Sharks and Humans: A Much Needed Corrective ~ Marc Bekoff

[Carolyn Bailey]

Sharks and Humans: A Much Needed Corrective

Originally posted by Marc Bekoff, Ph.D. in Animal Emotions

 

Some who have been attacked now work on their behalf

 

Sharks are amazing animals and there are more than 400 species of these magnificent fish. Over the past week when I've been watching TV I've seen advertisements for what's called "Shark Week", in which of course, the media misrepresents them as heinous predators—using terms such as "Sharkzilla", for example. The ad is among the most stupid and minsinformed I've seen in ages. It's difficult to believe people actually get paid to produce such misleading dribble. 

Of course sharks attack humans occasionally when they've trespassed into their homes. And the results of these attacks often are tragic. However, they really do what most of us would do if an uninvited intruder entered our home. I'm sure sharks and other animals have many more opportunities to attack intruders but choose not to. I've had close encounters with other predators including black bears and cougars who live around my house and I know on other occasions they've been closely watching me and most often never bother to tell me to get out of their living rooms. 

Given the media hype that centers on shark attacks, I was pleasantly pleased and surprised to learn that as part of shark week there's also a segment in which shark attack survivors turn into advocates for these wonderful animals produced by the California-based production company, Beanfield Productions, with whom I've had the pleasure to work. 

Here's a teaser: Survivors in this segment "include Al Brenneka, who lost his right arm after an attack at Delray Beach, and Mike Coots, who lost a leg in an attack while surfing in Hawaii. 'Shark Fight' also features harrowing re-enactments of the attacks. Former Sentinel reporter Debbie Salamone embodies the theme of 'Shark Attack.' A shark severed her Achilles tendon about 10 years ago. She came up with the idea of creating Shark Attack Survivors for Shark Conservation and recruited people from around the world beginning in 2009. The group persuaded Congress to close loopholes in the nation’s shark finning ban, a law that President Barack Obama signed last year." The interview with Ms. Salamone is a must read. 

I'm so pleased to see there is indeed an attempt to take a balanced view of sharks. Like most other animals, we need to come to a greater understanding of who they really are and the many sides of their wonderful personalities and presence on the planet. The world would be a poorer place without sharks and other "dangerous" animals. 

Note: For more on how to interact safely with sharks read about Dr. Erich Ritter's Shark School. 

Animal Emotions

Do animals think and feel?

by Marc Bekoff

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201208/sharks-a...

 

[RespuestasVeganas.Org]

Hi.

 

I think sharks should be extinguished by mass sterilization, for the same reason that if there is a species that feed on humans.

 

Regards.

David.

[Carolyn Bailey]

Hi David, 

Thanks for your comment! 

There are over 100 million sharks killed by humans each year solely for the use of their tails and fins in shark fin soup. Of course, that doesn't include the countless others hunted and killed in shark nets and elsewhere. 

In 2011 there were 11 humans killed by sharks, worldwide. Of those 11 humans, every one of them were knowingly in the territory of the shark at the time of the "attack". 

The numbers are staggering, aren't they? 

[RespuestasVeganas.Org]

Hi, Carolyn Bailey.

It is ethically wrong to kill others because they are frustrated fundamental interests.

I argue that sharks are extinct because they are predators. Sharks should be extinguished by sterilizing, not be killed.

Greetings.
David.

[Anthony Marr]

8 points to make to ban shark-finning and the shark fin trade:

1. Shark-finning is exceedingly cruel. Sharks caught mostly with long lines are hauled into boats, have their fins cut off and the rest of their still-alive bodies cast back into the ocean. This is tantamount to some aliens abducting you, cutting off all four limbs and dumping you back on to the road. This is done due to the fact that while shark meat fetches less than $2 per kg, shark fins fetch up to $2000 per kg.

2. Each year, over 100 million sharks (by latest estimate) are finned around the world. Practically every country with a coastline does it, the "Big 5" being Costa Rica, Spain, United Arab Emirates, Singapore and Indonesia (Taiwan has recently banned shark-finning).

3. Of the 450 shark species, one-third are endangered. Since shark-finning is indiscriminate, and almost no records are kept, there is no way of telling which fin in Chinatown belongs to what species short of a fin-by-fin DNA analysis. Who would pay for this? The Pew Environmental Group in the United States published a report in early August, 2012, on their country-wide DNA survey of random shark fin samples from 14 cities, which found that 81% of them were from endangered or threatened species. What more proof do we need?

4. Sharks are extremely slow reproducing. Whereas most fish spawn thousands of eggs every years, shark give birth to only 2-4 pups every 2-4 years. Most do not reach sexual maturity until 10-20 years old. There is no way they can sustain the onslaught and be able to recover, making this matter a state of emergency.

