Maybe sharks have feelings, too? - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 07-12-2004, 06:20 AM
Beginner
 
Katt Fink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,312
Hunt starts to destroy killer shark

2004-07-12 / Agence France-Presse /



A hunt was launched yesterday for a man-eating shark that killed a surfer at a popular West Australian beach.



Helicopters and a government fisheries vessel began scouring waters in the Margaret River region south of Perth attempting to find one rogue shark, possibly two, that fatally attacked the 29-year-old man Saturday afternoon.



Witnesses said one shark knocked the man, named by police as Perth resident Bradley Smith, off his board then another savaged his midriff as he fell into the water.



"The shark came up and bit his board and he was in the water. Another one just launched out of the water and got him and that was it," an onlooker told Perth's Sunday Mail newspaper.



The attack took less that 45 seconds but Smith's injuries were so extensive that he was dead by the time locals dragged him to the beach.



Television footage showed the mangled remains of his board with the back half completely bitten away.



Two of Smith's friends were taken to hospital suffering shock.



Police said one shark was reportedly five meters long and the other three meters, with the larger believed to be the initial aggressor.



Surfer Bart Mulder said he was walking towards Left Hander's Beach when he heard about the attack.



"We were going to go down to the beach for a surf and a couple of blokes came up and said, 'Don't go down there - somebody's been bitten in half by a shark'," he told ABC television.



"It's the first shark fatality down in the southwest here. Its hard to say how I feel about it, but it won't stop me surfing."



One witness told Sky News that two teenagers who pulled the victim out of the water said the shark was "as big as a car."



Locals questioned why the beach, a popular spot for novice surfers and tourists learning to board ride, had not been closed.



The shark is believed to be a great white, also known as a white pointer, the same species depicted in the Steven Spielberg movie "Jaws."



Great whites are listed as vulnerable and protected from hunters in most Australian states.



However, the ban is limited in West Australia and state fisheries department spokesman Tony Cappelluti told the Sunday Times his officers had authority to hunt down and kill the man-eaters.



Aquarium of Western Australia marine biologist Sasha Thompson said great whites were in the area to prey on whales during their annual migration north from Antarctic waters.







I understand that it is necessary to protect the lives of innocent humans when in danger in any situation, but jeeze.. at least in America, convicts spend an average of (if I remember correctly) 13 years on death row having their case evaluated and faught before being executed, and some get away clean. Maybe I am being unreasonable, but is it absolutely necessary to destroy these "monsters"? Is there absolutely no way they can simply be moved to a safer location or something? Even with the technology we have these days, no one can think of a better way around this? How are they going to find these two very specific animals anyway, did they create composit sketches of the sharks and are they planning to do a suspect line up? Maybe I am just ignorant to the fact, but I have a feeling some innocent sharks might be taken victim in the process of finding the two offenders. Seeing as most intently malicious humans who are entirely conscious of their decision to take the life of another human aren't hunted down and killed on the spot of the murder scene, don't you think they could be a little easier on an animal, who relies entirely on what their instinct tells them to do? They are treating the situation like these two sharks got together months ago and premeditated the whole thing. Maybe I am just being silly, what are your thoughts on the story?
Katt Fink is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 07-12-2004, 06:27 AM
Beginner
 
Frost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katt Fink View Post

Hunt starts to destroy killer shark

2004-07-12 / Agence France-Presse /



A hunt was launched yesterday for a man-eating shark that killed a surfer at a popular West Australian beach.



Helicopters and a government fisheries vessel began scouring waters in the Margaret River region south of Perth attempting to find one rogue shark, possibly two, that fatally attacked the 29-year-old man Saturday afternoon.



Witnesses said one shark knocked the man, named by police as Perth resident Bradley Smith, off his board then another savaged his midriff as he fell into the water.



"The shark came up and bit his board and he was in the water. Another one just launched out of the water and got him and that was it," an onlooker told Perth's Sunday Mail newspaper.



The attack took less that 45 seconds but Smith's injuries were so extensive that he was dead by the time locals dragged him to the beach.



