Guest essay by Eric Worrall
In Australia a fierce debate is raging, between people who want to reduce the rising risk of shark attack on swimmers, by culling dangerous sharks, and greens, who often give the impression that losing a few people to shark attacks every year is acceptable. Now Professor Rod Connolly has added a new argument to the debate – he claims culling sharks exacerbates climate change.
According to the Brisbane Times;
As debate over shark culling continues along Australia’s coastline, a Queensland researcher has thrown another consideration into the mix – climate change.
Gold Coast-based marine scientist Professor Rod Connolly looked at data from coastal wetlands around the world and found those with fewer predators were less effective at storing carbon.
Simplistically, this meant less greenhouse gas locked away in plants and more floating free in the atmosphere contributing to warming and climate change.
The findings, published Tuesday in journal Nature Climate Change, came a few days after a seven-year-old girl was apparently bitten by a shark off Russell Island, near Cairns.
The abstract of the study;
Predators continue to be harvested unsustainably throughout most of the Earth’s ecosystems. Recent research demonstrates that the functional loss of predators could have far-reaching consequences on carbon cycling and, by implication, our ability to ameliorate climate change impacts. Yet the influence of predators on carbon accumulation and preservation in vegetated coastal habitats (that is, salt marshes, seagrass meadows and mangroves) is poorly understood, despite these being some of the Earth’s most vulnerable and carbon-rich ecosystems. Here we discuss potential pathways by which trophic downgrading affects carbon capture, accumulation and preservation in vegetated coastal habitats. We identify an urgent need for further research on the influence of predators on carbon cycling in vegetated coastal habitats, and ultimately the role that these systems play in climate change mitigation. There is, however, sufficient evidence to suggest that intact predator populations are critical to maintaining or growing reserves of ‘blue carbon’ (carbon stored in coastal or marine ecosystems), and policy and management need to be improved to reflect these realities.
Read more: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2763.html
I’m personally disgusted that anyone could put the welfare of a few sharks, even an entire species of sharks, ahead of the safety of Australia’s children. As for the alleged “climate risk” associated with shark culling – lets just say I’m prepared to take that chance.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How about slapping a “What? Me, worry?” speech balloon on that shark’s picture? Seems very appropriate.
I think its implicit… 🙂
I was thinking more on the lines of … “What big teeth you have …”
I say lets have green beaches, specifically reserved for people who put sharks before people.
That way we will, or at least the sharks will, cull the greens, the sharks will be fed and I dare say that many of the human population will be happier.
and more intelligent.
There is irrefutable evidence that ice-cream consumption and shark attacks are directly correlated.
To save the children form these vicious shark attacks, it’s scientifically justified for the UN to ban the consumption of ice cream, or at least provide a few $billion in research grants for further study into this shark frenzy/ice-cream consumption phenomenon…
The science is settled..
Ball point pens kills 3 times as many people each year as sharks. (People doing the sucking thing, slipping and choking.) Maybe we should have a ball point pen cull?
The pen is mightier than a sword? Protecting sharks because ‘they are extremely vulnerable and help slow down global warming by eating sea turtles’ just sounds very much less intelligent than say, designing pens so that people (children?) sucking them would not manage choke.
Wait: aren’t sea turtles endangered?
“I’m personally disgusted that anyone could put the welfare of a few sharks, even an entire species of sharks, ahead of the safety of Australia’s children. ”
And I’m personally disgusted by people that:
1. Use “safety of children” as some shield to hide behind to enforce horrible policy (isn’t that what proponents of ACC do?);
2. Think destroying a whole species of animals for the convenience and recreation of people is a good idea;
3. Have zero clue about the importance of predators on a healthy ecosystem.
The climate change angle is just silly. But culling sharks, when shark populations are being decimated around the globe will have horrible consequences.
Also, Hawaii has experience with culling Tiger sharks, and surprise, research showed it didn’t actually work. You can read up on it: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~carlm/
What’s irritating about proponents of climate change is that they need to spin every thing about climate change in a negative way.
