WA
43 posts
follow the link
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/cloud/polls/popup/b246a7b3-e385-398f-99bc-99b45580e2a8/
VIC
475 posts
no way should the be culled. sharks are a vital part of our eco system and are beautiful to see in the wild. just my views having spent a chunk of time underwater. I have friends trying to pre shark finning something I think more of us should get behind
SA
32 posts
This has been done before!
One particular comment in that thread which I quite liked was:
"Should idiots be culled?" - My answer is yes.
I would rather 1 more shark and 1 less idiot anyday.
VIC
617 posts
What a demented thread topic.
It shows how little capacity you have to understand the intricate balance between species that exists in nature.
You sound like the kind of guy who would introduce a a foreign toad to eat pesky insects from your cane fields. Can you see how misunderstanding science and the eco-system can have disastrous effects?
461 posts
Great whites are an apex predator. It's possible that without human intervention their numbers would increase rapidly.
We have the same situation with crocodiles. Since they've been protected they've been moving into new areas and threatening humans and animals.
That being said, great whites haven't been protected for all that long. There could be many reasons why there has been so many attacks lately.
Should they be culled? I don't know..
WA
1094 posts
No, stay out of the water if you're worried.
WA
3619 posts
This sentimental hogwash that sharks should not be culled amazes me.
People jumping on another "How green am I bandwagon".
The fact is we are "culling' millions of tonnes of fish from our coastal waters every year in the name of sport and commercial fishing.
Why not launch a 'Save the Snapper' campaign - surely they have as much right to protection as Great Whites.
Surely its the same ocean that people claim is the sharks domain that belongs to the snapper or flathead. No hysteria here?
If humans are to meddle with the food chain then surely the only way to do it responsibly is to balance the meddling.
If those of you who think the Great White should be singled out as exempt from human interaction when you do nothing to investigate the science behind it or give a rats ARs about any other fish I would ask you Why?
A fish is a fish is a fish - who are we to determine who should be saved & who should be targeted.
WA
150 posts
2013, day 1, so far 6 people have died on the roads,, should be culling cars
55 posts
lol puppet i love your points well done, as for the culling cars how many people were driving on day 1 2013 vs swimming surfing kiting bodydragging etc in deep enough water?
theres a good pick of a man eating shark somewhere here on a seabreeze forum with a man eating shark, yumm flake
NSW
56 posts
The answer I think is, we dont know. There have been cases in the past when humans have protected a species and by doing that, we have caused the extinction or close extinction of another species because the one that become protected become so dominant due to the fact that its population was no longer being controlled by humans that its number far outweighed the natural balance that had been achieved over thousands of years which included a certain amount of human intervention.
The only case I can see where it would make sense to cull them would be if we have maintained a certain level of culling / hunting / killing them for a vast majority of not only their existence, but also all the creatures / plants / environments they interact with and the creatures / plants / environments they interact with etc etc etc and our current "reduced" level (who really knows if we are killing less or more now) of culling is sending that harmony out of balance. Luckily for the sharks, we as a species have not been studying this for long enough so dont have the answer at the moment (we may have it in a few more thousand years when we start to understand the first 1% of the environment) but for now I think the sharks should be safe.