Television footage showed the mangled remains of his board with the back half completely bitten away.



Two of Smith's friends were taken to hospital suffering shock.



Police said one shark was reportedly five meters long and the other three meters, with the larger believed to be the initial aggressor.



Surfer Bart Mulder said he was walking towards Left Hander's Beach when he heard about the attack.



"We were going to go down to the beach for a surf and a couple of blokes came up and said, 'Don't go down there - somebody's been bitten in half by a shark'," he told ABC television.



"It's the first shark fatality down in the southwest here. Its hard to say how I feel about it, but it won't stop me surfing."



One witness told Sky News that two teenagers who pulled the victim out of the water said the shark was "as big as a car."



Locals questioned why the beach, a popular spot for novice surfers and tourists learning to board ride, had not been closed.



The shark is believed to be a great white, also known as a white pointer, the same species depicted in the Steven Spielberg movie "Jaws."



Great whites are listed as vulnerable and protected from hunters in most Australian states.



However, the ban is limited in West Australia and state fisheries department spokesman Tony Cappelluti told the Sunday Times his officers had authority to hunt down and kill the man-eaters.



Aquarium of Western Australia marine biologist Sasha Thompson said great whites were in the area to prey on whales during their annual migration north from Antarctic waters.







I understand that it is necessary to protect the lives of innocent humans when in danger in any situation, but jeeze.. at least in America, convicts spend an average of (if I remember correctly) 13 years on death row having their case evaluated and faught before being executed, and some get away clean. Maybe I am being unreasonable, but is it absolutely necessary to destroy these "monsters"? Is there absolutely no way they can simply be moved to a safer location or something? Even with the technology we have these days, no one can think of a better way around this? How are they going to find these two very specific animals anyway, did they create composit sketches of the sharks and are they planning to do a suspect line up? Maybe I am just ignorant to the fact, but I have a feeling some innocent sharks might be taken victim in the process of finding the two offenders. Seeing as most intently malicious humans who are entirely conscious of their decision to take the life of another human aren't hunted down and killed on the spot of the murder scene, don't you think they could be a little easier on an animal, who relies entirely on what their instinct tells them to do? They are treating the situation like these two sharks got together months ago and premeditated the whole thing. Maybe I am just being silly, what are your thoughts on the story?



Once an animal gets a taste for human flesh, they add humans to their menu, so there is no other choice.



Relocating the shark wont change the fact that it now considers people a meal and it will likely go after another person at some other time.
Frost is offline  
#3 Old 07-12-2004, 06:41 AM
Beginner
 
Jessica's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,467
I don't think they should be killed indiscriminately either. But then you can argue that this is one of those cases of 'self defence' where they're only being killed to save other (human) lives.
Jessica is offline  
#4 Old 07-12-2004, 08:17 AM
Beginner
 
berrykat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,203
more on this apparently this guy's brother is trying to keep the shark from being killed. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5422452/?GT1=4244
berrykat is offline  
#5 Old 07-12-2004, 08:35 AM
Beginner
 
Peter Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 581
heh dont go in the water if its a known area for them..



thats asking to get bitten.
Peter Parker is offline  
#6 Old 07-12-2004, 08:54 AM
Beginner
 
MikeyVT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 831
Quote:
Once an animal gets a taste for human flesh, they add humans to their menu, so there is no other choice.



Relocating the shark wont change the fact that it now considers people a meal and it will likely go after another person at some other time.



Well maybe human's should take a look at the risks involved with invading the habitat of another carnivor. People die everyday in car accidents yet we dont shut down the highways. Why are some risks acceptable and others not?
MikeyVT is offline  
#7 Old 07-12-2004, 09:07 AM
Beginner
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frost View Post

Once an animal gets a taste for human flesh, they add humans to their menu, so there is no other choice.



Relocating the shark wont change the fact that it now considers people a meal and it will likely go after another person at some other time.



