User deleted post
Hard agree. I hate seeing the sport fishing posts. There is no glory in killing something just for the sake of saying you've killed it.
Amen.
Thank you for this post!
It was meant to be a sincere critique to the mods. Idk how well received this post will be..
I appreciate your points a lot. This sub has felt more and more clogged up with dead sharks and shark haters lately, and the mods need to step up. It's extremely disappointing to have watched this place be twisted into something mean and ugly.
Indeed. Recently one person keeps brining up NOAA and how they list no sharks as endangered or threatened in the Atlantic. Yeah bud..NOAA sanctions a lot of things at the expense of sceintitsts’ warnings and observations..
That's me. NOAA never said "NO" sharks are endangered or threatened in the Atlantic. NOAA Endangered Species Conservation
NOAA Fisheries is responsible for the protection, conservation, and recovery of more than 160 endangered and threatened marine and anadromous species under the Endangered Species Act. The goal of the ESA is to conserve these species and the ecosystems they depend on.
You're mad because not all shark species are on the endangered list and NOAA allows sustainable fishing of some non-endangered species.
You must think people are really stupid. Because you’ve explicitly parroted the whole ‘NOAA doesn’t list them as such’ nonsense several times.
You can’t seem to accept the fact that most people want to protect wildlife for its intrinsic value nowadays, and have constantly flaunted your opinion that protecting sharks from exploitation is unscientific.
Times are changing. People are changing and you refusing to admit this makes you a complete moron.
Times are changing. People are changing and you refusing to admit this makes you a complete moron.
Sorry, the public at large is not supportive of the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals agenda:
Animals are not ours to...eat, wear, use...in any other way.
Most people support eating meat, hunting, fishing (sustainably) and, in some cases, culling animal populations when Human-wildlife problems become acute. Your extremist agenda has little support.
Why don't you post on a fishing sub?
I do not randomly start promoting shark fishing here. My comments are almost always a response. Several days ago, on this thread, European countries accounts for 22% of shark meat trade , poster r0bbyrb2 wrote:
Who the fuck in Europe is eating sharks?
I then cited the customs of "British “fish and chips” and other European dishes" via a NOAA article. It also discussed how fishing for certain non-endangered shark species in the Atlanic is authorized. I've cited this several times after activists posted wild accusations about endangered shark species being killed with NOAA authorization. NOAA's articles explain a number of things, including how the Endangered Species Act works and science concepts such as sustainable yield and population rebound.
Science seems to be of little interest to most activists here. The OP called NOAA "corrupt." Other posters erroneously claim all sharks are endangered. Some posters have gone an on emotional rant about "sharks being murdered." Fascinating how often people who print disinformation and drivel get outraged when they are challenged.
And fascinating the number of you posters who think your dialogue is improved with obscenities and insults....
You must be really fucking stupid if you think it’s automatically PETAS agenda if it’s not the utilitarian perspective.
You are REALLY bad at this.
Come back when you actually have a marine biology degree.
Facianating how people who print disinformation and drivel.
You do realize a good 80% of your rebuttals to me have been one-sided and fail to show transparency.
Sorry, but the Public at large is not suppprtive of the Peope For The Ethical Treatment of Animals agenda
This right here. This is literally the bulk of your poorly composed rebuttals, and not only is it straight up wrong. It’s based of assumption and a poor understanding of the other side.
Science seems to be of little interest to most activists here.
That’s rich coming from you. Each of your pitiful rebuttals is based off this idea that they are all not part of your opinion and simply this ‘irrefutable’ truth, and that anybody who points out error in your logic is ‘somebody who rejects science’.
You are quite dense if you think that every single thing you post in rebuttal is correct without question.
The key word you mentioned is "misinformation." People on both sides spread misinformation. I don't hunt or kill sharks, but I'm also not a "shark lover." I spend a lot of time in and around the ocean and i have a healthy respect and some level of understanding of sharks. It is actually counter-productive for shark activist to be spreading misinformation about sharks. For example it is de rigueur for people to come up with the old line that sharks don't eat people, it's mistaken identity, they have one bite then swim off. Which is mostly complete bullshit. It does happen. But people also get eaten, I don't know the stats I'd have to google it, but from memory I reckon in Australia about 50% of recent fatal shark attacks, the people have been eaten.
I feel like this is going to sound stupid but I'm not sure how else to phrase the question. So I remember the case last summer in Egypt where it seemed obvious the shark was eating him, it came back several times and unfortunately I don't think they recovered much. My question is how are they(whomever is tracking the shark attacks in Australia) deciding the intention of the sharks? Is it that a attack may be consumed "eating" if the body is similar to that situation or if a person passes after one bite, but is otherwise found whole, that the shark intention was not to eat them?
