Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,729,004 times
Reputation: 20050
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruzincat
Every time I see or hear someone bemoaning the fact that sharks are being caught and killed, I keep asking myself, "Aren't we competing with them for some of our food supply?"
When I google the question I can't seem to find anything other than the environmentalist reasoning that they are losing numbers. I found one web site, that told me the main reason for shark attacks against humans is because the natural food supply is low. duh! Doesn't that raise a flag with anyone?
Don't we share in some of that food supply? If sharks were good eating, maybe there wouldn't be as much outcry, but it seems that a significant number of sharks are being culled to make shark fin soup. This is not for its flavor, but because some cultures consider it to be an aphrodisiac. Other cultures think this is silly. Is that the reason they are against the killing of sharks? I would think that anything that reduces the competition for a food source would be good for the rest of us.
Where are the commercial fishermen on this debate? It's getting harder and harder to find one, since their numbers are decreasing. Wonder why that is? Could it be that the number of fish to be caught is too small and is driving people away from that profession?
Case in point: I live near the Chesapeake Bay. When I first moved here, crabs were plentiful. A lot of people around here, love to eat them steamed. At the same time, Rockfish numbers were in decline, so there was, for a time, a moratorium on keeping rockfish. You had to catch and release. The numbers of rockfish grew, but, because rockfish eat the crabs, the crab popluation started to decline. The rockfish, in high numbers, were the predators and the crabs, the prey. Fortunately, both are good sources of food for the people in the region, and people make a living cultivating both, as well. A balance can and has been achieved, with some ebb and flow in either direction.
As sharks are concerned, all we hear are cries to not kill them, without anything heard from the other side. Can we have a debate without the emotional aspect?
if we render sharks extinct we kill ourselves..
most sharks are being killed for shark fin soup at a toon of 100 million a year.. yep!!! it's no different what the white man did to the buffalo,, take the pelt and tongue and toss the rest...
This is much like the debate about wolves in the western US. Without going into detail, about that debate, I am going to say that it is all about compromise on both sides. The emotion needs to stay out of it.
Also, if there is a shortage of sharks, how come it's getting harder and harder to make a living in commercial fishing? If the top predator in the ocean is in short supply, there would be too many of at least one species of lessor fish. The only cases of that are in fresh water systems, where one species dominates the rest(like sharks in the ocean).
Could it be that commerercial fishing is making it harder to making a living commercial fishing? Tons of fish are taken in nets by a single fishing vessel every year. How long would it take a single shark to eat that amount of fish?
There will never be too many fish in the ocean if sharks are eliminated. They are not the top predator of the ocean. Humans have that title and most efficient as well.
Most people would be surprised at the private boater fishing world. For the most part fisherman won't keep Sharks and they actually give each other a hard time when they do. The US has done a good job of managing commercial fishing, especially for Sharks. Other Countries? Not so much. That said, many US commercial guys have set up shop in other Countries where there aren't regulations(or the funds to check them) and are really decimating certain fish and shark species. Mexico, for one, is a real mess. I've been out and seen so many seiners raping the bluefin stocks you could almost walk on them. These boats wrap entire schools of fish. Not even one escapes to migrate.
You're more likely to get struck by lightening than bitten (notice I didn't say 'Attacked'.)by a shark. Sharks don't 'attack' people as a food source. There's way too few humans in the water for humans to act as a food source for sharks. It's always a case of mistaken identity when a human is bitten because usually, when the shark realizes the human isn't a seal, turtle or fish, they bite and let go. Taste test so to speak.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,047,835 times
Reputation: 11862
Are you serious? You're suggesting sharks are taking away our fishery stocks? It is overfishing by, believe it or not, us landlubbers that is depleting stocks. There is no problem until we started getting greedy (key word 'commercial' fisherman) and upset the eco-system and the balance of nature. The sharks are a victim of our greed and disregard for any other life but ourselves. This is not only for the barbaric practice of shark fin soup but other reasons.
Many species of sharks are indeed commercially fished for their meat, at least here in Australia. Shark is often to be found at the local fish'n'chip joint. If they're not endangered and fished sustainably then I don't see it as being any different to fishing other species, but if you're talking hunting endangered species simply because you think they're eating our fish/crabs? I don't think you have a leg to stand on.
So you get rid of the sharks...by then we'll probably have got rid of all the fish ourselves, from overfishing. Victims of our own greed...
Last edited by TheViking85; 01-12-2012 at 11:46 AM..
Reason: Removed personal characterizations
I suppose that wolves should never be killed either? They can and have attacked people before. They also attack and kill domestic livestock. That is when they usually get killed. Imagine if wolves were never allowed to be killed. You wouldn't be safe in NYC. The difference between wolves and sharks is, it is a lot easier to find the wolves. That's why their numbers dropped so far and they almost went extinct. I doubt that any species of sharks will ever be in danger of extinction other than for natural reasons, for which humans play little or no role.
They also attack and kill deer. Care to compare the total cost wolves and deer, respectively, exact on people? Deer-vehicle collisions kill 200 people annually in the United States, and do $1.1 billion in property damage each year. Deer-vehicle collisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yeah, sure was a brilliant move to all but eliminate the main predator for deer. Saves a few thousand head of stock annually, and at the 'minor' cost of over a billion dollars and a couple hundred lives. Every year. Brilliant cost-benefits calculation there.
Last edited by Green Onions; 04-26-2012 at 04:43 PM..
It's not just the fishermen that have a stake in keeping fewer sharks in their fishing grounds. How about conservation of the fish we eat? What happens when they are gone, because we didn't cull the natural predators when there are too many fish being taken? Do we starve people or kill sharks?
I would really suggest doing even the most minimal research concerning oceanic ecology, bio-diversity and the maintenance of eco-systems. Even an few minutes on Youtude watching clips from Shark Week would give you a better understanding of the issues than you have presently.
Sharks are in no way a competitor with humans when it comes to fish consumption. Conservative estimates reveal that at a minimum 11 million sharks are killed annually. The fact is sharks protect fish stocks from other predators. Sharks are not the only oceanic predators, with out sharks who reproduce at much slower rates than others like Blue Fish, or Jacks, the small fish populations would be devastated which in turn would lead to the decline of the very food fish that you think we are competing for.
It is always good to research a subject before posting.
It is always good to research a subject before posting.
It would also be good to read the whole thread, prior to criticizing a poster, but, since the moderator here has deleted most of my subsequent posts here, you didn't see the one where I said I now understand the way in which the sharks also kill off the other predators , etc.
The only reason I came back to post was that I got an email about the previous post.
Note to moderator: As long as you seem to exercise a heavey hand in moderating, please just delete the whole thread, Otherwise, re-instate ALL my posts here. < if it only had the other finger!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
