Hope you Mass fellas weren't watching Sharkweek.... That "shark cam" that followed that 17' white was knarly. I could not imagine a shark that big hunting in water that shallow. 3' of water and a 17' shark swimming around!!! That's heavy.
It's crazy how they adapt to their surroundings and hunt accordingly. It would swim in between sandbars to stay as deep as possible.
Results 1 to 10 of 141
Thread: Sharkweek Cape Cod
Aug 6, 2013, 05:06 AM #1
Sharkweek Cape Cod
Aug 6, 2013, 10:34 AM #2Banned
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
The reason shark attack statistics look like it's a remote chance overall is because there aren't white's patrolling an area like that. You don't see that in Jersey. lol You can't safely swim/surf with multiple gw's patrolling a shoreline in a hunting pattern like that. Obviously. Looks more like area's of Australia or South Africa than Massachusetts. No attacks for 80 years in Ma. Suddenly sharks reappear and you have an attack last year. There will be more and more attacks in the coming years if nothing is done. The seals draw in the sharks. Then ocean is huge. GW's that are extremely large, mature, and dangerous hunt seals like this. When their smaller they hunt fish instead and have a completely different hunting pattern. It will take a few fatalities in a single year before they realize they need to cull the sharks and control the seal population. You can relocate the seals or fix all the females to stop breeding. That shark cam didn't really tell us anything we didn't already know. This whole shark week is a ratings grab for the discovery channel. Just look that megalodon fake documentary. One week of propoganda by shark "conservationist" who seem to hate their own kind, but love sharks. You can hear the b.s by the narrator and the people who clearly have a bias on many of these documentaries. At least that shark cam showed the true danger on camera. I'll give it that. But we already knew how close they hunted to shore. People have been attacked by white's in chest deep water on many occasions.
Unlike the b.s. stated in many of these documentaries, the ecosystem will survive even IF gw's were completely eliminated. And simply removing white's from a few very near shore beach environments like cape cod won't eliminate the species anyway. And if you got rid of the seals then you have no sharks hunting in the area like this. The seal population will keep growing and more and more whites will start coming in to feed. This is a recipe for disaster for anyone swimming/surfing there.
It's funny how they keep saying how endangered whites are, yet they have no numbers to back it up and admit they have no idea. Also, all this stuff about this being the sharks home is a bunch of b.s. People have every right to swim in the ocean safely. It's a sad state of morality when a shark is considered more valuable than a human's life. It's just a fish. GW's are good for tearing apart cute, sweet, and much smarter seals.(sort of like a fish eating your dog). Just because it's "natural" doesn't mean it's good. A year old child getting leukemia is "natural". Thinning out the herd. I think we as people can a little more heart/compassion than this. But hey I know the politics of the people on this forum. If you like sharks so much. Find that beach with seals on it and surf RIGHT there every day for a few summers. Hell, why not just sacrifice yourself to the shark. Go to the falkans and get towed behind a boat on a small surfboard in the kill zone. It's a million to one right? Then why does it take less than a day to get an attack on the board? The shark is more important than you right? He needs a meal. The truth is that a lot of these crackpot shark conservationists posting on online forums believe people shouldn't even be entering the ocean and that surfer's are nuts! Google these topics and you'll see! They should immediately end the ban on fishing for gw's in the area and cull the whole near shore area as a matter of public safety and then start to deal with the seals.
Last edited by shark-hunter; Aug 6, 2013 at 11:01 AM.
Aug 6, 2013, 10:42 AM #3Banned
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
Aug 6, 2013, 01:30 PM #4
A shark's life is more valuable than a human's life? Not saying that. The health of shark populations, however, is more valuable than human's choice of desired RECREATION. We don't need to be in the ocean, as a matter of fact, we can't survive there. We choose to be there. There's a difference between being at the top of the food chain and selectively eliminating species so that we can enjoy ourselves in our non-natural environment without worrying about the residents coming in. Go swim in a lake. I hear the great lakes get pumping surf, right brew?
I like to go camping, but I've heard bears kill people sometimes. Let's get rid of all the bears so that I can camp and hike safely?
Really getting tired of insect-borne disease, too. Let's DEET this place up and take out all the mosquitoes.
Short-sighted, ecologically ignorant, abhorrently anthropocentric.....just a few of the phrases that come to mind when considering shark culls. What science are you drawing on when you say that taking out an apex predator won't impact the ecosystem? There's a lot of history regarding man's impact on ecosystems to suggest otherwise.
Anyways, more sharks die, more seals live. More seals live, more sharks come to eat the seals. So let's kill all the seals right? All those "cute, sweet, and much smarter" seals that we don't want the big bad GWs taking out right.