There are some occasions where a shark bites out of curiosity or fear or aggression. One bite, then they swim off, leaving the victim to die. So the sharks intention wasn't to feed. Bodies that are never recovered or only parts of them recovered, the shark has eaten them. And there are occasions where people are bitten and rescued, but the shark has come back to finish them off. These get mistaken for sharks not being interested in eating them. But they will often bite, their prey, swim off, let the prey bleed out, weaken and return. So the stats are a bit flawed. I would say, at least in Australia, 70% of the attacks are sharks intending to eat the victim, but if they survive or the body is pulled from the water, it would be recorded as a "curiosity bite." Which isn't the case.
You’re so right and I’m glad you said it. I see people say things like “hunters and fishers still love the animals.” No they don’t, that’s literally not how this works at all
I’m fed up with trophy hunters claiming to be animal lovers. On land it’s large cats and elephants, in the sea it’s sharks.
Trophy hunters really are the scum of the Earth, and I’m glad the public is turning against them.
Honestly, hunting for any reason other than food is evil in my book. And even then I’d prefer people didn’t hunt for food. But I digress; I agree with your point on trophy hunters. They do not love the animals they hunt, or respect them.
Subsistence hunting is one thing. Like the San Bushmen in the Kalahari or people who take whitetail deer and turkeys to survive. (People who say I’m completely ‘anti-hunting’ are wrong)
It’s the trophy hunting industry, Safari Club International and Dallas Safari Club I detest.
I swear each time trophy hunters claim ‘CoNsErVaTiOn’ or ‘ComMunIty LivliHoodS’ I enrage…
There’s evidence against those claims btw.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS POST
User deleted comment
18d
Amen brother.
The reason this has been the most interesting and thought provoking post in a long time is because the moderator did not censor “unpopular opinions.”
I’m fed up with this sever and its lack of moderation.
Allowing dumbass Gullible antelope to flaunt his opinion that NOAA is never wrong rhetoric all over the sub. Allowing people yo post pictures of dead sharks. Allowing people to spread misinformation.
I’m done with this sorry excuse for a server.
Oh, and Gullible Antelope. Just know I hope you get what you deserve. As long as theres assholes like you wasting oxygen, I will be a voice for the voiceless.
Raptor Out!
Did you read the mods response? They was fair and made alot of sense. I don’t know who you’re directly talking about I’ve not seen them yet but don’t let a select few ruin it for you.
I’m fed up with this sever and its lack of moderation....Oh, and Gullible Antelope. Just know I hope you get what you deserve. As long as theres assholes like you wasting oxygen....
Does that mean you are leaving the Sharks sub?
Amen to the thread starter. 👍
Wow. This whole conversation went off the rails, fast. Step away from your keyboards.
Shark fans should welcome and debate alternative points of view, subreddits composed of hive minds are boring
Should a scientific subreddit welcome the perspectives of flat earthers or climate change denialists? No because those points of views are ignorant and add zero value to the discussion. Same concept
Not really, unless someone denies the existence of sharks. I for one would be much more interested in a discussion of bull shark populations and the ramifications of culling, as opposed to yet another picture of “cute thresher sharks” or other similar fluff. Why would anyone want to censor unpopular opinions? Such weakness.
What debate? Killing the thing we're all here for? Thats what you wanna debate?
I’ll be gentle since I know English is not the primary language of many posters- I cannot understand how you came to that conclusion from my comment.
This sub is for shark lovers and shark activists.
"This sub is for shark lovers and shark activists" and people who wish to a) disseminate scientific facts about sharks; b) discuss debates that communities in some nations have undertaken with respect to sharks; e.g., shark culling on Reunion Island, and c) reference policies that government agencies have taken on shark fishing, culling, conservation and more.
That includes the U.S.'s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a scientific and regulatory agency that allows SOME shark fishing under its Fisheries service, e.g.; U.S.-Caught Sharks Are a Sustainable Food Choice.
Please leave this server?
I’m fed up with your misinformation.
You're advocating for an echo chamber, I tend to agree with your points but it's important to have opposition, if they're so wrong just refute them
You are being delusional if you don't believe that shark Meat is a big source of protein in many countries and that there are many species capable of sustaining fisheries. I invite you to do some reading on scientific research, reddit and instagram posts are full of misinforming propaganda. I wish the ocean was full of sharks, but stopping fishing is not a realistic solution.
No thanks. Think I'll stay. I suggest you learn to differentiate between facts and opinions.
Says the guy who posts nothing but his dogmatic opinion.
