Necros,
I’m a Texas Dude and you better not say that explains it. 
Tree-huggers rule!!! Stop cutting down trees and we will reduce these 13,000 chainsaw injuries.
Sounds like Bill is a shark hunter whose been limited to 1 shark per boat. Don’t worry, Bill, as soon as the shark population gets big again, you will get back to shark hunting full time.
It has happened in the North Atlantic - the quotas on (not sure, but think it was salmon) worked - the population increased and the quotas increased recently. Look at what Ducks Unlimited does.
The days of unrestrained fishing, crabbing, shrimping, etc. are over - get used to it. The oceans are not quite as big as they once seemed to be.
Sorry Wildest Bill, but I have to say that FOX news and the AM radio are full of it:
It started with this:
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/local/33458_fire01.shtml
Fox and many right wing AM radio shows made hay of the allegation (it still remains an allegation!), but
as the Rush vs Reality 2001 web site mentioned:
“The first indication this allegation didn’t ring true was the improbable amount of time that elapsed
between the deaths (July 10) and the first published allegations (August 1) that the ESA was in some way to blame. Over three weeks. If four brave young fire fighters died because pilots were prevented by the ESA from scooping water from a river, the outcry from those on the scene—from the helicopter pilots on down—would surely have been loud and clear. And it would have been instantaneous.” :
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis/web/vortex/display?slug=fishfire01m&date=20010801
USFW Statement in the matter:
http://news.fws.gov/newsreleases/display.cfm?NewsID=5EA65E19-9E63-41A9-A6E880DF5E71089D
I believe some fire dispatchers ignored the guidelines and now, some body is trying to cover their butts about the tragedy, but clearly it was not supposed to be the policy.
My view is if one swims in the Great Petri Dish that we call the ocean, and a flesh eating critter decides they look tasty, too bad. It’s their habitat. Makes ya kinda humble, I should think.
Pld,
Funny I found the same site as you. I just don’t know how to link it yet to this site without typing that big ole address. If you wouldn’t mind telling me, next time I hopefully can do it.
Back to topic so shark attacks have in fact increased. I understand your point about percentages. I know we can’t destroy all the sharks but I think it is time we start killing some again. I think the conservationalist wait too long before they open season again. Look at alligators for instance their tons of alligators now and they are becoming a menace so they should let me er I mean hunters have a season on them now. Because they are far from extinct just like sharks.
I mean really who cares if there is sharks or not off the coast of Florida? I don’t. I say let them swim out in the ocean if they want to live if they come the beach they are DEAD SHARKS! And I bet if YOU were swimming there(florida beaches) you wouldn’t care either.
With this physophy why can’t I blow the head off an alligator or a stupid moutain lion that comes in my backyard afterall that is my habitat. But the govt will fine me if I do which is a bunch of crap.
Wildest Bill, given that humans don’t have gills and (at least) most can’t breathe well underwater, wouldn’t it follow that water is NOT our natural habitat?
Since sharks CAN breathe underwater, wouldn’t that make water sharks’ natural habitat?
Now follow my reasoning…since water is the sharks’ natural habitat not ours, doesn’t it follow that we’re, in a way, trespassing when we go there?
It doesn’t make shark attacks less tragic or horrible, but the world’s a dangerous place. You know, since cats can give humans diseases, and some humans are allergic (a few violently so) to cats, why don’t we just kill them all? I mean, every single type of cat, from housecats to tigers and lions. Who cares what happens to the ecosystem, right? We’re protecting humans!
Wildest Bill, in regards to your post about alligators/mountain lions coming into your backyard:
Do these animals regularly do this?
What are they doing there? Milling around nonchalantly? Sleeping? Eating your offspring?
I could care less what they are doing in it if they are in my backyard, they are a rug or boots baby.
I think the term is “I couldn’t care less.”
And could you please answer my first question:
Do these animals regularly do this?
Well, in my other post I disposed of the Firefighter issue, as for the lions, tigers and bears (and sharks):
Clearly it is not the policy to interfere if the life of a human is involved. If a loved one or you are in danger, fire away. What is not allowed is the idea that just because an animal is strolling or passing by you should kill it.
Incidentally: the uncle who recently saved a kid by killing the shark is called by everybody a hero, and there is no reports whatsoever about some government agency going to fine him.
Just out of curiosity, how many people buy into this idea of human manifest destiny?
I agree with you, in a lot of ways. The increase in predators is a direct result of the increase of game species, coupled with suburbanization of formerly wild areas. Extirpated critters like mountain lion are making a comeback as a result. Sound and sane game mangagement practices coupled with a dose of reality should allow our returning “neighbors” to co-exist to a certain degree.
