bend to ignorant public and fishing industy opinions.Reports of sharks congregating at sites where reglar feeding takes place are becoming more frequent as the popularity of these feeds increases. The shark's natural behviour is being altered by human intervention.
The tourist dollar helps to drive the aspirations of local fishermen and raises their deire to catch more fish. The TV sets they buy with the money drives the aspiration to consume higher still.
I have done many shark feeds and seen a big change in a persons attitude towards shark for the better after they have done a shark dive (feed).Steve Irwin justified his actions in exactly the same manner.
OK, seeing them in their natural element is preferred, but it doesn't change people in the same way as getting up close and personal with a shark will ever do.I have a great deal of respect for the naturalists and cemera crews that spend days, weeks, months observing animals to produce 30 minutes of natural and interesting footage. It takes great dedication to record the images on the subjects terms. These people rely on TV companies to enable them to assist in the study of animal behaviour and to communicate it to the general public.
The antics of Steve Irwin and his ilk threaten the true naturalists living because they provide instant gratification cheaply. The situations recorded are artificially engineered by humans. I have seen out takes from Discovery's shark week where a juvenile was manhandled into a shark cage. The distress it caused the shark resulted in some very exciting footage, which no doubt pleased the director. Shark feeds are similar in that the sharks natural behaviour is altered for the instant gratification of humans. Claiming they are educational does not change that fact. I tend to believe that the best thing humans can do for sharks is to leave them be. Conservation and intervention do not easily go hand in hand.
I see it is as a great privilege to be able to swim with these magnificent creaturesHere we agree.
and if it means we have to feed them so people can see them up close to change their attitudes to save the poor sharks it's fine by me.And here we disagree. It is a prviledge to observe sharks. It is human arrogance to engineer situations in which we can conveniently observe them.
A shark is as smart as a cat, and like we all know a cat will only do what it wants to do, when it wants to do it, so they come to the feeds out of choice, not because humans make them.Sharks, like most non-domestic animals, feed according to opportunity and energy requirements.
Sometime you'll get only about 10-15 sharks turn up, other times as many as 20-30, so I guess the sharks are deciding if they want to come or not.Convenient explanation. It neglects the local shark density at a particular site or what else they might be doing at the time of the feed.
They also swim around like normal sharks do and hunt for food as usual, so no it hasn't changed them as far as I can see.Finding a predictable and regular source of food can degrade a sharks ability to find it's own food. They become fat and lazy - just as supermarkets and shark feeds allow humans to be. It's pretty common for so called animal lovers to neglect this. Pet owners very often over feed their pets with inappropriate diets - they help to kill the animals they are devoted to.
John B's Gaia theory is interesting but the theory itself dictates that I can not affect the outcome. AFAIC the human race is intelligent enough to wreck the planet but lacks the intelligence to coexist on it. I don't claim to be any less human than anyone else. I can choose to avoid shark feeds and I do.
Andy Wade
19-09-2006, 09:39
I try not to be pedantic enough to correct people when they spell things incorrectly. :)
Please, the guys name is Steve Irwin, not Erwin. Can we at least get his name right? :cool:
I think we can change that.Maybe we need a poll ;)
As a professional biologist working with the same sort of animals as Irwin and his ilk one has a cynical view of the much of their bulls*** and escapades (although I thought Irwin was one of the better presenters). We are continually told that such cynicism is out of place and that these people do a fantastic PR job for wildlife. A claim that looks pretty questionable in light of the Australian Minister’s concerns.
Does the "dangerous nature" genre of digital tele programmmes do much good? Irwin supported some aspects of conservation, but I doubt that overall this type of film has much of a positive impact.
sharkhunter
20-09-2006, 20:05
Thanks Matt for posting some good points of view, I enjoyed reading your input. :)
Is this not the same justification Steve Erwin used to justify his antics? Steve could at least claim that his actions reached a very wide audience. Whether this was self interest (he did very well out of it), or genuine interest in conservation is difficult to say.
I have swum with sharks on their terms many times. They are both majestic and impressive creatures. Having been to one shark feed I will avoid them in the future. In the morning we dived the same reef without bait. I saw a couple white tips and half a dozen grey reefs. It was very difficult to get any decent video footage as trying to approach the sharks caused them to move off. I don't agree with pursuing animals. Flight is a display of distress. Inflicting distress on animals or people is cruel IMVHO.
In the afternoon we dived the same site after chumming. A bait line was put down once the divers were in. It was an artificial and controlled experience. The sharks behaviour was completely different. A dozen white tips and several dozen grey reefs went after the bait in a frenzy. It was very easy to get personally gratifying and exciting video footage. It seemed to be at the cost of the sharks natural behaviour.
Sorry Matt, I have not experienced a chummed/bait line shark feed, and it does not sound my idea of good shark feed from your description, like you say it whips the sharks up into a man induced frenzy.
Reports of sharks congregating at sites where reglar feeding takes place are becoming more frequent as the popularity of these feeds increases. The shark's natural behviour is being altered by human intervention.
The tourist dollar helps to drive the aspirations of local fishermen and raises their deire to catch more fish. The TV sets they buy with the money drives the aspiration to consume higher still.
I can only go by my first hand experiences in the places I have done shark feeds, in the Bahamas. The sharks were residence in the Bahamas well before man started feeding them. The dive organisations try to keep off shore and remote locations where numerous sharks naturally gather a secret as much as possible to stop over fishing .