I'm sorry, but that's completely absurd. That's entirely false and sharks don't "add people to the menu". They eat what they eat, and sometimes humans are mistaken for something sharks eat, they are by no means "man eaters" that sit there and wait for people to go swimming. Humans intently slaughter and destroy thousands of animals on a daily basis, purposely and most of the time with complete disregard and absolutely no respect. Animals are killed for hundreds of reasons, and most of them have nothing to do with humans needed to kill them to survive. Sharks are animals (fish) that have to eat to survive and live, so it's an entirely different situation. Yes, it's sad that a few people get attacked and die every year, but that's hardly a reason to go and kill a shark just because it attacked one person. Like some others have said, people who are far more aware of their actions and are way more dangerous are just sent to jail, half the time only serving some of their sentance before they go back into the world. You can get killed by a human by just waking up in your bed...but your chances of getting killed by a shark (by going into the ocean and into a small percentage of close-to-shore spots where a shark could be) are less than those of being struck by ligthning..and in that case, we should try to elimate electricity from the world because it's a killer too.
GhostUser is offline  
#8 Old 07-12-2004, 10:25 AM
Beginner
 
epski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,374
Maybe people should accept the risks of interacting closely with nature, or stay out of the water.
epski is offline  
#9 Old 07-12-2004, 05:10 PM
Beginner
 
Katt Fink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,312
Hehe, this thread is getting interesting
Katt Fink is offline  
#10 Old 07-13-2004, 05:57 AM
Beginner
 
schu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by epski View Post

Maybe people should accept the risks of interacting closely with nature, or stay out of the water.



I agree, we have the land, let them have the water.
schu is offline  
#11 Old 07-13-2004, 06:21 AM
Beginner
 
Frost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWavez View Post

I'm sorry, but that's completely absurd. That's entirely false and sharks don't "add people to the menu". They eat what they eat, and sometimes humans are mistaken for something sharks eat, they are by no means "man eaters" that sit there and wait for people to go swimming. Humans intently slaughter and destroy thousands of animals on a daily basis, purposely and most of the time with complete disregard and absolutely no respect. Animals are killed for hundreds of reasons, and most of them have nothing to do with humans needed to kill them to survive. Sharks are animals (fish) that have to eat to survive and live, so it's an entirely different situation. Yes, it's sad that a few people get attacked and die every year, but that's hardly a reason to go and kill a shark just because it attacked one person. Like some others have said, people who are far more aware of their actions and are way more dangerous are just sent to jail, half the time only serving some of their sentance before they go back into the world. You can get killed by a human by just waking up in your bed...but your chances of getting killed by a shark (by going into the ocean and into a small percentage of close-to-shore spots where a shark could be) are less than those of being struck by ligthning..and in that case, we should try to elimate electricity from the world because it's a killer too.



One, I was speaking figuratively.



Two, its not absurd. Some sharks wiill be frightened of a human for fear of the unknown, others will be cautious either because of a negative experience with us or maybe some will just be curious.



Once a shark, or any predator for that matter, decides to break from its usual pattern and attack/eat an unknown creature and it is successful...it will do so over and over given the chance.



The term man-eater is given out to predators that do certainly add humans to their diet.



Three, this is about a shark attack. Not about the criminal justice system. However those humans that commit violent crimes and murder and get caught/convicted, most certainly do not get off "easy" and can themselves be punished by death.
Frost is offline  
#12 Old 07-13-2004, 06:28 AM
Beginner
 
rincaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,305
I did some cursory research and it looks like Frost is right. Sharks do continue to attack humans if that pattern of attack yields them food.
rincaro is offline  
#13 Old 07-13-2004, 07:36 AM
Banned
 
catgirl67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyVT View Post

Well maybe human's should take a look at the risks involved with invading the habitat of another carnivor. People die everyday in car accidents yet we dont shut down the highways. Why are some risks acceptable and others not?



