Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

The Problem With Problem Sharks (nytimes.com) 100

Posted by msmash from the complex-problems dept.
A marine biologist's ideas for singling out sharks that attack humans have prompted objections from other shark scientists. From a report: The war on sharks has been waged with shock and awe at times. When a shark bit or killed a swimmer, people within the past century might take out hundreds of the marine predators to quell the panic, like executing everyone in a police lineup in order to ensure justice was dispensed on the guilty party. Eric Clua, a professor of marine biology at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes in Paris, said the rationale behind shark culls in the past was simple: fewer sharks, fewer attacks. That reasoning also drives methods such as shark nets and baited hooks, which are currently in use at a number of Australian and South African beaches that are frequently visited by sharks. Nature, he notes, pays too great a price. "They are killing sharks that are guilty of nothing," said Dr. Clua, who studies the ocean predators up close in the South Pacific.

Dr. Clua said he has found a way to make precision strikes on sharks that have attacked people through a form of DNA profiling he calls "biteprinting." He believes it's usually just solo "problem sharks" that attack humans repeatedly, analogizing them to terrestrial predators that have been documented behaving the same way. Instead of culling every bear, tiger or lion when only one has serially attacked people, wildlife managers on land usually focus their ire on the culprit. Dr. Clua said that problem sharks could be dispatched the same way. This summer, Dr. Clua and several colleagues published their latest paper on collecting DNA from the biteprints of large numbers of sharks. Once a database is built, DNA could be collected from the wounds of people who were bitten by sharks, and matched to a known shark. The offending fish would then need to be found and killed. Critics have taken issue with every facet of this plan.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Problem With Problem Sharks More

The Problem With Problem Sharks

Comments Filter:

  • Put an laser on them (Score:5, Funny)

    by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Friday January 01, 2021 @05:04PM (#60885408)

    Put an laser on them

  • so what, just a beast (Score:3)

    by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Friday January 01, 2021 @05:08PM (#60885418)

    Sounds good to me, there is no notion of "guilt" or "innocence" here, just a shark that might get taste and reinforced behavior for hunting humans. Let's help evolution along by making biting a human high risk.

    • Re:so what, just a beast (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 01, 2021 @05:32PM (#60885466)
      most shark attacks are mistaken identity or a shark just being inquisitive (yes they are inquisitive with there mouths), hence it is usually a single bite. humans aren't for the most part likely to be tasty for them, they want the blubber of marine animals.

      • just the blubber of marine animals The complete quote was, They have a preference for the blubber of marine animals, and you are neither, Steve

      • It doesn't matter. It's not a question of either morality or prey behaviour. The shark is innocent and just being a shark. If we, as humans, have a way to influence the population of sharks so they are less prone to bite humans, regardless of why they bite humans, then that means that a) the shark population can continue to exist and thrive b) there will be less encounters with humans which will mean c) humans will have one fewer reason to want to destroy them and d) circling back to (a) - the shark populat

      • The single-bite thing is a bit misleading, I believe. My understanding is that great whites' feeding pattern is to bite the prey item and then wait for it to exsanguinate and die before consuming it. If the human is rescued in the interim, the feed would be interrupted.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        Irrelevant factoid. We're talking evolution functioning as intended. Humans and most primates have a natural hard-coded brain-level response to snakes for a reason.

        The plan here is to use the same mechanisms to develop natural aversion to humans in sharks over long period of time through nudging evolutionary processes in the appropriate direction. When every shark that is driven to take a bite at a human is culled from the gene pool, remaining sharks will slowly drift toward natural aversion toward such act

      • Then kill them for being inquisitive. We can't have them maiming people.

    • Indeed. The objections to this plan are basically, "It is better than what we do now, but it isn't a perfect solution, so we shouldn't do it."

      Several objectors in TFA stated that there is little scientific evidence that "problem sharks" are really responsible for a disproportionate number of attacks.

      But killing "problem sharks" is not about science. It is about marketing. If you want people to come to the beach, you need to show that you are "doing something" about the perceived danger of shark attacks.

      • Sure, I don't know what is so hard to understand about that. But if this guy is serious, he needs to get serious about marketing.
        Every year publicize the number of sharks that would not have been culled if his program was implemented (compared to mass culls).
        The other side of this is implementing his plan implies a comprehensively thorough survey of shark populations in order to track DNA.
        That in itself should be appealing from perspective of most accurate research and management program, so what is the rea

    • Yeah, it is a general principle for humanity. We kill any animal that is dumb enough to attacks us. It is just a lot better if we can focus the retribution, so we don't cause needless harm.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        It is a general principle for every apex predator, and is a natural part of "eliminate competition within your ecological niche" drive present in all living beings on the planet, down to single cell organisms.