Steve Erwin justified his actions in exactly the same manner.
Sorry, but this is not the same thing. Watching this kind of thing on TV is totally different and does not give the same experience or let you draw your own conclusions.
I have a great deal of respect for the naturalists and cemera crews that spend days, weeks, months observing animals to produce 30 minutes of natural and interesting footage. It takes great dedication to record the images on the subjects terms. These people rely on TV companies to enable them to assist in the study of animal behaviour and to communicate it to the general public.
I agree.
The antics of Steve Erwin and his ilk threaten the true naturalists living because they provide instant gratification cheaply. The situations recorded are artificially engineered by humans. I have seen out takes from Discovery's shark week where a juvenile was manhandled into a shark cage. The distress it caused the shark resulted in some very exciting footage, which no doubt pleased the director. Shark feeds are similar in that the sharks natural behaviour is altered for the instant gratification of humans. Claiming they are educational does not change that fact. I tend to believe that the best thing humans can do for sharks is to leave them be. Conservation and intervention do not easily go hand in hand.
I very much agree with what your saying and personally did not like the Steve Irwin style of TV show, and even though I saw his love and passion for the creatures I did think it sometimes portrayed creatures more like dangerous monsters rather than wildlife. The trouble with TV companies, as we all know, is they what that "fear factor" especially when it comes to sharks, you only need to look at the program titles to see this.
" I tend to believe that the best thing humans can do for sharks is to leave them be."
Yes I agree, and in a perfect world it would be so, but I can't see this happening until it's to late, unfortunately.
And here we disagree. It is a prviledge to observe sharks. It is human arrogance to engineer situations in which we can conveniently observe them.
Yes I agree man is arrogant, mind you if we keep stripping the sea of it's fish stocks and killing sharks we could just end up having to feed the sharks in protected areas to make sure of their survival. Like I said, in areas where sharks are a main part of the tourist industry they are better protected than areas where they are not.
Things like shark nets, long line fishing and shark finning should be more of a concern than shark feeding IMHO.
Sharks, like most non-domestic animals, feed according to opportunity and energy requirements.
Convenient explanation. It neglects the local shark density at a particular site or what else they might be doing at the time of the feed.
Finding a predictable and regular source of food can degrade a sharks ability to find it's own food. They become fat and lazy - just as supermarkets and shark feeds allow humans to be. It's pretty common for so called animal lovers to neglect this. Pet owners very often over feed their pets with inappropriate diets - they help to kill the animals they are devoted to.
Sorry this is one area I can't agree with you Matt.
There is no evidence to proof this and I've never seen a fat or lazy shark anywhere, apart from pregnant females. A shark is an apex predator and it's basic instinct to hunt and kill will still be there, just like any domestic cat.
My cat gets fed well. He only eats what he needs when he needs it. He hasn't lost the ability or desire to hunt and kill or feed himself even at 10 years old, as I can testify this by the amount of birds and mice he brings me as my share of the food. He might share his home with me, but he won't be told what to do and is a very independent creature and expert hunter.
I'm sorry, but it's not a correct assumption to say because some pets get fat and lazy that they loose there animal instincts and hunting skills, we just tend to think this way as we tend to think of them as more human than wild animal.
Man has also not lost his ability to hunt or kill, it's our social man made rules and fear of being locked up that stops most of us, not supermarkets or we'd have no more wars, no more murders, no more fighting etc etc. Man is still a dangerous animal and his basic animal instincts will always exist, remember we are the most dangerous predator on the planet, and we didn't get this reputation for no good reason.
Pets, unlike man, do not conform to our social rules and their basic instinct is more prominent, hence pets can and do turn on their owners occasionally and will still go out to hunt and kill prey even when their food bowel is full.
So will sharks loose their natural hunter killer instinct because of a free meal, no the sharks will still hunt and kill for a living, it's what they do and are best at.
Having said all this I do see problems with shark feeding:
Unlike land, the undersea world works with a different set of rules, it works on the three "F's" rules:
Your either a
Friend,
Foe,
or
Food
and this is where I see a potential problem for the sharks.
The common believe / theory is that because man is doing shark feeds it means that sharks will associate man as food and more attacks will happen on man.
But, maybe there is another way we should be looking at this, from the sharks point of view. Sharks are very smart, more like a cat and sharks learn things (this has been proven) just like a cat does. Now if we are feeding sharks, they may no longer see us as foe or food at all, but rather as just another predator who shares his food with them (this is how our domestic cat see us, dogs are different and see man as the pack leader). So rather than more attacks on man, what we might fined is that sharks in shark feed areas become more familiar with man and see him as a friend, meaning the sharks become easier target for man to hunt and kill then than they already are.
OK, my thinking is radical, but as we still know very little about sharks it can't be discounted until proven either way.
Mind you I'm not sure we real understand the domestic cat that well either, I'm sure they understand us a lot better than we do them. :D
Chris Cherrington
20-09-2006, 23:13
...A shark is an apex predator and it's basic instinct to hunt and kill will still be there, just like any domestic cat.
Agreed. The sooner we kill all domestic cats the better. They destroy so much of our wildlife, disgusting animals :mad:
Chris
Andy Wade
20-09-2006, 23:53
Agreed. The sooner we kill all domestic cats the better. They destroy so much of our wildlife, disgusting animals :mad:
Chris
Try it with my cat and he'll rip your throat out. Like the rabbit in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
He's a tart too, but still a thug. :D
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.