Sharks: To Be Hunted or Conserved?

Many people know about illegal fishing and over-fishing, and that it involved in a lot of fish being caught, and most - thrown out, simply because it's not the fish the fishers wanted. The Shark is one of these types of animals, caught in the nets, and then thrown out.

What many people may not know is that there is a delicacy in Asia, called the 'shark fin soup' - a soup with a shark's fin in it to show a status of wealth, as we as add some little flavoring.
The answer to the question of 'where do they get that shark fin from?' is simple - from a shark. However, many sharks are illegally hunted, caught, have their fins cut off and are simply thrown back into the water to die.

Shark attacks happen everywhere, all around the world, constantly. In a year, around 5 deaths caused by shark attacks happen, with many injuries, however, each year, approximately 70 million sharks are killed by humans.

As famously portrayed by Jaws (and many other movies), sharks are dangerous creatures. They attack, and if they don't kill and eat, seriously injure the victim for a short period of time, or a lifetime.

People all around the world have their own debates and opinions. Some say that sharks shaped the oceans to be the way they are, and say that there is a need to save sharks and ban the illegal shark finning industries. Some say that sharks 'deserve' to die because they are monsters that attack and injure people on a regular basis, and terrorize people everywhere. Others agree to the banning rule, but propose a 'shark farm' to grow sharks for soups and other shark-including meals.

Where do you stand, what's your opinion? - Take The Poll!

Note About Poll:
It is optional.
This poll is just for gathering a few statistics on public opinions, and does not record any IP addresses or names, completely anonymous. I'm doing a research project, and I was interested in some public opinions from around the world... Thank you! ^.^

Conserved. We go into their territory and they, confusing us for prey (they don't even like the taste of humans!) bite. I'm from Western Australia, which periodically goes into a frenzy about one shark incident and vows to kill all the sharks. It's disgusting.

And re: shark fin, there are whole areas of sea devoid of life because shark carcasses, sans fins, are thrown back in the water, and everything is poisoned by the nitrogen in the corpses. The sea creatures can't breathe, they die, the water looks pristine and clear because it's empty. Whole ecosystems destroyed because of the false value attributed to something - it's another form of the diamond issue.

We're supposed to conserve sharks because I believe they're becoming extinct. I've learned that sharks don't harm unless provoked and they eat what other sea animals eat. They're also territorial and if humans enter their territory, they're provoked and they fight back.

Humans are at the top of the food chain, we are brighter and smarter than any other being living on earth but that doesn't mean we have the right to kill whatever we think can harm us. Sharks are one of those animals who we know can cause harm to us but from the 370 species of shark we know, only 3 causes harm (great white shark, tiger shark, bull shark).

Some people really misunderstand sharks.

a mimosa pudica:

Humans are at the top of the food chain, we are brighter and smarter than any other being living on earth

Eh, I don't think being smart puts creatures at the top of the food chain. Pigs are as intelligent as human toddlers, dolphins are highly intelligent, apes/monkeys, parrots - we don't automatically put those at the top of their respective chains. If a human was to fight a lion, tiger, bear or shark they would lose, unless they had fairly intense weaponry. And weapons aren't developed by one human. I think the main thing that humans have is communication and education, on a different scale to other creatures, so we can build on our knowledge and create more highly developed tools each generation. But if we look at it as 'food' and a 'chain', intelligence isn't the salient feature. Small creatures might 'use', say, other animals, to get food for themselves (e.g. scavenger animals) - that doesn't put them higher on the food chain than what they eat, even if it's a smart way to get food. But humanity is quite different in its structure? So I think the food chain metaphor is flawed wrt us.

@ pravda.
I think I didn't elaborate enough. It is because of our knowledge that we put ourselves above everything else. Humans (not only one) have evolved along with our surroundings. Yes, humans' structure is different (but close to apes, I guess).

Intelligence varies with different creatures and ours is closer to evolved than others. Through time, we've grown morals (thus there are religions and beliefs) which allow us to know the difference between right and wrong. We have created instruments that can harm the environment but the only thing is that we misuse it. That makes us very dangerous to other creatures.

a mimosa pudica:

Through time, we've grown morals (thus there are religions and beliefs) which allow us to know the difference between right and wrong.

Aha this is debatable. But also morals have been seen in other animals. But also yes that is the point of e.g. conversations like this, that we're misusing our tools/power.

@ pravda.
Yes, that statement is still debatable. I know that animals have morals too but not enough to really prove anything yet. I might have to search some of that up.

But anyway, I really do love sharks and I don't think they will cause harm to anyone unless needed. I just recently read this article about a 48-year old woman who broke the record of solo-swimming in the red triangle. There were 3 sharks killed because they were close enough to harm her, I believe. To be honest, I find that selfish because of trying to break some record and unnecessary because you don't need to kill sharks that live there.

That article was posted way long ago. 2011, and I just read it now.

People kill more sharks than sharks kill people. So I think people are the monsters in the equation.

In my opinion, whether an animal is considered scary or cute is least important when considering conserving them as a species.

Sharks are apex predators and often keystone species. They are of great value to their respective ecosystems in terms of sustainability.

"Shark attacks happen everywhere, all around the world, constantly. In a year, around 5 deaths caused by shark attacks happen, with many injuries, however, each year, approximately 70 million sharks are killed by humans."

Shark attacks are not happening constantly if about 5 people are dying a year and still very few are being injured.

Yes, if you are attacked by a shark, you will be most likely injured for life and/or dead. That's true if you're attacked by most large predators. Even small animals have the opportunity to do it. People get mauled and killed by dogs. You're way more likely to die from a lot of other animals. This infographic is good. Snails are 1000 times more likely to cause your death than sharks are.

Also, Jaws is not a reason to allow shark hunting. Jaws was, first and foremost, a thriller. The whole point of that movie was to scare people. It wasn't a documentary. It wasn't based in reality. This was purposely a terrifying situation because that's what the genre does. There are thrillers based on lions, crocodiles, alligators, spiders, komodo dragons, sabretooths, dogs, birds, monkeys, piranhas, cats, rats, beavers, and probably a lot more that I can't think of right now.

I saw that sharks only kill five people on average, and that was the lowest of deaths caused by animals.

@ CallusedSilk
I agree, Jaws was and is not a documentary. It was a movie with a thriller genre.

---

I honestly think sharks are the most beautiful creatures in the water.

@ ashlyn harris.
They are basically the lowest. You're way more likely to be killed by a dog than a shark.