But it’s just as bad when skeptics are so biased themselves, that they lose sight that things like culling entire species, or clear cutting forest, or straight up things like pollution, are just plain bad on their own merit.
‘Have zero clue about the importance of predators on a healthy ecosystem.’
True. Apply to humans as well.
On one hand you’re arguing sharks are endangered – “when shark populations are being decimated around the world”, then you argue killing sharks won’t reduce shark attacks…
As for whether eradicating pest species for our convenience is a good idea, people have been doing that for at least 10,000 years. People make that decision every time they treat their house for termites, kill nits, lice or bedbugs, or drain a malarial swamp. Its called progress.
The author made a dual statement, both supporting culling, or even wiping out an entire shark species to “protect the children”.
Culling doesn’t work.
And it just leads to a vastly reduced shark population that’s already incredibly stressed.
Sharks are not bedbugs or termites, and eradicating termites from a home is not the same as making the extinct. Sharks serve a very specific and necessary function in the ecosystem. Australia should know all about invasive species with no natural predators and how easy it is to bring those animals into check…wait, not easy at all.
Even suggesting wiping out an entire species so children can swim at the beach is beyond the pale. I guess after the sharks are gone, or concurrently, we should just kill all the lions in Africa to make it safe for the children over there. We could set up a whole kill all dangerous animals to save the children campaign.
Apparently though, more people drown in Australia every year than are killed by sharks. So after killing all the sharks, Australia could just drain the ocean too. You know, to protect the children.
Not only that Uan2001. Most children die in swimming pools than at the beach here in Australia. And many more die while their parents are reversing their SUV down the driveway. So, sharks are not the problem with child deaths here. Clearly, the author is a fool.
“Even suggesting wiping out an entire species so children can swim at the beach is beyond the pale.”
Why is this automatically beyond the pale? Surely the decision to cull or even eradicate a species is a value judgement, based on whether you value kids, or sharks, and the rate of exchange between the two – how many sharks equal the value of a human child.
Then don’t swim in the sharks environment Eric. Eradicating a species is a foolish and uninformed thing to hope for.
“a value judgement, based on whether you value kids, or sharks”
Yes, it is a value judgement. The first value is that a decision should not be made on an appeal to emotions “if you value kids, etc…”
Then the next value should be on what reality is. Per Wikipedia, list of shark fatalities in Australia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_shark_attacks_in_Australia), there have been 8 fatalities between 2014 and the present. The two youngest were 17 and 18 respectively, and they weren’t swimming, they were spear fishing.
So, I don’t see a lot of children being killed by sharks. Yet, that is a cornerstone of your argument “do you value sharks versus kids.” Looks a bit like a straw man argument.
We can compare traffic fatalities to shark attacks and say, if we value kids, we should cull or ban automobiles outright. Lots of things kill children.
Additional values we should look at:
– the impact of apex predators on a healthy ecosystem and fisheries
– long term impact of no predators on a ecosystem
– the value of a species that can not be replaced versus discretionary leisure activities. Should sharks be wiped out so people can swim at peace in the ocean, or have shark fin soup?
There are some values so deeply ingrained, and preserving species on the planet is one of them. Humanity has even created an endangered species list to keep us from driving species into extinction. There are also efforts to bring species back from the edge of extinction.
If you want to make a value judgement that utility is more important that species, then we can also say, what utility does it serve to have a 10 year go swimming in the ocean?
Being against the absurdities of climate change proponents doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be good ecological stewards of the environment. There’s a reason we have flushing toilets in our homes, and we take the garbage out and have it picked up and taken to a landfill. We don’t live in our own filth. Caring for the environment is the same.
Sharks shouldn’t be swimming in my environment. As someone who lives on the edge of the tropics, I regularly kill pest animals which are inconvenient or dangerous. I don’t see why sharks should receive special treatment.
