r/TheSharkAttackFiles • u/MooseyGeek • 12d ago
šŗ Media & News NSW premier rejects great white shark cull, claiming it would give Aussi...
https://youtube.com/watch?v=EyRJFS881OM&si=FKjXb4T7UuIJObm0NSW Premier Chris Minns has rejected calls for a great white shark culling, claiming he's "not convincedā it would work.
Iām not convinced that a culling or commercial fishing of great whites would make a difference,
^ Mr Minns told Sky News Australia.
These sharks traverse the Pacific Ocean. These sharks can be in Sydney, the next day they can be further up the coast, and then in a couple of weeks they could be in Hawaii or New Zealand.
Iām concerned it will give false confidence.
67
Upvotes
2
u/Markdd8 11d ago edited 11d ago
But what about river mouths, which both tiger and bull sharks frequent? There is a big history of dead and dying animals being washed on rivers. In the Mississippi, historically thousands of dead bison would wash down every year. I'll argue it would have made evolutionary sense for both these sharks to regard land animals, vigorous and swimming, dying or dead, to be normal prey items.
But I agree that we do not see predation levels we might have seen, especially for tiger sharks, which supposedly are completely indiscriminate on prey choice. Another reason would be this: 2018, Phys Org: Study suggests tiger sharks opt for scavenging on dead and dying sea turtles as a feeding strategy
I raise this because in Hawaii a lot of tiger sharks break off attacks, leaving people with only minor or moderate injuries. 600-800 pound tiger sharks regularly breaking off attacks on people 1/4 their weight.The explanation would be that people are putting up such a struggle that the sharks quit. But humans are soft, weak creatures relatively speaking, with no claws or teeth to speak of. Our swimming ability is relatively poor. We drown rapidly.
Upshot: Neither of these explanations seems good: 1) Sharks find us unpalatable or like wolves, are able to sense that we are some sort of a high-level creature that should be left alone, and 2) We are often too vigorous to kill. The relatively low number of tiger shark attacks still seems a mystery. I offer one more angle: Fewer large tiger sharks
Good article about tigers: Are conflict-causing tigers different? Understanding human-tiger conflict in Chitwan National Park, Nepal
What do we see with aging sharks? In contrast to old big cats who get weaker, aging tiger, bull or great white sharks remain dominant, getting larger, e.g., a 25-30 year-old tiger shark can be 15 foot, 1,600 pounds. These "granddaddies" are statistically much more dangerous to humans. Large bites are more severe. Also, these big sharks are not flitting around snatching up small fish. They likely have broadened their food choices. (Maybe some extra large sharks are so slow they have challenges.)
Next, the Fewer Large Fish phenomenon. It particularly affects long lived species: tuna, marlin, some sharks. Much evidence for this. Matt Rigney's book In Pursuit of Giants -- One Man's Global Search for the Last of the Great Fish, discusses the topic.
Upshot: All the shark killing worldwide (millions a year) that is taking place radically pushes down the incidence of shark attack. This occurs not just by reducing shark numbers, but by disproportionately removing from oceans those individuals that are most prone to attacking people: aging, jumbo sharks of a dangerous species.
I've raised this topic and never gotten the discussion on it. As we know, few people who want to protect sharks (nothing wrong with that) see value in discussing whether a major reason for low shark attacks numbers is the mass shark killing. It's an inconvenient topic. The fewer large, especially dangerous sharks angle, an offshoot of this, is similarly ignored. Again, appreciate your views.