Killing animals that attack humans

Da Shins Kelly

I was just reading an article this morning about a man who was killed in a great white shark attack off the coast of New Zealand. After the guy had been killed, police went into the water and shot the shark. It's a very rare attack on a popular beach, but it got me thinking. We seem to do this with any animal attack against humans. In the documentary Grizzly Man, the bear that attacked and killed Timothy Treadwell was shot later on. It seems with alligator or crocodile attacks, it's the same thing. In pretty much any wild animal attack against humans, someone is sent out to find and kill the culprit.

I'm just wondering why this is. Humans are probably the most invasive creatures on the face of the planet, and it does seem as though a lot of the people who get killed in these attacks are people who are just asking for trouble and don't really have any respect for boundaries. After all, grizzly bears and alligators and great white sharks are predators, and if you think you can just trespass on the territories of dangerous wild animals, then you should expect some bad consequences. As sad as it all may be for the people involved, the animals seem to be just doing what is natural for them in their own habitat and it tends to be, for the most part, arrogance that gets these people killed.

Unless I'm missing something here. Is there some other possibly valid reason for this?

GrizzlyMan

Timothy Treadwell was asking for trouble tbh

Tabnabs

Four legs bad, two legs good.

Where To

Tabnabs wrote: »

Four legs bad, two legs good.

Sharks have no legs.

stimpson

The shark will think twice before doing it again.

Franticfrank

As far as I know, the police weren't sure if the man was dead or alive. Even if they knew he was alive, I'm sure they shot the shark to stop the feeding frenzy, recover his body and afford his family a decent burial. The reason for humans killing most animals that attack them is incase that particular animal strikes again. I agree with you that it's sad for the animals to be killed as it's our own fault for infringing on their natural habitats.

steddyeddy

Some states have the death penalty in place. Its more or less the same principle tbh. Important sure people would rationalise it in different ways though.

davetherave

Where To wrote: »

Sharks have no legs.

That must mean they are very good.

listermint

On the other side, Should you have a predatory animal roaming a popular beach spot?

Do you just pack up the beach spot and move elsewhere ?

mackg

If there is a danger they will attack again then the reason for killing them is obvious. If it was some random guy out in the middle of nowhere getting killed by a wild animal who no other person was reasonably likely to come across again then sending people out to try and catch/kill it seems like putting even more people at risk to me. The reason I suppose is that people like the idea of revenge and no one is going to stop you going after the animal that killed your friend the way they will stop you going after the drunk driver that killed your wife.

padd b1975

Had to be done, shark had developed a taste for human meat.

Conmaicne Mara

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

the animals seem to be just doing what is natural for them in their own habitat

Humans are animals, we're doing what comes naturally to us. We get to go everywhere on this planet and limited places off this planet because we have evolved and adapted to be able to do so.

Tough sh1t to the other species, they should have got their thinking hats on

nucker

stimpson wrote: »

The shark will think twice before doing it again.

The shark is dead

Rhinocharge

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I was just reading an article this morning about a man who was killed in a great white shark attack off the coast of New Zealand. After the guy had been killed, police went into the water and shot the shark.

They shot the shark but they didn't kill it. I can only guess that they shot the shark in the hope that they could recover the body as it was bringing the man out to sea.

A witness has described seeing a "huge" shark kill a man off Muriwai Beach on Auckland's west coast this afternoon. Police have confirmed they shot and hit the shark, believed to be a great white, but said it swam away. Pio Mose watched the attack unfold about 1.30pm while fishing with a group of men on the rocks between Maori Bay and Muriwai Beach. He saw the "huge" shark attack a man alone swimming from the bay back to the beach about 50 metres from where he was standing. The man struggled with the shark before it swam away. He was keeping his head above the water before the shark returned. "I yelled at him to swim to the rocks. There was blood everywhere. The water was red. It's pretty scary." He said after the second attack three or four other sharks came to the area. Mr Mose and the other fisherman watched as the shark took the man's body out to sea and when lifeguards eventually arrived they directed them to where the group of sharks were. Inspector Shawn Rutene confirmed police shot at the shark, but could not say how many times. The officer was out on the water in an IRB with three lifeguards - and Mr Rutene said one of them saw a second shark. It was unclear whether the second shark had been involved in the attack. He said after being shot the shark "rolled away", but refused to say whether it was still attacking the man at the time. Mr Rutene said the victim was a local man. His family were "devastated" and his wife was being supported by Victim Support and police at the scene.

http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/site/?pageid=event_desc&edis_id=BH-20130227-38346-NZL

nucker

padd b1975 wrote: »

Had to be done, shark had developed a taste for human meat.

Might of

Da Shins Kelly

I'm not sure of all the details surrounding the recent shark attack, it just got me thinking about the whole 'kill the animal who killed the human' idea that seems to prevail most of the time in these situations.

hoodwinked

i can never understand in this day and age why they cant put some kind of nets underwater around public beaches, to stop sharks/other sea life from getting in,


warn people they are there and they shouldn't get close to the visible markers (in case they get stuck)


am i missing something here because to me it equals a safe swimming area?