I totally agree. Everytime a human enters the ocean, there is the risk of being attacked by some form of marine life. If you are afraid of a shark attack, stay out of the water!
catgirl67 is offline  
#14 Old 07-13-2004, 12:07 PM
Beginner
 
schu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,111
to add to this thread, i just found this on CNN.COM

apparently the brother of the man who died doesn't want the shark killed



http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapc....ap/index.html



"I don't believe that the shark should be killed just for the sake of what's happened in this situation," Stephen Smith told reporters on Sunday. "I don't believe that Brad can be revenged by killing a shark."
schu is offline  
#15 Old 07-13-2004, 12:11 PM
Beginner
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
That's what these things come to, too. Revenge. I remember reading about an elephant in a circus that killed a couple of people, so they hung it. It was so huge they had to use a crane of some kind to hoist it up high enough to choke. It was really heartbreaking. People put an animal in a position where it could be a danger, then blame the animal for becoming that danger.



"That elephant's gonna pay, dammit!!"







The Rev
GhostUser is offline  
#16 Old 07-13-2004, 01:57 PM
Beginner
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frost View Post

One, I was speaking figuratively.



Two, its not absurd. Some sharks wiill be frightened of a human for fear of the unknown, others will be cautious either because of a negative experience with us or maybe some will just be curious.



Once a shark, or any predator for that matter, decides to break from its usual pattern and attack/eat an unknown creature and it is successful...it will do so over and over given the chance.



The term man-eater is given out to predators that do certainly add humans to their diet.



Three, this is about a shark attack. Not about the criminal justice system. However those humans that commit violent crimes and murder and get caught/convicted, most certainly do not get off "easy" and can themselves be punished by death.





Whether or not there's solid evidence, I don't know. I don't think the term "adding to the menu" describes the situation well because it just makes sharks sound far more dangerous to humans than they are. It's too general of a statement that doesn't apply to every shark everytime. And I know it's about a shark attack, the point I was trying to make was that anytime an animal kills a person, it's hunted down and murdered and made out to be the most dangerous thing in the world....but people are a million times more dangerous than animals because their intentions to kill are far different and seeing as how the majority of criminals are not hunted down and killed, it's quite a different story.
GhostUser is offline  
#17 Old 07-13-2004, 04:44 PM
Beginner
 
epski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by schu View Post

I agree, we have the land, let them have the water.



Then again, our dominance of the land has also forced us into intimate contact with animals (see tigers in Bombay and cougars in southern California, not to mention the countless wolves that have been killed to protect cattle), usually to the detriment of wildlife.
epski is offline  
#18 Old 07-13-2004, 04:52 PM
Beginner
 
Frost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWavez View Post

Whether or not there's solid evidence, I don't know. I don't think the term "adding to the menu" describes the situation well because it just makes sharks sound far more dangerous to humans than they are. It's too general of a statement that doesn't apply to every shark everytime.



It does apply to every large predatorial shark since the possibility is always there for an attack no matter how small.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWavez View Post

And I know it's about a shark attack, the point I was trying to make was that anytime an animal kills a person, it's hunted down and murdered and made out to be the most dangerous thing in the world....but people are a million times more dangerous than animals because their intentions to kill are far different and seeing as how the majority of criminals are not hunted down and killed, it's quite a different story.



The reasons for violant attacks arent so dissimilar between animals and humans.



1) One wants something from another.

2) Territorial agression.

3) Self defense.

4) Dominance.



Human criminals arent killed first because society in general has a very good chance of having control (among other reaons). With a rogue animal there is no chance behavioral control, it has to be force. That doesnt necessarily mean death, it can mean sedatives or restraints depending on the threat level.



I would have to say though a great white the size of a car that has no qualms of eating and attacking people is a very serious threat.
Frost is offline  
#19 Old 07-13-2004, 05:27 PM
Beginner
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frost View Post

It does apply to every large predatorial shark since the possibility is always there for an attack no matter how small.







The reasons for violant attacks arent so dissimilar between animals and humans.



1) One wants something from another.

2) Territorial agression.

3) Self defense.

4) Dominance.





Human criminals arent killed first because society in general has a very good chance of having control (among other reaons). With a rogue animal there is no chance behavioral control, it has to be force. That doesnt necessarily mean death, it can mean sedatives or restraints depending on the threat level.