Still, if you swim in the ocean sharks are part of the deal, guaranteed. For the same reason, I tend to avoid grizzly bear habitat, and other areas.
Bill, let’s look at it this way-even if God DID give us control over the earth, doesn’t it follow that we should respect that, and try to take good care of it, as so not to screw it up for everyone and everything else?
andros: Just out of curiosity, how many people buy into this idea of human manifest destiny?
I bet bunches and bunches of folks buy into it because of Genesis 1, 26–30:
Dominion or stewardship?—some people have made their decision.
From MSNBC.com:
Rash of shark attacks in Florida - Six surfers were bitten
over the weekend
A few (highly selected) quotes:
Gee, Bill, this sounds more like a case for the Darwin Awards. Surfers leaping over teeming sharks to get out to the best waves.
(Actually, since none of the six bites were life-threatening, the surfers might have a point: the sharks are not that dangerous.)
Some facts about mountain lions, since we seem to have covered the shark angle pretty well. Only ten people in U.S. history have died from mountain lion attacks. In every recent case, fatal or otherwise, the attack has happened in a remote area, not near any home or building. In California (you know that state with all the loopy liberal environmentalists), it’s perfectly legal to kill a mountain lion that poses danger to any human being, livestock, or private property. Look up prop 117 if you’d like to be sure.
http://tchester.org/sgm/lists/lion_attacks.html
But keep ranting, WB. Maybe you’ll eventually pick up on something true.
As a subject of study, smallpox arguably benefits us all. Most of the critical discoveries in molecular biology were the result of studying viruses, and it may well be the case that smallpox has unique properties which would make it worthwhile to keep around. (I used to have specific examples, but I don’t remember them right now. IIRC poxviruses have an unusual replication system, but technically one could use cowpox et al. for that kind of study.)
-Ben
I didn’t mention this the first time around, but don’t you find this a bit, I dunno, hypocritical on your part, Bill? If you wander off into the forest and get et by a grizzer ba’r, that’s survival of the fittest, yes? If you take a nice oceanic swim and become chum, that’s survival of the fittest, yes? The way I see it, if we get to shoot them, they get to eat us.
Afraid of the big, bad mountain lion, are we Bill? Again, what happened to your “survival of the fittest” argument? After all, if the “poor little mountain lions” need protection, they can’t be that dangerous, right? Or maybe the protection is there because some folks just like to get their jollies killing wild animals for fun. Hmmm…
Then again, maybe if we weren’t so indiscriminate about where we decide to set up house, we wouldn’t have to worry about mountain lions eating us.
I’m going to weigh in on this one.
Sharks are incredibly dangerous animals. There is a beach in Perth, Western Australia called Cottesloe Beach. It is a very nice beach, without much surf, and lots of people swim there. A lot of swimming clubs do distance training there.
Two friends of mine happened to be walking along the beach one morning last year when a swimmer had his leg pulled off by a shark. The swimmer had been straggling along behind a pack of other swimmers. Quite often sharks mistake people in wetsuits for seals: but I think this man was only wearing speedos.
The shark was apparently an enormous Great White. The man was dragged up onto the shore by his friends. His leg was missing from the grion down and he died from blood loss and shock.
News footage from a helicopter shows the shark taking off into the deeper ocean. Sharks are an endangered species and protected by legislation in Australia, and so it took a while for a “kill order” to come through from the Minister for the Environment. By this stage the shark had disappeared. Fishermen took to hunting the shark, but with no success.
The shark was supposedly spotted at adjacent beaches that summer. No further attacks were reported.
Three years ago, another shark in the same area took a bite out of a surf ski, nearly removing the foot of the front skiier.
I grew up on beaches where surf life savers sounded shark alarms once every month or so and buzzed sharks with their rubber duck outboard motors.
If people wish to swim in waters where there are sharks, there is a certain element of assumption of risk. Here in Hong Kong, where the waters are truly shark infested, no one swims outside of shark nets.
I have a certain amount of empathy, though, for what Wild Bill is saying in respect of reducing the probability of shark attacks. Beaches are a valuable recreation site and a beacon for tourism. In places where the temperature gets very high, the beach is a relief. People are going to flock to a beach and swim in the water. Sharks do what they do - they scavenge and eat things, even bony humans. If a shark ventures near a beach filled with people it should be scared off, and if it can’t be scared off it should be destroyed. If a shark eats a human, there is an argument that it might acquire a taste for humans (or at least learn that they are prey), and these sharks should be destroyed without hesitation.
I am all for protecting the environment, and endangered animals, but you have to weigh this up against the risk to humans.