Plazaman

I'm all for putting down dogs that attack people and more than likely sharks that are encroaching on a public beach.

However unless you catch a wild animal in the act of attacking someone then tough. Treadwell, for all his bluster about hating humans and loving bears, made many mistakes which contributed to his own death e.g. being in the park later than usual when bears were trying to locate as much food as possible for hibernation. He paid for his mistake and if I recall a number of bears were killed trying to figure out which one killed him.

nucker

hoodwinked wrote: »

i can never understand in this day and age why they cant put some kind of nets underwater around public beaches, to stop sharks/other sea life from getting in,


warn people they are there and they shouldn't get close to the visible markers (in case they get stuck)

1st point, it would be un-viable to do so

2nd point, try telling humans about anything and the likelihood is they will not listen

Wattle

If the shark is going to be put to death shouldn't there be a trial first?

granturismo

nucker wrote: »

Might of

Excuse me Mr Shark but can you confirm if you have developed a taste for human flesh, because if you haven't then please carry on and apologies for delaying your swim.:(

Scruffles

am completely against the retaliation of animals who have harmed or killed a human,for one thing animals do not have the same thinking nor mental capacity to think in such a calculating and vicious way,they are driven by primal instincts not stone cold hatred, revenge,pyschopathy or crazyness,cripes will people ever stop putting human thinking onto animals!

some animals have behavioral issues but the majority have become that way through human fault,humans shoud work on helping animals with issues as they do with humans- not destroy them.
they dont destroy some of the worst criminals the world has ever seen; they give them a cushy life albeit without the freedom of the real world,they treat these scumbags better than vulnerable innocent animals who happen to do what their neurology had programmed them to do,that says a lot about how fcuked up societys values are.

hoodwinked

Wattle wrote: »

If the shark is going to be put to death shouldn't there be a trial first?

he'll need a lawyer who's a shark if he's going to win....

Da Shins Kelly

Plazaman wrote: »

I'm all for putting down dogs that attack people and more than likely sharks that are encroaching on a public beach.

With regards to sharks encroaching on public beaches, why are they there? Is it something to do with over-fishing the waters? Are they coming to parts of the ocean where they wouldn't normally be in search of more food?

Shzm

hoodwinked wrote: »

i can never understand in this day and age why they cant put some kind of nets underwater around public beaches, to stop sharks/other sea life from getting in,


warn people they are there and they shouldn't get close to the visible markers (in case they get stuck)


am i missing something here because to me it equals a safe swimming area?

They do in some beaches in Australia - I've seen them around the Gold Coast, but these also protect against jellyfish more so I believe. New Zealand is a different story however, as these kind of attacks are very rare so there really is no need. Also, beaches like Muriwai are big surf beaches - good luck getting a net that will stand up to that sort of environment for very long.

hoodwinked

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

With regards to sharks encroaching on public beaches, why are they there? Is it something to do with over-fishing the waters? Are they coming to parts of the ocean where they wouldn't normally be in search of more food?

People are not food! :mad:


bad shark, bad *smacks with rolled up newspaper*

smash

hoodwinked wrote: »

i can never understand in this day and age why they cant put some kind of nets underwater around public beaches, to stop sharks/other sea life from getting in

nucker wrote: »

1st point, it would be un-viable to do so

Actually, a lot of beaches in Australia have shark nets.

Da Shins Kelly

hoodwinked wrote: »

People are not food! :mad:


bad shark, bad *smacks with rolled up newspaper*

I'm not suggesting that the shark came in search of humans specifically. I'm just wondering if their coming closer to public beaches has something to do with them searching for new areas to hunt in and then coming across someone paddling about and mistaking them for a seal or something.

nucker

granturismo wrote: »

Excuse me Mr Shark but can you confirm if you have developed a taste for human flesh, because if you haven't then please carry on and apologies for delaying your swim.:(

Riiiiiggghhhhtttt, not what I meant, but funny :pac:

refusetolose

nucker wrote: »

Might of

might have?

Plazaman

hoodwinked wrote: »

i can never understand in this day and age why they cant put some kind of nets underwater around public beaches, to stop sharks/other sea life from getting in,

warn people they are there and they shouldn't get close to the visible markers (in case they get stuck)

am i missing something here because to me it equals a safe swimming area?

They do have shark nets in a lot of areas however the idea of these nets is not stop the shark swimming into shore but to trap it and hold it until it drowns so they are destructive (plus a lot of other sea life such as dolphins, turtles, baby whales get caught and killed in them). Now I ain't no crusty tree huggin' save the planet type of guy but there has to be a better alternative.

Hoop66

padd b1975 wrote: »

Had to be done, shark had developed a taste for human meat.

Have you seen how a shark, especially a large shark, eats? They don't really bother to savour the gamey deliciousness all that much.

You could even feed them horse and they wouldn't know the difference.