I would have to say though a great white the size of a car that has no qualms of eating and attacking people is a very serious threat.





1) There is just the biggest difference of all...when a human kills someone, they know exactly what they are doing, they have a conscience and present mind to know they are taking another life...especially in cases of murder, they know the pain their causing, the life they're taking, and that they are affecting the lives of everyone that knows that person. A shark doesn't know that it's taking a human life, that it's causing pain, and all other obvious things. It's instinct of survival and food are what drives it to kill, it's killing for the reasons you mentioned, but it's different for an animal that has no awareness of what's it's killing then for a human who knows what they are doing and knows that that is not the only way to solve it's problem. Presence of mind makes all the difference.



2) A "rouge" animal is just that, an animal, a wild animal. We cannot tame everything on this planet and make it sugar coated so that we're safe 24/7. Sure, it's incredibly sad when an innocent person is attacked by an animal (and I know people that have been), but that's life, don't kill or try to control an animal because it was trying to protect itself or whatnot, just let it be.



3) Yes, it is. But like others have said, people are aware when they go into the ocean of the risks. It's a threat to get into your car and drive everyday, but I bet you still do it. And in that case, it's hundreds of real cars with people who have no qualms about talking on their cell phones, speeding, and driving while drunk.
GhostUser is offline  
#20 Old 07-13-2004, 05:39 PM
Beginner
 
Formerbaboon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,201
Exactly, the man can nt be brought back by killing the shark. But at the same time, if they find the shark, it needs to be placed elsewhere. We still have to look out for the welfare of the other humans.
Formerbaboon is offline  
#21 Old 07-13-2004, 08:53 PM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Does anyone here know anything about great whites? About what it would take to do a live capture on a 15' shark, and then "transport" it elsewhere? C'mon people.
Tame is offline  
#22 Old 07-13-2004, 09:42 PM
Beginner
 
brownieB26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

Does anyone here know anything about great whites? About what it would take to do a live capture on a 15' shark, and then "transport" it elsewhere? C'mon people.

But they did it for free willy!
brownieB26 is offline  
#23 Old 07-13-2004, 09:48 PM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
That only worked because Michael Jackson did the theme song.



And shortly afterwards, he got in trouble for freeing another willy.
Tame is offline  
#24 Old 07-14-2004, 04:16 AM
Beginner
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Formerbaboon View Post

Exactly, the man can nt be brought back by killing the shark. But at the same time, if they find the shark, it needs to be placed elsewhere. We still have to look out for the welfare of the other humans.



I don't think it should be relocated because the ocean is the shark's territory (IMHO) and we've already taken over the entire planet. That's it's home, I don't feel it should punished for something that isn't it's fault. I don't think we should keep changing things to suit humans, I think we have to adapt to some things and leave animals alone, we need to adjust to them some of the time instead of always changing things to suit us.
GhostUser is offline  
#25 Old 07-14-2004, 04:44 AM
Beginner
 
citronella49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 252
umm... ok I think its time to stop fliping out and be realistic here... I would like to point something out...



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3872915.stm

Recently, in Spain, thousands of people choose, of their own free will, to run down the streets with full grown bulls at their heels. In the past 80 years about 13 people have died from this event... Are people around the world afraid of cows now?



Now I understand that all those poor animals are slaughtered at the end of the race... and Im not saying I agree with that.



That surfer decided to go into the ocean... which is where sharks live, and play. He got attacked and killed... that was the risk he decided to take. I fully agree with the mans brother. It seems too many people saw Jaws and took it seriously.



Now its time for some facts:



"In 2003, there were 55 confirmed "unprovoked" shark attacks in the world, resulting in 4 deaths"

"Bees, wasps, and snakes kill more people each year than sharks."

"Provoked attacks are most common when a person touches a shark, including helping untangle it from fishing nets. Divers who touch or feed a shark risk attack."



If your still interested check out http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Sharks/isaf/isaf.htm

Which is where facts like these come from... dont rely on hollywood for your education.
citronella49 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off