This sub is for shark lovers and activists
This seems like your own interpretation. The sub description is this,
Sharks are amazing, important, and often misunderstood animals. We welcome enthusiasts, experts, and curious minds to dive in and explore the fascinating world of sharks!
I wouldn’t say that this description excludes sport fishing. If a shark has a proven stable population and it’s legal to take that activity doesn’t inherently go against the point of this subreddit.
I am not saying I agree with these activities, but I do think you’re misinterpreting what this sub is about.
The description you just gave me is literally the same as what I said this sub is for.
The sub description does not mention that this sub is exclusively for “shark lovers” and “shark activists.”
Just because it doesn’t say it explicitly doesn’t mean it’s not dude..
Damn so does that mean non shark lovers and activists aren’t welcome? What if I’m just curious about sharks but don’t love them?
This conversation about who it’s ‘for’ is pointless, and besides the point.
Okay, but you do realize that the people that sport fish love those animals right? It’s a different kind of love but it’s still love. Love of the fight and hunt and respect for these predators. Same goes for sport fishermen that go after pelagic fish. There’s nothing inherently wrong with sport fishing. In fact, sport fishing is the reason so many tagging operations are made possible.
Ship time is expensive and sport fisherman love the opportunity to go into places like the farallones to help researchers tag.
Sport fishing is an integral part of accessing this animals for positive outcomes for them. You don’t know enough about this topic to be demanding it be removed from the sub.
It doesn’t make sense to me that someone could claim to love an animal and also kill them for enjoyment. You don’t love the actual animal then, you love that it exists because that allows you to kill it. Killing for food is one thing but killing for sport, you love the ‘sport’, not the animal.
User deleted comment
18d
I know what catch and release is. A lot of sharks can’t handle catch and release.
Like I said, when a shark has a stable population and taking the species is legal there’s nothing wrong with it. I’m not talking about taking oceanic white tips in the Atlantic where they’re listed by the IUCN. I’m talking about data backed stocks that are being properly managed.
Sport fishing is not a problem. Commercial fishing is. More sharks are killed by tuna long liners, etc than sport fishers. If you and all the other shark activists want to help sharks here’s two things you can do. One, stop eating commercially caught fish; two, petition your federal government to ratify this UN Treaty which seeks to enact marine reserves outside economic exclusion zones.
Going after sport fisherman is pointless when the commercial industry does so much more damage.
What if the general public doesn’t approve of shark trophy hunting? Hm? What if they think sharks are worth more alive? Do their wishes mean nothing?
Arguing with you is pointless.
This is r/sharks not r/fishermen
You are imposing your own beliefs upon the rules here. It is quite obvious that this is not an activist only group, there may be many activists in here, but it’s not exclusively for them. There’s even a rule that says no illegal fishing, which indicates even shark fishing isn’t expressly prohibited. There are many shark fishermen who don’t agree with the “sharks are overpopulated, kill em all” mentality, but it is also true that sharks are regulated on a regional level and a general threatened designation doesn’t necessarily mean there cannot be areas with healthy and sustainable populations. You’re reading between lines that aren’t there, why wouldn’t the mods just put “for activists by activists”, you think they prefer to rely on a vague, invisible implication instead?
Moderator removed comment
18d
Your post was removed in violation of Rule 8: Be Nice!
Please review the rules before posting. "No bigotry, racism, homophobia, ableism, sexism, transphobia, or discrimination of any kind. Absolutely no discrimination against users OR subjects of posts/comments is permitted. This includes discrimination based on gender, sex, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, nationality, age, disability, religion/belief, economic status, and language. Repeat offenders will be banned."
Aren’t you two losing the focus? Damn guys…
I haven’t, this guy is seemingly fixated on grammar and specificity.
Agree
Lol, you’re obtuse.
I wouldn’t say that this description excludes sport fishing.
What happens to these sharks? Is it catch and release or are removed from the water to die? If that, are they used for food later or are their bodies just dumped somewhere?
Just asking. I support all commercial shark fishing that is governed by NOAA, a federal agency. Those sharks are eaten. Sharks are also harvested for their skin, and shark liver oil, known as squalene, can be used in cosmetics.
Hello,
I can understand that you love all sharks, and want them all to never be killed.
I don't think that you understand, however, that people like me can also love sharks, while also supporting the legal and sustainable harvesting of them.
You bring up trophy hunting of Elephants in Africa to support your stance, for example. Well, I think you fail to realize that the $$ supplied by the trophy hunters that you vilify is actually the only reason that there are any elephants still alive in the wild. The hunting licenses that they purchase, and the guide fees that they pay, are the only source of $$ that is available to hire game wardens and biologists to protect the animals from poachers and ensure that their populations are healthy.