        • This has nothing to do with competition, but removal of dangers.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

            Recommended reading: the way lions treat pups of smaller predators that present no danger to them even in adult form, such as leopards and cheetahs.

            • Recommended reading: the way lions treat pups of smaller predators that present no danger to them even in adult form, such as leopards and cheetahs.

              And what on Earth does that have to do with humans??? And us removing dangerous animals from our surroundings including dangerous animals that are not predators.

              If you want to be an animal, go live in a zoo.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

                Ah, you're one of the science deniers who think that humans aren't animals, and don't believe in evolution.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      Not reinforced behaviour, one off hunting behaviour learnt in youth. Shark moves into new territory, detects potential prey, unknown type, it circles getting closer and closer testing for dangerous reaction from the unknown targeted prey. Little reaction, moves in makes a strike, and rapidly moves on. The strike to test the preys flesh and blood for potential toxins, a taste, but still hard enough to disable the prey, make it bleed, weaken it, it case it can escape. After waiting for a bit, testing for any

    • Let's help evolution along by making biting a human high risk.

      You can't evolve something away by removing from the gene pool the entity which learned the behaviour.

      The best we can do is prevent evolution from getting a true human bloodlust.

    • It's an idiotic idea. You'd have to capturize millions of sharks and tag them with tracking technology that doesn't exist so when you got their DNA from a person shark bite you could actually go find that specific shark.

  • Nature is a horrible shitshow (Score:3)

    by Pinky's Brain ( 1158667 ) on Friday January 01, 2021 @05:10PM (#60885422)

    Nature is a horrible shitshow. There is the danger of hubris and unintended consequences in changing it, but knee jerking against shaping nature to make it less horrible for humans just for the sake of preservation is Ludditism.

    Perhaps in a far future we can sand down more rough corners ... humans as god, recreating Eden.

    • shaping nature to make it less horrible for humans just for the sake of preservation is Ludditism.

      Ludditism? How is that Ludditism? Quite the opposite, using technology and intelligence to do something beneficial to humans. Blindly mass killing of sharks is Ludditism.

      • He isn't suggesting doing it blindly.

      • PS. I think you misread what I said, the way you quoted me turns the meaning of the sentence on its head.

      • Regarding Luddites, I would say the comparison is a good one. The Luddites had perfectly reasonable objections to the machines that were destroying their way of life. Also the people investing in said machines are remembered as being some of the worst humanity had to offer. That said the Luddites would have ultimately held back labor saving progress and kept life full of drudgery for everyone. They were doing the wrong things for the right reasons.

      • https://www.vice.com/en/articl... [vice.com]

        Killing sharks has nothing at all to do with labor activism.

        I'd rather be Luddite than an aliterate[].

      • There's no intelligence in this idea. It would be far smarter to design some type of device that swimmers or have designated areas protected by drones that it would to think that you can create a database of shark DNA. You have to capture all those sharks and in the process you're harving them even though like 99.9 have done nothing wrong. So now you tag them but you're tracking technology isn't good enough so what You're going to bring them back up and retag them all every couple years when the batterie

    • Huh? Shaping nature in their favor is the prerogative of all species. You can't live in nature without changing it in your favor. Birds weren't be allowed to build nests. Animals won't be allowed to burrow. Beavers wouldn't be able to make dams. Hell certain bacteria, parasites, or even wasps go as far as genetically altering their food. And yes a certain species of wasp genetically engineers its own food by injecting them with a special virus. Reference: https://journals.plos.org/plos... [plos.org]

      • Why do people see animals and nature as separate? It's all the same system. Humans and dogs and caterpillars and apple trees are all nature and everything they've ever done falls under natural law if you want to be technical about it. They're all just bundles of chemicals consuming fuel and attempting to continue their chemical reaction indefinitely. Some of the chemicals reactions are more complex than others, but very few of them are all that unique from each other. Just because humans got a lit

    • Swimming in the ocean is stupid. I fail to see how swimming in the ocean advances human technology. Boats have been around for a long time.

  • You have a few idiots racing their bicycles down the pedesteian areas, colliding with old people that erratically moved sideways, suddenly ALL bicycles are banned from ALL pedestrian areas.

