Shark Hunters Bay For Blood

[Pendragon_6]

Gavin du Venage in Cape Town
June 10, 2005

THE man-eating shark everyone is looking for is, for once, easy to distinguish from other great whites that patrol the waters off South Africa.

Embedded in its flesh is the spear fired at it in a last, desperate attempt to fend off death seconds before it swallowed the young man whole, leaving nothing but the tattered remains of his wetsuit.

This week fishermen spotted the 6m shark that took 22-year-old student Henri Murray as he and a friend spearfished off the Cape Town coast. The news that the shark is still in the area off pristine swimming beaches is likely to cause a wild hunt for the creature as some humans seek revenge.

"If you stick a grenade down its throat you send a clear message to the sharks - this is not a safe place to hunt," says Godfrey Mocke, of the Swimsafe Project in Cape Town.


Continued
The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0%2C5744%2C15566657%25255E30417%2C00.html)

[iFocusNews.com]

"If you stick a grenade down its throat you send a clear message to the sharks - this is not a safe place to hunt,"

THIS IS OFFICIALLY THE STUPIDEST F*CKING THING I'VE EVER HEARD!!!

It's a Goddamn animal!!!

Like the sharks are gonna all be watching as this one is blown up and say to each other, "gee, let's not go there anymore."

This is a case of the PEOPLE being stupider than the SHARK is!

Sharks DO NOT THINK. They operate, like nearly ALL animals, purely on instinct. That's why the do absolutely nothing in their lives except eat and sleep, and at one very brief moment, reproduce.

Exacting revenge on a shark is the height of human stupidity.

:soap:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Exacting revenge on a shark is the height of human stupidity.

Perhaps, but seeing as how the CORRECT shark, the one who actually committed the killing, can be positiviely identified, I see nothing wrong with killing it.

[Pendragon_6]

Dear Homeschool:

Thank you. You prevented an argument.

best, p6

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Dear Homeschool:

Thank you. You prevented an argument.

best, p6

:question: You're welcome, I think. I didn't know we were going to argue, :smirky: . (JOKE) Seems rather silly to get so worked up over a shark -- easier just to do away with the thing, since the right one can be identified, and be done with it. 'Course I could be wrong, I was . . . once, but I was under anesthesia so I don't count that time, :grin: .

Blessings,
Hms

[JimRaynor]

Yeah, it should be killed if positively identified...
BUT A DAMN GRENADE??!!!
YEESH!

If anything, the Sharks will all come when they smell that sharks blood all over the place...

[Pendragon_6]

Ain't gonna kill a 20 foot long Great White with a firecracker.

[JimRaynor]

Spears, spearguns...
Fishers...

Someone saw Jaws too many times lol.

[iFocusNews.com]

...seeing as how the CORRECT shark, the one who actually committed the killing, can be positiviely identified, I see nothing wrong with killing it.

And what, exactly, would that accomplish? As if the shark made a conscious decision to murder an innocent man. Would it achieve some sort of vindication or justice? Is it going to teach the other sharks a lesson?

Either the people involved in this story are giving too much credit to sharks, or they're just tragically stupid. Animals (with the possible exceptions of dolphins and apes) cannot think or reason -- they just react on basic instinct.

Sharks have always been a passion of mine. I'm not a marine biologist, but I do know a thing or two, and I can almost assure you that the shark acted out of what it percieved to be self-defense and not out of aggression, which would explain how (if this is even true) the man was swallowed whole. If you notice the feeding habbits of great whites, they simply wouldn't swallow a human whole on purpose. That's just not what sharks do, at least not 99% of the time. Sharks may feel threatened or mistake a human for its prey, but they simply do not eat humans. Compared to porpuses & seals, the primary prey of great whites, humans have virtually no meat on our bones. That's why you'll never hear of sharks actually EATING people -- you'll only hear about attacks or bites that perhaps result in the loss of a limb (except, maybe, with tiger sharks, because they have by far the most indiscriminate appetites).

I've had the privelage of going scuba diving on many occasions, and the most dangerous type of shark I've ever encountered was a hammerhead, which is considered to be the fourth most dangerous threat to humans. I saw one on two occasions, although each instance yeilded the exact same result: when the hammerhead wandered into my range of visibility, maybe about 20-30 meters, and either smelled or saw my presence, it immediately turned around sharply and jetted away quickly, much to my disappointment. Unless you have food or are bleeding, a shark will NEVER bother you underwater unless you bother it first. When sharks can clearly see humans underwater (as opposed to being a silhouette on the surface), they get scared -- again, unless you're bleeding or have food -- because a human in full dive gear with four limbs that's exhaling large amounts of bubbles is unlike anything they're used to seeing.

I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that what happened in this instance in Australia was that while the man was spear fishing, a shark wandered by too close for comfort, the guy freaked out and shot it, and it attacked. Either that or he had food on him. Other than that, if he was under the water, the shark simply wouldn't have attacked him. It just doesn't happen that way.

There have been NO confirmed, unprovoked attacks on divers while underwater, ever.

I'm no PETA member, but killing an animal that is literally an eating machine and incapable of any thought or reasoning outside of the most basic survival instincts, WHEN, I might add, the vitcim was in ITS territory to begin with, to me is an unjustified waste of Creation.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

And what, exactly, would that accomplish?

That's easy, one less shark in the waters.

As if the shark made a conscious decision to murder an innocent man.

I never asserted that the shark did.

Would it achieve some sort of vindication or justice?

I don't know, it might make some feel better, to me it's not really a matter of vindication or justice. It's a matter of the fact we have a means of positive identification on the shark that did kill the swimmer/diver, so I say he killed, he should be killed. It's as simple as that.

Is it going to teach the other sharks a lesson?

Well if you're asking for my personal opinion, I don't think the shark cares one way or the other frankly, :smirky:


The shark killed a swimmer/diver. The offending shark can be positively identified. The shark can be killed. I see no great environmental impact occuring because one shark suffers the consequences for his actions (whether he knows, recognizes, or understands them or not).

You are free to feel as you wish, as am I. I see no problem with killing the shark.

[DeclinetoState]

Find Usama bin Laden and feed him to the shark.