Liverpool FC Forum

[SupitsJonF]

Ha ha, Punch him Sabre 

It's only in good fun   

[mistyred]

Ha ha, Punch him Sabre 

It's only in good fun   

Jon i can't imagine eating "soap" being fun at all 

[SupitsJonF]

Never had a bad mouth as a kid?  I lost a tooth(baby tooth) when my mom got . I told her to shut the hell up and she jammed a bar of soap in my mouth.  Obviously, she had to give me money since I lost a tooth, and she felt bad.  Wasn't loads of fun but it pays

But back on topic, although I hate those scary they are a cool species and just like most animals are vital to the balance of things.  Unfortunately it probably would cost a lot to have hot spots for whales and sharks be guarded.

[aCe']

:D
survival of the fittest and all that... if theyr fit enough to survive in this world they will, if not then tough titty... just how i see things...
same with every other animal out there thats endangered today...

Its alot harder saving animals that live in open waters... if the shark was a bird or a buffalo it would have been much easier saving it... simple property right assignments done in the right way would do the trick... Still doable in open waters but the costs associated with control, regulation and punishment are much higher than what saving the shark is worth...

Still, many would tell you that simply knowing of the existence of an animal that you'll probably never ever see unless you go to a fancy aquarium is worth more than the jobs and utility and human lives that would benefit from such a thing..

I can certainly understand someone who likes shark soap but I can't understand this kind of attitude.

The fact is that even if "you don't see" sharks you'd probably notice their absence from the sea and the effects of it would harm economy.

Nobody should be against fishing sharks, but if their numbers go down in an alarming way you have to control that.

chill fella, was just bringing a different side of the story to the discussion....
Personally im 100% against shark fishing... think theyre absolutely fantastic creatures and whether i see them or not isnt really much of a concern to me...
Dont think theyr absense would 'harm the economy' as you say at all.. not sure the extinction of certain shark species would even have that big an impact on environmental balance but atleast thats disputable to some extent... 

What people dont get is that more species have gone extinct over time than what we have now... its a natural process and its always bound to happen despite our desperate attempts to stop it... and lets face it, not many talk about the lizards and frogs that go extinct or that are endangered, its always the bear, the shark and the owl.... pathetic excuses at times to violate constitution, property, and human rights... end of the day, any money used to save the endangered animal is taxpayer money... so your essentially paying to save the animal whether you believe in the cause or not...

End of the day, many seem to think that saving an endangered species should go beyond the outcomes of a cost-benefit analysis... well thats where it gets debatable as fck if you ask me.. morality and public policy... end of the day you have to link the 2 somehow...

cant be arsed going deeper into the conversation i dont think you're argument extends beyond "lets not kill them to make soup".

[dawson99]

so everyones fine with eating chicken, lamb, pork but not shark?

shuddup the lot of you.

I've had shark, was absolutely lovely, a mixture of chicken and fish... i agree they are killed inhumanely blah blah blah but i think there are slightly more important things going on in the world than sharks.

Don;t get me started on dolphins...

[LFC2007]

This is human intervention that (one presumes going by the numbers) extends beyond what is sustainable, and leaving aside the moral argument, it certainly doesn't make long-term economic sense as you'll soon run out of sharks - the impact on tourism I should think counts as a powerful economic reason that favours regulation. Personally, I haven't anything against shark fishing per se, or exotic game etc. for that matter, so long as they're not endangered species.

[Emerald Red]

so everyones fine with eating chicken, lamb, pork but not shark?

shuddup the lot of you.

I've had shark, was absolutely lovely, a mixture of chicken and fish... i agree they are killed inhumanely blah blah blah but i think there are slightly more important things going on in the world than sharks.

Don;t get me started on dolphins...

You're missing the point. Those animales have been in our ocean for millions of years, and are practically at the top of the evolutionary ladder along with certain reptiles and insects. There's a reason for that, and the main reason is that they have kept the ecosystem in check. Without them, life as we know it know probably wouldn't have been possible, and no I am not talking sh*t either, they are that important to our oceans. Of course it depends on the species of shark, as some are more passive than others, but each has their own role. It won't be our generation to feel the effects of over-hunting and eventual extinction. It'll be the next.

[dawson99]

not my generation, who cares then?

And they can't be that near the top evolution wise or they'd know when to scarper.

It's a shark!!! Haven't you seen Jaws? Those things are b@stards

[Sabre]

This is human intervention that (one presumes going by the numbers) extends beyond what is sustainable, and leaving aside the moral argument, it certainly doesn't make long-term economic sense as you'll soon run out of sharks - the impact on tourism I should think counts as a powerful economic reason that favours regulation. Personally, I haven't anything against shark fishing per se, or exotic game etc. for that matter, so long as they're not endangered species.

There are very pessimistic studies about the sustainability of the resources of the planet if we keep growing in numbers as we are growing.

I know there are a lot of extinguished species, some of which we haven't even classified, but sharks have a key role in waters as predators they are.