Without that money to protect the herds, poachers would come in and kill every single last animal. The trophy hunters take 1 animal, and they protect hundreds of others by doing so. Plus the meat is distributed to hundreds, if not thousands, of the local people. Those locals also protect the herd and report poachers, because the animals are so valuable.
Conservation is much more complicated than you seem to know about, and the people that you are vilifying are actually your and the animals' best - possibly only, at times - friends.
Fishing and hunting licenses and taxes on equipment in the USA have brought in hundreds of millions of dollars that has gone directly towards conservation purposes. Again, without that $$, the animals would have zero research, zero biologists, and zero game wardens to study and protect them.
I.E. there would be zero sharks left without the fishermen and their tax money.
We can indeed both love them, and support their sustainable harvesting
Please keep this in mind, and I hope it changes your perception and understanding.
Yeah.
All of this is wrong. Trophy hunting has wiped out big rushers, devastating elephant social structure. That and less that 3% of that money actually goes back to local communities. That and the jobs are menial and limited to a few people.
Absolutely incorrect.
Sorry OP, but your entire premise is flawed. If trophy hunting caused this, then there would no longer be any trophy hunting available, and it would have gone extinct decades ago.
The healthiest populations of all species are found where they are studied and managed scientifically.
Wow. I’ve met some dense hunters and dense hunter supporters.
But the way you just brushed that off so fast was just so over the top crazy.
I love it when you people try to defend trophy hunting and then look stupid as a result lol.
Please explain how I'm wrong. The proof is in the continuation of the practice for decades.
Now proof is in what happened in Kenya when they banned hunting.
Do you know what happened?
Ah yes,
Resorting to the old Kenya argument that every hunter uses. The old
“oh but Kenya banned hunting and poaching spiraled out of control.”
Give a fucking break. You must be super dense if you think this whole conservation and the whole Kenya narrative haven’t been used on me before.
I could go on and on how this isn’t true.
I could argue how East African wildlife declines started way before 1977
Could argue how Tanzania and Zambia’s wildlife populations have been eaten away at by poaching and TH.
But apparently it doesn’t fit your narrative.
I could mention that Kenya’s anti poaching efforts have given them the third largest black rhino population. I could talk about their anti-ivory campaign paying off. But I won’t
please explain how I’m wrong.
See my comment above.
I swear, arguing with you pests is worse than the flat-earthers.
I also have another question for you: What have you done, and how much $$ have you given, to support conservation?
I've personally given thousands of dollars over my lifetime through taxes that I've paid on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment alone, thanks to the Pittman Robertson Act. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act
I hope you have helped as well in some capacity.
So you basically way to simply disregard a perfect example of a real life situation that proves why your logic is flawed.
Well, of course you do.
While you're at it, why don't you tell us who funds the Kenyan anti poaching efforts, and how financially secure the program is.
I'll give you a hint: it rests on a hope and a prayer of charitable donations. We all know how insecure and whimsical that is.
Personally, I'd rather the animals' future be more secure, and legal hunting fees are the best option for that.
User deleted comment
17d
You must be reallt naive to believe in that rubbish without question.
Are you responding to me or the other person who was insisting that hunting elephants is somehow good? Bc my article refutes his point. Hunting sharks or elephants is dumb and does not contribute at all to their conservation fwiw
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood.
User deleted comment
18d
13 missing replies
I see your point, and agree that we would all prefer the sub to always be geared towards shark conservation. Like always, I can’t review every single comment on every single post, so please make sure you are actually reporting these comments so I can see them. Just because a comment/bot post/dead shark post has been up for a few hours doesn’t mean it won’t be gone if you check back later.
I want r/sharks to be a place where shark enthusiasts of all kinds can come together and have a meaningful forum to discuss and share. Limiting access to the sub in any way, such as by not allowing shark fishermen, or even the uninformed and curious, would be detrimental to that. Disagreement is normal, and there’s always a chance for either party to see the other’s point and maybe even change their mind. I want trophy hunters to come here and potentially change their minds when it comes to shark fishing, and I want shark lovers and conservationists to see how commercial shark fishermen are integral to shark research as a whole.
Comment/post removal is up to mod discretion, but straight up asking the mods to remove a comment (which I’ve seen you do) or ban someone is unnecessary. Please remember that all discussion is meaningful, but both parties must remain respectful per the rules or their comments will be removed. Issues with misinformation and/or arguing will be dealt with most promptly. And like I said before, these problems have to be reported or else we may not see them. I appreciate your respectful approach to this issue and hope my comments can provide some insight into my thoughts.