Oh yeah, get your knickers in a twist. Conflate culling dangerous sharks with kill em all and make soup.
When proven dangerous, remove them. That is culling. It works with bears, lions and other dangerous beasts.
If the oriental desire for shark fin soup at any cost hasn’t eliminated sharks, culling a few of the dangerous ones certainly won’t hurt.
That is what that fool Rod is trying to do, get people who have no clear concept of reality to go tweet and text crazy supporting sharks over people.
Only the way any civilized law works, any one human life is worth more than any beast. Or are you going to insist we start sacrificing virgins to sharks so they leave the rest of us alone?
Pagan idolatry is pagan idolatry whether you’re worshipping sharks or eco-looney energy scams.
Late to the party again.
As far as sharks and “Climate Change” goes, this is nonsense. A couple of butterflies flapping their wings is probably more devastating. (But neither has been or can be measured so who knows? Certainly any computer ever built or any program they’ve run.)
As far as people vs animals goes, I’m reminded of an exchange a decade or so ago on the old AOL pet care forums.
California had banned the hunting of cougars a few years before.
A young mother of 2 went jogging in a public park. She was killed and partially eaten by a cougar. The cougar had a cub.
The cougar was killed and the cub captured and sent to a zoo or shelter. (I don’t remember which.)
A fund was set up for kids and the another for the cub.
More was raised for the cub than the kids.
PS The Rocky Mountain Goat was an endangered species. No hunting allowed. After the ban on hunting cougars their numbers dwindled even more.
PPS I’m recalling all this using a mind that is not as young as it used to be. Cut me some slack. 😎
Well said uan2001. Nothing wrong with conservation. In fact it’s desirable. Too bad alarmist idiots hijacked the environmental movement. Let people who want to use the ocean at the beach pay for lifeguards in designated areas and look out s for sharks. Otherwise, swim, etc.in unprotected areas at your own risk..
Again, I agree with you, RD. If they want to go for a swim so badly, then let em pay for some security. They’re happy to pay for everything else. Or leave the water to the sharks. It’s their choice…..
Shark culling is aimed at shark species that are known for attacking humans, and then only those in areas popular for human recreation. The number of sharks involved would be tiny and not enough to affect eco-systems.
There’s no mention in the paper specifically of creatures that eat humans, and predators include many creatures that are either not interested in or too small to bother people.
The paper refers to predators generally, many of which end up in human meals.
I’m quite keen on bronze whaler and chips, and thousands are caught for this purpose, but bronzies are not generally known for attacking humans. The only fatal shark attack attributed to a bronze whaler occurred in 2011 not far from where I live.
We don’t know how many bronze whalers there are, how long they live, how many are caught [but a lot]……not much about them at all. We certainly don’t know the affect of removing thousands of them from various ecosystems.
If a predator is removed from a system then there may be a population explosion of the creatures it targets until they perhaps over exploit their normal food source. It seems to me to be a valid concern
Other people have come to the same conclusion as Connolly. It’s not new..
http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Predators_as_Prey_FINAL_FINAL1.pdf
However the “ameliorating climate change” reference is new in papers of this type.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
When you know where your research grants come from you dance to their music
I have followed the TV news on this subject – I am not aware the NSW authorities are the slightest bit interested in a culling option. But what really amazes me is the opposition to anti-shark netting at swimming beaches. That to me is a no brainer but is opposed by most greens and animals first types.
Nets no doubt kill a few sharks and other species that get jammed – tough luck the sea is a mess of various species eating each other.
How many climate models take shark numbers into account? Will more powerful computers and larger research grants be required before this new factor can be included? Will shark biologists be jumping onto the climate change gravy train?
[snip – inappropriate language -mod]
All to try to counter a gas that is plant food and that cannot detectable warm the climate, regardless of its increase in the atmosphere. This is a non-issue in the real world and, if anybody is committing a crime, it is willful neglect by this guy, promoting deadly risk for swimmers/.
More proof that liberals really are insane !!!