Everything is money. Hunting sea turtles might give work and soap for some, but the next summer some waters in France and Spain will have lots of medussas because it's the turtles and some other fishes the ones who eat them. Medussas in beaches mean empty beaches, and that means unemployed people at the surrounding bars too. What to do then? we could do the clever "strongest law" and declare war on Finland

Or alternatively we can watch the numbers of the species we're fishing and keeping some ban periods without fishing and controlling their numbers as we have effectively done with some species like the tuna.

It's not a matter of don't fish, it's a matter of doing it in a sustainable way.

[LFC2007]

Exactly.

It doesn't have to be an enormous cost to keep stock levels at a sustainable level. Some adaptations in fishing methods, restrictions on days at sea, tighter enforcement etc..plus funding for scientists to monitor progress. It more than pays for itself in economic and cultural terms.

Take North Sea cod stocks: alarmingly low a few years ago, but they've recovered to a sustainable level thanks to sensible regulation. It suits everyone alike, from fishery to chippy.

[aCe']

All hail Newkit the saviors of sharks ! ..
its not as simple as you guys seem to think it is... its not like you're stopping people from fishing for sharks in your local malls aquarium...
Ultimately, it comes down to the costs associated with protecting the endangered species, and consequently the benefits of protecting the aforementioned species. Its a rather complicated cost benefit analysis but its necessary at government level nonetheless. Governments do it to determine whether to build a park, a road or a public pool ad they sure as hell should do it (albeit more efficiently) to determine whether an endangered species is worth saving or not. What your suggesting LFC2007 is alot harder in practice than it is in theory...first off, the geographic region in which the fishing takes place for sharks is much wider than that of the north sea cod stocks you talked about... Secondly, most of the shark fishing takes place in developing asian countries where its alot harder to control such activites. Difficulties in terms of costs, regulations, control, examination and action mean that even if certain laws were to be passed, there would be little guarantee that they'd actually have any sort of significant impact in practice...

As i pointed out earlier, many, many species go extinct over time. That is only natural and it happens regardless of human intervention or thereby lack of. The environment ALWAYS self-adjusts when certain elements are taken out of the food chain, regardless of their position or order in it. Anyways, sticking to the topic, not all shark species are endangered . The ones that are endangered (many as they be) are supposedly at all time lows in numbers and yet the impact of their decline in numbers is yet to be determined both in economic AND environmental terms.  For what its worth, i don’t think LFC2007’s assumption with regards to the economic impact counts for much really. It could be argued that sharks have as big a detrimental effect to tourism as it does a beneficial one. Overall, i’d say their impact on tourism, taken in a broader economic context oof a country with regards to economic welfare, is negligible to say the least. 
With regards to sustainability, this is where common sense kicks in. Humans are always believed to think and make decisions rationally (whether they do or not of course is open to debate) . As such, one could argue that the whole sustainability discussion –intrinsically-  is pointless. If humans believed that those shark species were worth more (in any aspect) in the long term than they are now, they wouldn’t be endangered. It all comes down to setting a given moral basis. Are we trying to give our future generations everything that we have today ? if so, then that quite simply isn’t going to happen. It is simply unfeasible and quite honestly unrealistic to think that we would be able to use law and government agencies to protect every endangered species out there .... this is dragging on and im not sure anyones gonna read all this so ill just stop here..

Bottom line, i like the sharks, but if they are of better use to humans in a bowl of soup than they are in an ocean or aquarium, then so be it. The economic and sustainability talk, while seemingly clear of disapproval in moral terms, doesn’t count for much. Humans will always do what they think is best, and the reality of the situation atm and in future times will determine how we feel/felt about certain sharks.

[tubby]

I am a vegetarian so I can geniunley moan. But those who eat meat are partial hypocrites as im sure some of the animals whose meat they eat are killed in equally as shabby methods.

[LFC2007]

All hail aCe', THE international shark/fishing/sustainability expert, specialising in patronage

If humans believed that those shark species were worth more (in any aspect) in the long term than they are now, they wouldn’t be endangered

And nonsense 

[Emerald Red]

not my generation, who cares then?

And they can't be that near the top evolution wise or they'd know when to scarper.

It's a shark!!! Haven't you seen Jaws? Those things are b@stards

Being top of the evolutionary ladder has got nothing to do with how intelligent a creature is. It's simply evolved to the point where it's adapted to it's surroundings and circumstances to an almost perfect form given what it's place is in the world. Sharks have evolved to be perfect at what they do, which is swim and eat. I know you're just being sarcastic for talks sake, though, so nevermind.

[Big Niall]

I've nothing against hunting but isn't it common sense that you don't kill the young ones of a specie because you need them to breed to continue hunting?

Nail, you need ADULT ones to make more young ones. 

Also, a shark pups are highly vulnerable due to the carniverous nature of adult sharks, which makes their dwindling numbers even more concerning due to how difficult it is for them to survive to adult stages.

okay - this is technical but try and follow.

The adult of a specie comes from not killing the young of a specie.