NZ Shark Taggers Issue Fresh Warning - "Taranaki Terror" 19ft Great White Shark

New Zealand News ^ | 02 February 2006 | By MICHELLE SUTTON

[Mongeaux]

Scientists issued a fresh warning about a great white shark seen cruising Taranaki's coast line last night after attempts to tag it with a satellite tracker failed.

Marine scientist Clinton Duffy and former New Plymouth marine biologist Demian Chapman attempted to tag the terror of the deep with pop-off satellite tags to monitor its movements.

However, during the mission Mr Duffy did see a great white at least 4m long dive out of the water near Seal Rock, off Port Taranaki.

It is the latest of several sightings in the past month, of the shark dubbed the Taranaki Terror.

"We stopped for the sunset and as we were watching I saw a huge white shark almost breach, it almost jumped completely clear of the water off Seal Rock," Mr Duffy said.

[pcottraux]

Ahh, Timothy Treadwell. Now there's a story.

Treadwell was a liberal in the classical sense. He was a man who viewed himself as a hero, a martyr, and a noble protector of the bears. He thought the bears were his friends. He tried to put cute human faces on the bears (that's really what most overly-sentimental "animal rights activists" do).

And he paid the price.

[MPJackal]

"their design ranks high among the most complex. They are highly advanced predators."

They are efficient, but not complex. In fact the opposite could be said. They are so efficient because they are so simple. But since you disagree with me, what is so complex about their design which has gone virtually unchanged for millions of years?

[pcottraux]

We Humans, not sharks, are atop the food chain.

I'm looking at "harm" and "threaten" from the viewpoint of the humans. The shark hasn't made any humans feel threatened by being near them (that we know of).

I don't know if you've ever had it, but shark meat is not very good.

'Cause we can

Great White Sharks are an endangered species. We need to keep as many alive as possible, because we depend upon their existence more than we realize.

The food chain is not in question here. Sharks don't eat humans. In the movies, they do, but not in reality. There's no reason to kill this shark.

BTW, why this shark in particular? It's 19 feet long. It's big, but that doesn't make it more dangerous. In fact, I would think a shark that size would be LESS dangerous than a Makko Shark (which would be smaller, lighter, and a LOT faster).

[GladesGuru]

"and incredibly intelligent, as well."

Yes, indeed. Note the wonderful works of art they have created, the advanced civilization they have produced, their well known gentleness, and their outstanding table manners.

[Mr. Mojo]

I didn't compare them to mankind. .....obviously.

their well known gentleness

Actually, there hasn't been one confirmed Orca attack on a human being in recorded history. ....pretty amazing, considering their spot at the top of the ocean food chain and their innumerable contacts with humans in their element.

[GladesGuru]

Sorry, but many animals have man on their diets. From man eating cats to sled dogs that are not tied up and eat a child or elderly person, predators look at the world in terms of caloric value.

Perhaps what you mean is that animals don't make man a regular part of their diet.

[pcottraux]

I'm talking about their biology, not their behavior.

Sharks are one of the most advanced predators in the world. They have highly advanced sensory organs, especially in their noses and eyes. Their olfactory senses are more developed than most animals on Earth. So is their eyesight.

They also have something few other animals have: advanced systems of electroreception running throughout their bodies, especially on the sides and front. They have a system called the "Ampullae of Lorenzini", which is used not only for sensing movement in the water, but also for determining their global position and direction (they have a biological compass that is also among the world's most advanced).

Biologically, they are a marvel. Behavior-wise, they are simple. They swim, and eat, and do what all animals do: keep themselves alive and ensure the survival of their species. But because of the nature of where and how they live, they have had to be more advanced than most living animals JUST TO SURVIVE. The fact that they have been virtually unchanged for millions of years is a testament to how complex they ARE.

There are other animals with these characteristics, but with sharks, it's even MORE advanced than in the other creatures.

[pcottraux]

Perhaps what you mean is that animals don't make man a regular part of their diet.

Yes, that's what I meant. I didn't mean that NO animal has EVER eaten a human. But we are not a regular part of their diet for a number of reasons. One is that simply put, we don't taste very good. We're not a good source of protein. If they look at the world from a caloric standpoint, then we are going to be towards the bottom of their menus.

...sled dogs that are not tied up and eat a child or elderly person...

EAT them???? Attack, maybe...I find that hard to swallow, if you'll pardon the pun. Has that ever actually happened?

ANimals also attack for territorial reasons, not just caloric ones.

[GladesGuru]

"We need to keep as many alive as possible, because we depend upon their existence more than we realize."

No, we don't. It seems you have accepted the enviro-socialist premise that all life is connected (Gaia hypothesis), that the earth is alive.

Consider that we killed nearly all of the largest organisms ever to live on earth - the Blue Whale. Removing that top carnivore in the Antarctic Sea did nothing except make a lot of krill very happy.

The food chain stayed as it was (minus Blue Whales) and when they came back, little or nothing changed.

But there were unhappy krill. ;-(

The interdependence bit is simply not the major factor the enviro's want us stupid, taxpayers to believe

[GladesGuru]

"We need to keep as many alive as possible, because we depend upon their existence more than we realize."

No, we don't. It seems you have accepted the enviro-socialist premise that all life is connected (Gaia hypothesis), that the earth is alive.

