Was reading this article yesterday written by Jack Harbour in the Gold Coast Bulletin (Australia) and I found the topic of "nuisance" sharks kind of interesting. It was actually about Leonard Malcolmson, a fisherman who spent much of his career disposing of sharks that had created trouble with humans in his local waters.
|Leonard Malcolmson | Photo: Gold Coast Bulletin|
I guess to most people, all sharks are probably considered a nuisance, but with groups such as Ocearch out there studying the behavior of sharks, and their efforts being more widely picked up by the media in the name of conservation, I wonder if these two agendas butt heads?
There were a few good quotes in the article, but this one jumped out at me the most:
These sharks, once they get the idea that human beings can be attacked … they continue to do so until you get rid of them...
It's kind of like that old "once they get a taste for blood" argument that justifies culling in other species of animals once they strike out against humans, whether provoked or not. Happens with all kinds of predators such as alligators, bears, and big cats. Heck, forget predators, it happens to household pets such as dogs.
I'm not one to advocate a "shark hunt," but kind of makes you wonder if Mr. Malcolmson has a point and if there should be the same sort of approach to this sort of thing in the sea as there is on land? Sure, this is Australia, but there have been quite a few shark attacks in my area of Florida this year, don't recall anybody calling Brody or Quint to come take care of them in the days that followed...
Just talking out loud. I'm not certain attempting to remove nuisance sharks would really make the water any safer, as pointed out in this article by Melissa Cronin of Motherboard from last year regarding a similar circumstance in North Carolina, but certainly food for thought (no horrible pun intended).