• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
ramonmercado said:
Anome_ said:
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.
What's this remark mean? Are you saying being attacked by a shark is a risk or isn't a risk?

It was a a joke! I don't think anyone walking on a beach is at risk from attack by a giant octopus.
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.

The vendetta makes for interesting cinema but in real life such hunts are mostly to prevent further human casualties.
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.

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.

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.
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.

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.
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.
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.

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.

An active shark hunt/cull could take place, it doesn't have to involve leaving bloody chunks as bait. Also more shark nets.

.
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.
[EDIT] To clarify, it includes an active hunting programme as well as the drum lines.

Even motor vehicles may become the victim of vendettas: Stephen King bought and destroyed the car which ran him over.
So does culling cars that run people down make the roads safer?

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.
See, this was my joke that you didn't seem to get...but I won't yell at you about it.

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
 
Anome_ said:
ramonmercado said:
Anome_ said:
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.
What's this remark mean? Are you saying being attacked by a shark is a risk or isn't a risk?

It was a a joke! I don't think anyone walking on a beach is at risk from attack by a giant octopus.
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.

Not shouting. Imho its the best way of responding to your comment. Talking about someone walking down a beach and having to watch out for an imaginary octopus attack is a bit different from suggesting that all Australians who take a dip are potential candidates for a Darwin Award.

The vendetta makes for interesting cinema but in real life such hunts are mostly to prevent further human casualties.
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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

Australians are not going to stop swimming close to beaches. So sharks that come into shallow waters where people swim should be culled.

There should be shark sanctuaries and people should avoid areas that are shark infested.

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.

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.

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.

]No, only cull sharks which come close to shore near beaches. Taking a dip should not put you at risk of being eaten by a shark. Darwinism will kick in: sharks who stay away from beaces will thrive.

An active shark hunt/cull could take place, it doesn't have to involve leaving bloody chunks as bait. Also more shark nets.
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.
[EDIT] To clarify, it includes an active hunting programme as well as the drum lines.

I'll check the opinions of my WA relatives on it.

Even motor vehicles may become the victim of vendettas: Stephen King bought and destroyed the car which ran him over.
So does culling cars that run people down make the roads safer?

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.
See, this was my joke that you didn't seem to get...but I won't yell at you about it.

I'm not yelling. Its the easiest way to respond to you point by point.

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

Every Ozzie should go bash a shark like the snake bashing in The Simpsons.
 
Ok, to be honest I'm doing all of this nesting of replies to annoy Rynner!
 
Five fisherman claim that they found the partially digested head and leg of a human inside the stomach of a tiger shark they caught off the coast of the Philippines. The men were fishing between the islands of Bohol and Camiguin on 5 October when they caught a tiger shark, which they estimated to weigh at least 300kg.

When the fisherman cut into the shark, they were surprised by the “disgusting…awful smell” and found a partially digested human head and leg inside the stomach. ...

http://descrier.co.uk/news/world/philip ... s-stomach/
 
Not quite an attack.

A jumping shark has photobombed a surfing competition off an Australian beach.

Amateur photographer Steph Bellamy captured the image of the shark with her smartphone on Sunday as she was photographing mothers and their children paddling on their surfboards off a beach in the New South Wales state town of Coffs Harbour.

Ms Bellamy, 47, said that she did not know that the splash in her viewfinder was a shark until she examined the image on her phone moments later.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/quir ... 00579.html
 
I was playing an Oculus Rift game a while ago and I was eaten by a shark.
Like everything on Oculus Rift, it's really immersive and can actually terrify you.

This technology is the stuff of nightmares - in the right hands.
 
There were six authenticated, unprovoked attacks by sharks on humans off the California coast in 2014, all of them confirmed or suspected to be by great whites, according to a shark research organization.

Out of those six attacks two people, both surfers, sustained injuries, according to the Shark Research Committee in a year-end report issued on Thursday. The other four attacks were on another surfer, two kayakers and a woman using an outrigger canoe, the organization said. There was one attack in July, four in October and one in December.

According to the Shark Research Committee, there have been 83 shark attacks off the Pacific Coast since 2000, all but 10 of them thought to have been carried out by great whites. Surfers were the victims of 65 percent of the attacks, the organization said.


Read more at http://newsdaily.com/2015/01/six-un...california-coast-in-2014/#1UqlfVx0oddiX4h6.99
 
A surfer has been killed in a shark attack on Australia’s east coast after both his legs were torn off while he sat on his board.

The man had been waiting for a wave when the shark appeared behind him and bit down on the back of his board and his legs, according to David Wright, mayor of the New South Wales town of Ballina, where the attack occurred.