Our oceans have been just a model of stellar health since we started heavily intervening, devastating or virtually eliminating certain species (for food or for fear) as we please. We need to ramp up human intervention to make sure we have a sustainable resource there for years to come.
And, I live in MA, and I would gladly go surf Nauset tomorrow if there was swell large enough to justify the day off.
Last edited by newenglandflatness; Aug 6, 2013 at 01:33 PM. Reason: Lack of typing proficiency
Aug 6, 2013, 01:35 PM #5
Aug 6, 2013, 01:56 PM #6
Aug 7, 2013, 04:15 AM #7Junior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
I was born and raised on the Vineyard and I have to totally agree with shark-hunter. I see between 5-10 seals in the line-up every time I surf and I'm not even in Chatham where all the real seal colonies are! I've seen the seal population spike in my lifetime and with it came the sharks. A couple years ago my dad told me "you just wait someone is going to get attacked and then everyone will be up in arms!" Years ago they used to cull the seal population and did we ever have any problems with GW? NO! Fish stocks were also up as a result of not having a huge seal population. I bet if some of these tree huggers lost a family member to a shark they would have a totally different perspective. But honestly I could care less either way because the sharks are good for crowd control.
Californians have the right idea: http://www.sanclementetimes.com/blog...g-sign-a-hoax/
Aug 7, 2013, 11:45 PM #8Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- arlington, va/DC
I agree with this. Sharks used to be hunted and killed just for the safe of doing it because they were considered monstrous. And they are monstrous.
Big sharks are like a beautiful two faced woman. You want to believe she will never hurt you, and most of the time she doesn't. So you grow to love her. But she never really loves, she's broken like all beautiful woman and has no emotional capacity. She feigns love because she idolizes the thought of it but doesn't reciprocate your feelings. This makes it easy for her to turn on you one day as if there was no love to begin with, because there wasn't.
It's much the same with sharks. Bleeding heart environmentalist anthropomorphize sharks into sentient well behaved beings. The reality is they are like that beautiful woman. They might not attack you for years and because of that you let your guard down and become vulnerable to whats going to inevitably happen. The shark is going to turn on you. Except this time it's not going to break your heart it's going to rip it out and eat it while you are momentarily very aware that your viscera are no longer safe inside your belly.
Say what you want but I think sharks should be killed just like wolves should be around humans. In Africa the tribal people that have to live around lions and that are eaten by them want to kill them. Humans have just about wiped lions off the face of the earth. I think having a refuge for them is OK but what if humans need the space and resources? Humans trump in my opinion.
Think about this. The whole planet is going to be dehydrated and then burnt into a crisp by the sun in a few billion years. So what's the point getting hung up on when some extant animal finally goes extinct. It's going to happen whether we are the cause or not. In fact our time is itself limited on this planet unless we build space ships capable of interstellar travel before the whole earth dries up. And that's assuming some other unforeseeable disastrous event doesn't take place before the sun cooks us all, such as an asteroid or global nuclear warfare.
A lot of environmental scientists (and armchair environmentalists) think humans are less than all other animals. That the other animals are more in touch with nature and more beautiful. It's always the case with these types of thinkers that it's "they", the other humans, that are the problem. It's never themselves.
I just have a hard time caring about the fate of sharks when inevitably we are all going to be gone off this earth. I don't mind all sharks, in fact I think we should leave the small ones that don't attack people. But all of the big sharks that kill humans I think we should hunt them to extinction in areas where it's dangerous for humans to interact with them, just like our ancestors did with every other wild beast that we no longer have to fear will eat our children as they play in the back yard.
Sharks have been culled heavily for the last 100's of years on the east coast up until very recently. For the last several decades there have been increasingly strict bans on shark fishing on the east coast of the USA. Now we are seeing a lot more big sharks than we have historically. Will it translate to more shark attacks? I hope not but let's just say I wouldn't be surprised if it does. People take for granted that swimming with sharks must be safe because we do it all the time. No we have been swimming with baby sharks for the last 100 years. And there have still been attacks. Now we are going to be swimming with Jaws, literally because I heard they faked his death in the movie (archy get on it), so we will see if our luck holds out. Remember what I said about the beautiful woman and the man in love. Man might be in love with sharks but sharks don't have the capacity to return our love so we are better off protection ourselves by killing them all.
Aug 6, 2013, 01:54 PM #10
We're not competing, in the ecological sense, with sharks, so this is not a matter of scarcity of resources or space. We just want to be able to splash in the waves when we'd like without fear.