Anome
Bibliomancer
- Joined
- May 23, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
- Location
- Left, and to the Back
Alright. No need to shout. Seems an odd joke to make when your argument is based on the idea that shark attacks are enough of a risk to warrant culling.ramonmercado said:Anome_ said:What's this remark mean? Are you saying being attacked by a shark is a risk or isn't a risk?ramonmercado said:sweetnessbentdouble said:Power/dominance relations between humans and non-human animals have always been murky and (for strange folks like me) fascinating. Particularly where animals become the focus of vendetta-type culls (à la Quint)
Personally, I never paddle.... Even stepping on the beach is a bit nervous-making for me. You never know when you might come down on a jellyfish :/
Keep well back from the sea when you are on a beach; you never know when a giant squid will lash out with a tentacle.
It was a a joke! I don't think anyone walking on a beach is at risk from attack by a giant octopus.
Except the cull is not a hunt, it's leaving baited lines out to attract sharks that were minding their own business, with no intention of attacking humans, The placement of the baits actually attracts sharks to popular human swimming beaches.The vendetta makes for interesting cinema but in real life such hunts are mostly to prevent further human casualties.
By the way, I say "no intention of attacking humans", but then very rarely do sharks that attack humans mean to. Usually they think it's a fish or a seal, and most of the time they spit it back out. Apparently we aren't that tasty to a shark.
When you think about it, it's not really like a bear wandering into town, it's more like some people dress up as beehives, go hiking in the woods, and then throw rocks at the bear to get its attention. And even then, most of the time the bears just leave them alone. The cull would involve putting traps baited with beehives next to popular picnic spots for beehive cosplayers.
And I'm talking about people walking along nature paths in forests. It's not a great analogy, and I didn't really intend to suggest people were at fault for shark attacks, or bear attacks for that matter. Maybe the throwing rocks thing should have been left out.But I'm talking about people swimming close to the shore in shallow water. Australians are not going to give up swimming. Nor are they going to support any politician who suggests that its their own fault if they get eaten by a shark close to a beach.
However, while I don't say that people are responsible for being attacked by sharks under most circumstances (there are some who go swimming in areas that are marked as being dangerous due to local shark populations, but they're not who we're talking about here), I also don't agree that sharks are responsible for shark attacks, nor should they be held accountable. They're sharks. They've been here longer than us, and I think we should respect that.
No-one is arguing that a specific shark is more important than human beings, or a specific human. Look at it this way, if you're in the ocean, and a shark attacks you, by all means use any force necessary to get away from it, and stop it attacking you. Including lethal force if necessary.Anti-shark measures up to and including culls are needed when sharks attack in such circumstances. There are very few people about who would regard sharks as being more important than human beings.
However, the cull is intended to try and wipe out potentially endangered species because one of them bit someone. It's kind of like setting fire to every beehive in the region because something stung you.
Except that the cull currently underway in WA, which is what people are protesting, is exactly this. It's baited lines near popular swimming beaches. The opponents of the cull have suggested more shark nets, and basically been ignored by the WA government in favour of the baits.An active shark hunt/cull could take place, it doesn't have to involve leaving bloody chunks as bait. Also more shark nets.
.
[EDIT] To clarify, it includes an active hunting programme as well as the drum lines.
See, this was my joke that you didn't seem to get...but I won't yell at you about it.So does culling cars that run people down make the roads safer?Even motor vehicles may become the victim of vendettas: Stephen King bought and destroyed the car which ran him over.
No, I don't advocate it. Just referencing an eccentric action by King.
Culling drunk, speeding and dangerous drivers would make the roads safer though. The cull would be in the form of a mandatory minimum 12 month ban for all of those actions.
By the way, the cull (well, the drum lines) has been stopped as of yesterday.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-11/w ... ew/5737526