    We always say the N@zis wanted to punish everyone for the wrongdoings of a very few, but it's the basis of most of our laws too.

    Of course one should never punish innocent people.

    And the reply is always "But that is /complicated/!" Or "How would you do that? Can't be done.". Translation: "We are too lazy, and too stupid, a

    • It's a shark, not a human.

      Dunno about you, but I'm not a vegan so I don't see why notions of risking punishing the innocent should be applied to sharks ... then again, even if I were a vegan the shark definitely isn't, so it's far from innocent.

      • You canâ(TM)t apply the word âoeinnocentâ in the context of wild animals. Sharks eat things in the water, thatâ(TM)s just the way they are. You cannot âoeset an example âoe with one or more animals. If a wild animal attacks you, itâ(TM)s because thatâ(TM)s what they do. There is no guilty or innocent in this context.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        The thing here is that sharks are a pretty important animal for oceanic ecology. So unless we're willing to perform a detailed analysis and somehow replace them within that niche, we should attempt to minimize the culls where possible, as long as that doesn't increase human fatalities.

        I.e. it's a completely correct action to kill a thousand sharks to save a single human, but if we can kill ten sharks to save that one human instead, and it doesn't require an overwhelming effort to do so, we should at least t

        • Who cares about the ideology. The first thing you need to do is figure out if the idea can actually be engineered. In this case it can't. You can't capture like millions of sharks and tag them with tracking technology and then get their DNA from a shark bite and somehow go find the shark with your super shark tracking gadget. Shark's roam thousands of miles, there's billions of them in the sea and catching them is both dangerous to the shark and to the human sketching them. I guarantee if you try to like

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

            >Shark's roam thousands of miles, there's billions of them in the sea and catching them is both dangerous to the shark and to the human sketching them.

            Do you realise that this is an argument against mass culls of sharks in the region in the wake of an attack? After all, at this point you may be doing the opposite - culling the population that encountered and learned to not attack humans, and inviting a new one that has no such experience?

    • "You have a few idiots racing their bicycles down the pedesteian areas, colliding with old people that erratically moved sideways, suddenly ALL bicycles are banned from ALL pedestrian areas."

      For good reason. And not just old people. It's not safe for people, in general, to have 100 kg human+metal contraptions whiz past their ears at 40 kmph. Any human body coming into contact isn't safe (remember kinetic energy = 1/2 m v^2 ) - neither for the rider, not the pedestrian.

      Now factor in kids and dogs.

      It's a no-brainer. No, it's not punishment. To be safe for bikes, you need wider footpaths or marked shared zones where the bike must slowdown and give way to pedestrians. Bikes do not belong on genera

      • Translation: "I have done a shallow analysis and safety is the most important thing imaginable, its so important that I dont even have to consider how important it is, or even pretend that I am, its that god damned important"
        • It's just that there aren't that many people that ride bicycles and there's a lot more force involved in a bicycle because they can go kind of fast and the whole speed times mass equals force. So, a bicycle is more dangerous than a person jogging or walking and that has to be respected, but more importantly bicycling isn't all that popular among the majority and when it comes down to it that's often what determines laws. And it's not like a close second kind of scenario, bicycling is a complete niche demo

  • I always root for the underdogs

  • Also ... regarding attacking humans... (Score:3)

    by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 ) on Friday January 01, 2021 @05:21PM (#60885442)

    Saying it is wrong to attack a human as literally any other lifeform on the planet, is like saying it is wrong to attack a Covid particle as literally any human.

    Yes, murder is bad. But you can't deny that one gets where they are coming from, and why we look threatening to them.
    I mean, you can argue they aren't that smart, but, just like when humanity would take no action against Covid and only those that fought it and won would survive, ... even a lifeform with no brains at all, only guided by evolution, would arrive at that behavior after quite a short amount of time.

    • If a wild animal eats a human, itâ(TM)s not murder, itâ(TM)s just the normal flow of life.

    • Saying it is wrong to attack a human as literally any other lifeform on the planet, is like saying it is wrong to attack a Covid particle as literally any human.

      Wow. You just equated the death of a thinking living animal with that of an unconscious viral cell. Don't ever comment on morality again.

      Just when I thought you've reached peak moron you come out and surprise us all with a new one.

  • Look them up for a few years in and assume they are now cured and will never offend again.

    Underwater cages mind ( for the sharks ).