One could look at the experience in Yellowstone Park where the re-introduction of wolves significantly changed the ecosystem. The wolves decreased the elk population which then reduced the strain on willows and the ecological makeup of the park changed dramatically. This is called a “trophic cascade”. The removal of an apex predator can change an ecosystem dramatically.
Thus the removal of the shark, in this case, may have unanticipated and undesirable consequences. it is a possibility that should be considered seriously given the experience in Yellowstone and not dismissed with derision.
Could have just allowed the hunting of the elk instead. A hunter’s bullet is a lot more humane compared to being torn apart by a wolf pack.
Tag, the significance you claim has been checked and the science is not settled. See: Kauffman, M.J., J. Brodie, and E.S. Jules. 2010. Are wolves saving Yellowstone’s aspen? A landscape-level test of a behaviorally mediated trophic cascade. Ecology 91:2742-2755.
The outcome may not be the desired validation of the introduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park that the proponents would wish. It certainly isn’t strong enough to justify the stress on the growers and ranching families having to deal with the exponentially growing numbers of wolves. People are loosing working dogs, hunting dogs, and pets to these wolves which are barely exposed to any constraints. Livestock losses are growing with the population of wolves in all areas. What is even more interesting is the fact that when they were “eradicated” there were no lawsuits, stock losses, dogs killed, or additional complications to managing other predator and prey populations. We could have decided not to have wolves in the areas where they are now a problem, but that is water under the bridge since collusion and delaying activities from NGOs is certain to guarantee a prolonged delay in any decisive action to stop the spread of wolves into very inappropriate habitat. The truth is we humans are the keystone species. We decide what animals are appropriate and where. It really is our choice what species to prefer and which to reject. Some species have been successful in resisting our preferences, others have not. I am glad polio is gone. I am also glad plague grasshoppers are gone. Some suburbanites with children would like to see fewer coyotes and mountain lions in town, but that is another issue. We have been manipulating animal populations for probably 30,000 years. To stop will not return us to the Garden of Eden.
The most efficient places for storing carbon would be the salt water marshes. Not many sharks in there.
Ohhhhhh…. now I get it. They are both termed sharks but it took me quite awhile to figure out we were discussing fish and not lawyers. I was all for culling until I realized it was the fish that were going to get culled.
(Sorry, ya’ll. This comment thread was just begging for a lawyer joke.)
=============================
.
I caught 3 sharks while fishing on the Atlantic coast last week; catch and release. Two of them were large enough to have a shot at me since I had no one to help me de-hook them. Respect the jaws.
Sharks are attracted by blood. Lawyers have no blood.
Once you start with lawyer jokes, it is very hard to stop.
This is a perfect example of correlation does not equal causation.
>>Mareeba Property Management September 29, 2015 at 5:29 pm
I haven’t read the “paper”, but I am prepared to bet that the esteemed professor hasn’t looked at shark food intake and excreta compared to the the same functions in the target prey, I am quite sure that the amount of Methane excreted by a shark is a lot more “climate changing” then a bit of carbon here and there. Another money grabbing exercise and a “justification” for the greens “You Cannot Do That” to everything!!!!<<
The argument would be fewer sharks equals more herbivores equals fewer aquatic plants and thus less sequestration. Does that really make any sense?
In fairness to the greens (I know, I know), we *do* tend to consider other things worth having thousands of people die every year from. Cars, smoking, guns etc, not to mention other apex predators and the like.
“I’m personally disgusted that anyone could put the welfare of a few sharks, even an entire species of sharks, ahead of the safety of Australia’s children.”
And I’m disgusted that anyone would want to wipe out an entire species just because a child wants to swim in the wrong place, how arrogant to think you or your child takes precedence over nature, what’s next chop all the trees down in case a child climbs one, falls out & kills its self ???
Yup, typical eco-precautionary thinking. Take precaution to absurd limits with all of the suffering done by others.
What if it is your child 1savenoenergy? When your children don’t matter let us know.