Consider that we killed nearly all of the largest organisms ever to live on earth - the Blue Whale. Removing that top carnivore in the Antarctic Sea did nothing except make a lot of krill very happy.

The food chain stayed as it was (minus Blue Whales) and when they came back, little or nothing changed.

But there were unhappy krill. ;-(

The interdependence bit is simply not the major factor the enviro's want us stupid, taxpayers to believe

[Beagle8U]

How would you ,or anyone else, know how many people that shark has eaten?

Explain what sharks are good for? Why do we need them swimming around?

Don't recite some bunny-hugger mumbo jumbo, about predators serve a great purpose.

People are the #1 predator and we can handle everything just fine without sharks, grizzly bears, mountain lions, wolves, etc.

[pcottraux]

It seems you have accepted the enviro-socialist premise that all life is connected...that the earth is alive.

No, I don't.

I'm talking from an industrial viewpoint. It's very simple, really. The Great White Shark hunts and kills seals and sea lions. It keeps the seal and sea lion population down. If the GWS becomes extinct, the seal and sea lion population explodes (they are over-reproducers, like deer). Then, the fishing industry takes a huge hit because many certain fish populations shoot way down because the overpopulated seals are eating them. (And what we're talking about here has more of an impact than the blue whale/krill thing).

Wanting to protect a species from extinction does not make someone an enviro-wacko hippy.

Choose your side: do you honestly believe we should wipe out Great White Sharks? If so, do you have a reason?

[pcottraux]

Do you have something to say, or do you just want to name call?

Of course, I don't know for sure how many people the "shark has eaten," but judging from shark nature/behavior, I don't imagine it would have eaten anybody (you clearly have been watching too many movies).

Far more people are killed by bees than by sharks. In fact, from an annual view point, I believe more people are killed by ball point pens than by sharks per year (don't quote me on that, I'm not sure).

To wipe out all sharks would be a massive undertaking, costing trillions probably and taking countless man hours.. It would seem like a massive waste that would not really accomplish anything. What is accomplished by wiping them out? You feeling righteous about yourself?

If you want to wipe out EVERY predatory species in the world, go right ahead. Lots of luck to you. Though I think you would soon realize how impotent you are.

[pcottraux]

Oh, and BTW...far from hugging bunnies, I really hate them. The town I live in has a huge problem with rabbit overpopulation. I think more people need to buy shotguns around here.

[Beagle8U]

It wont cost a dime, just take all the stupid protection laws away.

You'll never get them all, they will just be rare as hell.

They do nothing that people cant do just fine without them.

Anything that isn't good eating, that is eating things that people do eat, serves no useful purpose.

[Salamander]

[pcottraux]

It wont cost a dime, just take all the stupid protection laws away.

No, you actually want to embark on a mission to ELIMINATE them. Why would people who are not being paid with a motive by the government, working independently, even WANT to wipe out sharks? That's a dead end, because once you've wiped them out, guess what...THEY'RE GONE. Then a self-contained industry that becomes dependent on shark-hunting has now crashed. Economic funk.

You'll never get them all, they will just be rare...

They're already that way. Mission accomplished.

They do nothing that people cant do just fine without them.

Of course, I've already made a commment on how badly a shark extinction would damage the fishing industry (due to the inevitable seal population explosion). We could try to keep the seal population down, but no matter what, we're going to take an economic hit. One that is needless anyway. It's a very good idea to try to avoid economic problems.

Anything that isn't good eating, that is eating things that people do eat, serves no useful purpose.

Actually, Great White Sharks don't eat things that we eat. Humans typically eat various types of fish and crusteaceons. GWS normally dine on seals and sea lions, and maybe an occasional sea gull. (when was the last time you ate an elephant seal?). TIGER SHARKS eat GARBAGE, for crying out loud!

But I'm confused over your mentality. ALL things that serve no "good" should be eliminated. ALL OF THEM??? BTW, what does "good" even mean? What GREATER PURPOSE/GOOD are you even talking about? It's completely relative.

Suppose someone who lives a few doors down has a baby. That baby serves you no purpose. It means nothing to you. So are you actively going to go KILL the baby, just because it serves you no purpose? I'm not comparing sharks to babies, but that's where your mentality is headed. You want to WIPE OUT ALL things that don't serve your purpose?

Again, good luck with that.

[pcottraux]

I'm wearie of this issue. And I'm also going to bed.

People, I'm asking you, don't bother me on this issue any more.

[Beagle8U]

Good luck living in your eco-twit fantasy world.

There must be something on the Disney channel you could be watching now.

[pcottraux]

Good luck living in your eco-twit fantasy world.

Dude, you have got some serious issues. If you don't want to intelligently discuss something, I wouldn't suggest FReeping is right for you.

Let me get this straight: because I don't think it would be a good idea to wipe out ENTIRE species of predators, which I explained for a number of reasons, that makes me a dope-smoking tree-hugging cumbaya-singing hippy?

I'm not an eco-twit, or an environmentalist. You don't even know what any of my beliefs are. You clearly are far too tightly wound, not to mention that you must have a terribly fragile ego.

Oh, and one more thing: I hate Disney. I'm a Warner Brothers man all the way.