    • Are you speaking as a Frenchman? Because the marine biologist who issued the proposal mentioned in the linked article is French.

  • Think they're bad now? (Score:5, Funny)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Friday January 01, 2021 @05:36PM (#60885478)
    Wait 'till they get agents and get cast on Shark Week.

  • Which is the anomaly? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Friday January 01, 2021 @05:43PM (#60885500)

    TFS talks as if sharks attacking humans is some kind of unnatural act on the part of sharks.

    But what's more unnatural? Sharks chomping on slow-moving meat dangling in front of their faces, or clueless land-based primates floating around in the ocean for no apparent reason?

    It always cracks me up when it makes the national news after great white sharks are spotted near somewhere like New Jersey. "Breaking News: Sharks are swimming in the ocean!"

    • Gasp!!! Sharks??? In the ocean???

    • What's wrong with unnatural?

      I've got an unnatural plate on my leg which prevented to me from being a cripple, I much prefer that to a natural sharkbite ... fuck nature.

    • Re:Which is the anomaly? (Score:5, Informative)

      by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Friday January 01, 2021 @06:44PM (#60885646) Journal

      TFS talks as if sharks attacking humans is some kind of unnatural act on the part of sharks.

      It is. Sharks rarely attack humans.

      • TFS talks as if sharks attacking humans is some kind of unnatural act on the part of sharks.

        It is. Sharks rarely attack humans.

        The analogy with bears is a very good one. Bears on the whole very rarely attack humans, preferring mostly to stay far away from us, but individual bears who have attacked a human once are extremely likely to do it again. I see no reason that sharks couldn't behave the same way. I don't know that they do, but it's certainly within the realm of possibility, and if true it makes sense to adjust our approach to shark attacks.

    • It's unusual. Humans have been eating a lot more sharks than sharks eat humans at least since humans learned to fish with tools. Some evolution has doubtless occurred, even if it is evolution by extinction for shark breeds that attach humans casually.

    • Do you eat shit because it happens to be the same colour as chocolate?

      Sharks attacking humans is absolutely unnatural. They don't blindly go for "dangling meat". They go for very specific meat with specific smells. It's one of the reasons you're actually quite okay to go diving in the middle of a shark feeding frenzy, they have zero interest in eating humans and when sharks do attack they are usually under very specific circumstances that lead to mistaken identity.

      Heck man you're acting like you've never sw

      • Hey, I suggest you test your theory.

        Make sure you ditch the stinky chemically neoprene diving suit. Find somewhere teeming with bull sharks (not those cute miniature sharks that people "swim with").

        Bring along a razor and put a nice slash in your arm. I'm sure that now the sharks can smell exactly what you are, they'll be so repelled by your disgusting flavor that they'll totally leave you alone.

        Not.

        • Hey, I suggest you test your theory.

          Make sure you ditch the stinky chemically neoprene diving suit.

          I've been diving with sharks many times, both with and without a wet suit (which I assume is what you mean by "neoprene diving suit"). There's no difference in their reactions. If anything about divers' equipment protects them, though, I think it's far more likely to be the large steel or aluminum cylinder on their back, not the wet suit. On the other hand, I've seen freedivers around sharks on a few occasions, and the sharks don't seem to have any interest in them, either.

          Find somewhere teeming with bull sharks (not those cute miniature sharks that people "swim with").

          I've dived with great white sharks

          • Ok. Then go do the experiment and get back to me.

            • Ok. Then go do the experiment and get back to me.

              I've already done it, all but the cut, and many others have tested that. Can you not read?

              • Unlike what you assert about sharks being Noble Savages, sharks can and do attack people. The surviving sailors from the USS Indianapolis could have told you how much they're repelled by human blood.

                So stop yammering here and go try it, with the cut, and without any diving gear.

  • "Not guilty" sharks? Sharks aren't intelligent, and have no sense of morals. They are killing machines, and they'll kill and eat each other gladly. A shark who attacks a swimmer isn't "guilty" of anything other than being a shark.

    At the same time, since they aren't sentient, killing a shark does not incur any moral problem, no matter how many you kill.

    • Careless "winnowing" may cause some ecological issues. Are the sharks willing to attack humans part of an important biological group, such as perhaps the female sharks in breeding season? And are the vast majority of shark attacks due to human provocation, as seems the case, and reducing injuries would be better served by teaching humans not to provoke the sharks?

      • And are the vast majority of shark attacks due to human provocation, as seems the case

        Why do you think that? Most shark attacks I've looked at have not been due to human provocation.