ATheoK
Presumably you teach your children that drinking & driving don’t mix, if your child is stupid enough to ignore the danger & is removed from the gene pool, do you –
1. ban cars
2. ban drink
3. use it as a lesson to prevent others repeating the same mistake.
Why 1savenoenergy!
How does sharks attacking people, even your children equate to drinking and driving or wearing pants?
There you go using twisted precautionary illogic again to try and make it seem sensible that allowing sharks to eat anyone they like without correction is remotely sensible.
Taking your absurd notion of drinking and driving, the police and mothers set up road blocks, road sweeps, police wolf packs, or whatever to identify and remove drunk drivers from the road. A real road cull on living people.
Cull the d__n sharks! One thing is for sure, the sharks don’t care; they may learn, but they won’t care.
An odd thing about kids. They learn best by example and education. Ever notice that kids who drink and drive often have parents, close relatives or friends who drink and drive? It’s the “they do it, I can do it” copycat actions.
It isn’t the knowledge that drinking and driving don’t mix, it is the understanding that drinking and driving is extremely dangerous, often lethal. There is no thrill seeking getting drunk and driving, only idiocy.
Cull the drunk drivers, cull the sharks.
A shark does it out of millions of years of instinct, it ain’t personal (which makes it even scarier ).
Personal attacks can be understood.
” Eric Worrall
September 30, 2015 at 12:45 pm
Sharks shouldn’t be swimming in my environment. As someone who lives on the edge of the tropics, I regularly kill pest animals which are inconvenient or dangerous. I don’t see why sharks should receive special treatment.”
No Eric, YOU are a source of protein swimming in the sharks environment.
If you find a shark in your pool, kill it by all means because that’s your environment.
I’m only a source of protein in the shark’s environment, if we allow that shark to live.
What makes you think you are more important to the world than a shark ??
If you don’t think he is, then go feed one.
The shark won’t know or care either way.
But you can. Really, do you know? Do you care?
@ur momisugly Gunga Din,
“If you don’t think he is, then go feed one.
The shark won’t know or care either way.
But you can. Really, do you know? Do you care?”
28 words but no clear point !!
Maybe we should kill all the ‘human sharks’ who want to make money from the climate scam, they are causing more deaths than ocean sharks.
Let’s just kill every animal that could kill us. What a moronic idea.
My issue is overpopulation. The fact is that we have been adding a billion people to the planet every 12/13 years since 1974. And in the meantime killed half the animals on the planet. And we are expected to continue adding people at that rate till about 2050 when we level off at 10 billion. I recently read that in the last few years, poachers killed off another 100,000 elephants. At this rate, I doubt any non-domesticated large animals will be on the planet in 2050.
I agree, David. It’s madness!
I haven’t checked all the figures, but they appear to be correct
The International Shark Attack File reveals that between 1580 and 2014, only 497 people lost their lives due to 2777 shark attacks. Look at the figures on this page –
http://www.surfertoday.com/surfing/8818-the-most-shark-infested-waters-in-the-world
The United States averages just 16 shark attacks each year and slightly less than one shark-attack fatality every two years. Meanwhile, in the coastal U.S. states alone, lightning strikes and kills more than 41 people each year.
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/11-animals-more-likely-to-kill-you-than-sharks.html
In the developed world, 87 percent of children younger than 14 killed by firearms live in the United States. More American children and teenagers died from gunfire in 2010—a single year—than U.S. troops in Afghanistan since 2001. Is this truly the culture we want for our children?
And Eric wants to wipe out an entire species to save 1 child, strange priority’s !!
If you want to kill something to ‘save the children’ start with politicians deciding they want more power/cash/land & bomb innocent civilians to achieve their aims,…then theres gun dealers,…then move on to parents who feed their kids junk food leading to Childhood Obesity (with it’s attendant problems), how about mosquitoes ? the diseases they carry kill millions,…..It’s a big list before you get down to sharks.