5. Sharks are apex predators, which prey on medium sized fish, but not small fish upon which the medium sized fish prey. If sharks are wiped out, the medium sized fish would proliferate and over-prey on the small fish, and the entire oceanic ecosystem could collapse. The opposition saying that suppressing shark populations would benefit human fisheries simply does not understand this fact.

6. Shark fins are of little nutritional value, but due to their high cost are served in large banquets as a status symbol for the hosts. 

7. A recent poll conducted in San Francisco showed that 76% of San Franciscans and 70% of Chinese San Franciscans are in support of the California ban.

8. International law (CITES & UN) and Canadian federal law (WAPPRIITA) forbid trade on products containing endangered species parts, and Canada's own Fisheries Act forbids shark-finning in Canadian waters, which makes any city still allowing the shark fin trade in violation of all these laws.

As for sterilization, the species to sterilize should be David's own.

 

 

[RespuestasVeganas.Org]

"5. Sharks are apex predators, which prey on medium sized fish, but not small fish upon which the medium sized fish prey. If sharks are wiped out, the medium sized fish would proliferate and over-prey on the small fish, and the entire oceanic ecosystem could collapse."

Collapse? what's that? what's the problem?...

David is not going to have children. Today, having children is ethically wrong.

[Anthony Marr]

Are you saying that predators should be "extinguished", because they are predators?  Is this what being vegan means to you?  

Anthony

RespuestasVeganas.Org said:

Hi, Carolyn Bailey.

It is ethically wrong to kill others because they are frustrated fundamental interests.

I argue that sharks are extinct because they are predators. Sharks should be extinguished by sterilizing, not be killed.

Greetings.
David.

[RespuestasVeganas.Org]

Yes, I repeat, who live off of killing others must be sterilized to extinction or reeducated if is possible. The fundamental interests (live, not to suffer and enjoy) should not be frustrated, this is the reason why we should be vegan. To say that the fundamental interests must be frustrated is illogical and arbitrary.

 

David.

[Anthony Marr]

"... who live off of killing others must be sterilized to extinction..."  So you would want the lions and tigers and eagles and dolphins... to all go extinct?   You are way off your rocker.  Your kind of veganism is biological and ecological nazism.  End of discussion.  

[Carolyn Bailey]

David, there are very few living individuals who don't "live off the killing of others". 

As Anthony has mentioned, sharks eat smaller fishes, who eat smaller fishes, who eat smaller fishes, who eat smaller fishes. It seems incomprehensible to suggest that we eliminate all individuals who "live of the killing of others". 

Humans "live of the killing of others", should they also be eliminated? Insects "live of the killing of others", eliminate them too? Cats? Sea Lions? Dolphins? 

Who determines what "suffering" means, David? Who determines what pleasure means? Who determines that their interpretation of either suffering or pleasure should be accepted by others? 

[RespuestasVeganas.Org]

Nazism is defending is ethically right that some people kill others. The natural system of the planet Earth is fascist and should be changed.

If there is a species that fed on humans then you would say that this species be extinguished, but as the victims are from other species then you see no problem. That is speciesism.

 

David.

[Carolyn Bailey]

David, you are misrepresenting my position, and presuming to tell me how I think and feel. That is not the best way to hold a constructive, rational discussion. 

Perhaps you might respond to the previous questions I asked? I think this is an important discussion to have, so I will add them again here: 

As Anthony has mentioned, sharks eat smaller fishes, who eat smaller fishes, who eat smaller fishes, who eat smaller fishes. It seems incomprehensible to suggest that we eliminate all individuals who "live of the killing of others". 

Humans "live of the killing of others", should they also be eliminated? Insects "live of the killing of others", eliminate them too? Cats? Sea Lions? Dolphins? 

Who determines what "suffering" means, David? Who determines what pleasure means? Who determines that their interpretation of either suffering or pleasure should be accepted by others? 

[RespuestasVeganas.Org]

As Anthony has mentioned, sharks eat smaller fishes, who eat smaller fishes, who eat smaller fishes, who eat smaller fishes. It seems incomprehensible to suggest that we eliminate all individuals who "live of the killing of others". 

Humans "live of the killing of others", should they also be eliminated? Insects "live of the killing of others", eliminate them too? Cats? Sea Lions? Dolphins? 

If there is a species that fed on humans then you would say that this species be extinguished, but as the victims are from other species then you see no problem. That is speciesism.

 

I do not say kill but sterilized, re-educate and protect from attacks.

 

"Who determines what "suffering" means, David? Who determines what pleasure means? Who determines that their interpretation of either suffering or pleasure should be accepted by others? "

They look like typical questions that make us vegans...