      • There aren't very many shark bites. It's unlikely that any such culling will be a significant threat to shark populations. Shark fin soup is a much greater threat.

        • I think they've already _been_ culled. Sharks that go near humans have been considered food ever since humans developed tools for fishing.

  • Walk up to a bear and poke itâ(TM)s belly with a stick. If it attacks you, then itâ(TM)s your fault, not the bear. If you jump into the water with a shark, and it bites you, itâ(TM)s your fault, not the shark
  • This seems to be more in the nature of people who like to tell you why something can't be done instead of finding a solution and making it happen.

  • Jaws (Score:3)

    by The Evil Atheist ( 2484676 ) on Friday January 01, 2021 @07:06PM (#60885682)
    Shark attacks are rare, and rare enough that we should literally do nothing about it, other than warn people when there's sharks in the area. People need to stop getting scared due to imaginary concerns that come from movies.

    • Sure you ignore them now because even Jaws only killed a few people. But soon enough you'll have Sharknado 5 where a nuclear powered sharknado launches sharks into the middle of a city centre vapourising people instantly. If we don't get ahead of the problem now we may all be wiped out!

  • Just take away ... (Score:3)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Friday January 01, 2021 @07:39PM (#60885764)

    ... their law libraries.

  • "Five of the attacks were fatal." (internationally).

    Huh?! - oh, that was 2019.

    In 2020 we had 7 fatal shark attacks just in Australia. (And an 8th who was revived.)

    • Most shark encounters would have been pleasant. Dozens, including injuries, that weren't though. Among them a 10yo child pulled overboard - cleaning fish catch can be risky.

    • correction: I miscounted: There were 8 fatal attacks on humans by sharks in Australia in 2020. And the 'revived' victim had stopped breathing, but heart was still beating. Attack was 30mi offshore.

  • I think it was on "60 Minutes" where the interviewee pointed out that we often dress to look just like their food.

  • No surprise they find us tasty as well. We eat far more of them (they're like a cross between fish and beef) than they do us.

    While shark prices have risen (it used to be cheap) it's well worth a try.

    • Hmmm. A delicacy?

      In Australia 'flake', or mystery shark meat, is usually the cheapest deep fried option at the local fishandchip takeaway.

  • Why sharks? (Score:3)

    by Joe2020 ( 6760092 ) on Friday January 01, 2021 @09:05PM (#60885960)

    Crocodiles are the worst. These kill more humans each year than sharks, lions and tigers combined, and they have been targeting humans since the first humans walked the Earth. Humans are a part of their diet. Crocodiles prey on anything that needs water to survive by hiding in ponds, lakes and rivers, and they will not just kill, but rip their victims into piece and devour every body part from feet to skull.

    So if this was about bringing a man eater to extinction then at least start with the nastiest of them all and not simply sharks. But who understands humans... No dodo bird will have ever killed a single human but we sure got them extinct.

    This just seems to be an act of aggression against an unloved fish near popular vacation beaches, where people try to relax, but can't because of their fear of sharks and so it hurts the tourist economy... Well, I hope they like squid better, because squid will often replace sharks and can attack humans, too. Some squids hunt in groups and you do not want to get caught swimming in the open when they do.

  • If you really want to stop shark bites then invent some type of clothing that uses an electric pulse or a certain type of material that makes sharks really not want to bite people. If that's impossible then use drones copters and submersible to detect sharks in the areas that are popular for swimming and figure out a way to just chase them off. There's tons of problems with the DNA idea. First off you have to unnecessarily capture a bunch of sharks, way more than you normally would just to study and they

    • The DNA idea is laughable. Off Florida's beaches alone there are typically thousands of sharks swimming in the water (visible from the air, see picture in this link [cntraveler.com])

  • What the author (and many commenters) of this post fail to address is that many sharks in this subgroup have unwittingly been transported over land mass by many, many (far too) long-lived tornadoes. They've been cut off from their normal food supply of fishies and seals, so they have to avail themselves of whatever food offers. It's also NOT their fault that the large supply of land-based humans are susceptible to answering the door for pizza delivery and candygrams, and are thus dying gorily at a much high
  • > When a shark bit or killed a swimmer, people within the past century might take out hundreds of the marine predators to quell the panic, like executing everyone in a police lineup in order to ensure justice was dispensed on the guilty party.

    I see, elections are over.

Slashdot Top Deals

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Close