Friends who had been surfing alongside Nakahara pulled him to shore at Shelly Beach and attempted to save his life by performing CPR and attempting to stop the bleeding with tourniquets. The incident happened at around 10:30 am local time on Monday morning. ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...were-ripped-off-on-shelly-beach-10033488.html
 
Shark attacks killed three people worldwide in 2014, a dramatic drop from 10 fatalities seen a year earlier, researchers found in an annual global tally released this week.

Two of the deaths occurred in New South Wales in eastern Australia, and the other in South Africa’s Eastern Cape, according to the data, submitted by scientists around the world and cataloged at the University of Florida.

The United States recorded two-thirds of the 72 total attacks last year that were unprovoked by people, the data showed. It said about half took place off Florida’s eastern coast, where smaller sharks mistake swimmers for prey in hit-and-run attacks, then quickly leave.

The number of overall attacks held relatively steady, dropping slightly from 75 incidents in 2013. What surprised researchers was the plunge in fatalities ...

Read more at http://newsdaily.com/2015/02/fewer-...a-still-tops-for-attacks/#WSF56QoXKZ9Ia6Yz.99
 
Sharks were here long before us. Personally there are some waters I would not swim in and yes I feel sorry for the victims but surely they must know that off the coast of Australia sharks do live so it is a risk they take.
 
Sharks were here long before us. Personally there are some waters I would not swim in and yes I feel sorry for the victims but surely they must know that off the coast of Australia sharks do live so it is a risk they take.

So Australians shouldn't swim surf etc? Swimming should not be a risk. Sharks which come close to the coast should be culled. Sharks which stay far out will breed and prosper, Problem solved.

Humans are more important than sharks.
 
Sharks were here long before us. Personally there are some waters I would not swim in and yes I feel sorry for the victims but surely they must know that off the coast of Australia sharks do live so it is a risk they take.

Err, welcome to the FTMB!
 
full_106492_2F2014-12-27-033938-DSC01196.jpg Vicious shark attacks in progress.upshark_medium.jpg downshark_square.jpg
 
So Australians shouldn't swim surf etc? Swimming should not be a risk. Sharks which come close to the coast should be culled. Sharks which stay far out will breed and prosper, Problem solved.

Humans are more important than sharks.

I didnt say human should not swim, what I said was there are some waters I would not swim in. Off the coast of Austraila in certain area's there are sharks so swim at your own risk and don't blame the sharks if it happens. Sharks were hear long before us.
 
I don't think Ramon really thinks animals in their natural habitat should be culled. If he does, I apologise to everyone else for misjudging him.
 
I didnt say human should not swim, what I said was there are some waters I would not swim in. Off the coast of Austraila in certain area's there are sharks so swim at your own risk and don't blame the sharks if it happens. Sharks were hear long before us.

Forgive me, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant all Australian coastal waters.
 
I don't think Ramon really thinks animals in their natural habitat should be culled. If he does, I apologise to everyone else for misjudging him.

If sharks attack humans in waters close to beaches then sharks in the area should be netted, tagged and released further offshore. Sharks which persist in returning to beach areas should be culled. When it comes to a choice of humans being eaten alive or sharks being killed then I'm on the side of the humans.

Sharks which do not return to such areas will thrive. Problem solved.
 
I'm sorry that you or a loved one has been attacked/killed by a shark, Ramon.

I must thank you for telling me that I was laughing at the survivors/victims, there I was thinking I was just having a chuckle at the juxtaposition of a couple of cute crafting projects and my caption.

I apologise.
 
I'm sorry that you or a loved one has been attacked/killed by a shark, Ramon.

I must thank you for telling me that I was laughing at the survivors/victims, there I was thinking I was just having a chuckle at the juxtaposition of a couple of cute crafting projects and my caption.

I apologise.

Your sarcasm is devastating.
 
No its not.

Would you say the same about people in India, Africa, Latin America who kill maneating predators?

Difference being those people have to live on land where those predators are present.

There is no requirement to swim in the ocean for human survival in Australia.

Humans wanting to partake in a leisure pursuit should not be a reason for killing marine mammals.
 
Difference being those people have to live on land where those predators are present.

There is no requirement to swim in the ocean for human survival in Australia.

Humans wanting to partake in a leisure pursuit should not be a reason for killing marine mammals.

So, anyone who swims off a beach in Australia deserves to die.

You are a nasty piece of work.
 
Difference being those people have to live on land where those predators are present.

There is no requirement to swim in the ocean for human survival in Australia.

Humans wanting to partake in a leisure pursuit should not be a reason for killing marine mammals.

Btw, a shark is a fish, not a mammal.

Do you feel the same about barracuda, tuna, mackerel, cod?
 
Anyone who goes swimming in open water is engaging in a risky activity. That risk will be raised if there are predators around. If you accept that risk and swim you should accept any consequences. No matter how rare, or tragic they might be. It's a greater chance that you will have a pleasant swim and nothing more.
No one is saying that those who are attacked "deserve it". So can you stop with the ad hom's please.
 
Back
Top