Hang on...

Ush1

Like on a nature show when a lion kills a gazelle and the camera crew don't step in, "that's just nature". Wonder would they say the same if the lion caught a hold of Attenborough.

brokenarms

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I was just reading an article this morning about a man who was killed in a great white shark attack off the coast of New Zealand. After the guy had been killed, police went into the water and shot the shark. It's a very rare attack on a popular beach, but it got me thinking. We seem to do this with any animal attack against humans. In the documentary Grizzly Man, the bear that attacked and killed Timothy Treadwell was shot later on. It seems with alligator or crocodile attacks, it's the same thing. In pretty much any wild animal attack against humans, someone is sent out to find and kill the culprit.

I'm just wondering why this is. Humans are probably the most invasive creatures on the face of the planet, and it does seem as though a lot of the people who get killed in these attacks are people who are just asking for trouble and don't really have any respect for boundaries. After all, grizzly bears and alligators and great white sharks are predators, and if you think you can just trespass on the territories of dangerous wild animals, then you should expect some bad consequences. As sad as it all may be for the people involved, the animals seem to be just doing what is natural for them in their own habitat and it tends to be, for the most part, arrogance that gets these people killed.

Unless I'm missing something here. Is there some other possibly valid reason for this?

Really. You really need to ask this question???



Because we own the planet and we cant allow animals to go around eating us. Simples.

kylith

AFAIK it's because once an animal realises that humans are slow, weak, and defenceless they're more likely to start actively hunting people.

I'm all for not killing the animals though. Bears are bears, sharks are sharks; you can't expect them to act like anything other than what they are - animals that kill to survive.

Dyr

Plazaman wrote: »

I'm all for putting down dogs that attack people and more than likely sharks that are encroaching on a public beach.

Im pretty sure the shark didnt attack anyone on the sand...

Frolick

Firstly, i'd say its his own fault for going into shark infested waters. you should know the risk regardless

An animal that kills, will more then like attempt it again considering it got a nice tasty meal the last time.

On those nets, alot of marine get caught in it needless and die because of it and its very hard to get them out in time / safely

nucker

Ush1 wrote: »

Like on a nature show when a lion kills a gazelle and the camera crew don't step in, "that's just nature". Wonder would they say the same if the lion caught a hold of Attenborough.

I'm sure that they would have guns on with them to kill any animals that attack any of the crew

Ush1

nucker wrote: »

I'm sure that they would have guns on with them to kill any animals that attack any of the crew

Exactly, so it's nothing about leaving it happen because it's just nature, it's people covering our own arses.

SV

Ush1 wrote: »

Exactly, so it's nothing about leaving it happen because it's just nature, it's people covering our own arses.

Yes but it's not natural for Attenborough and the likes to actually be there so that only makes sense.


I highly doubt they'd be stepping in for the tribes that actively go in to steal food off Lions, as that's part of the habitat and the way it is.

stateofflux

hoodwinked wrote: »

he'll need a lawyer who's a shark if he's going to win....

most lawyers are sharks

flanders1979

Seems fair enough. I'm sure the family of the deceased wanted it.

Shzm

Frolick wrote: »

Firstly, i'd say its his own fault for going into shark infested waters. you should know the risk regardless

An animal that kills, will more then like attempt it again considering it got a nice tasty meal the last time.

On those nets, alot of marine get caught in it needless and die because of it and its very hard to get them out in time / safely

'shark infested waters'? Lol, you make it sound as if there's daily shark attacks happening off the coast of Auckland. Fact is, there hasn't been a shark attack (or at least a fatal one) in that area, or anywhere near it since 1966. There's only been 14 fatal shark attacks in NZ waters since 1837..

So no, it's not his fault, nor is it the sharks fault. Guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time and extremely unlucky. He was a local so has probably swum the same stretch of water 10s or 100s of times before, no problem. If he'd have played the lotto that week he'd probably have more chance of winning that than being killed by sharks.

Please get your facts straight before you clog up the internet with useless drivel.

Ush1

SV wrote: »

Yes but it's not natural for Attenborough and the likes to actually be there so that only makes sense.


I highly doubt they'd be stepping in for the tribes that actively go in to steal food off Lions, as that's part of the habitat and the way it is.

How do mean not natural? Just because he isn't hunting the lions? He still part of the natural world and is meat to a lion.

I think they would be stepping in to be honest. In fact, in the making of human planet they were dealing with a tribe doing this all their lives and the BBC crew didn't want them to do it and were hugely concerned about the tribesmen safety.

GetWithIt

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I'm just wondering why this is. Humans are probably the most invasive creatures on the face of the planet, and it does seem as though a lot of the people who get killed in these attacks are people who are just asking for trouble and don't really have any respect for boundaries. After all, grizzly bears and alligators and great white sharks are predators, and if you think you can just trespass on the territories of dangerous wild animals, then you should expect some bad consequences. As sad as it all may be for the people involved, the animals seem to be just doing what is natural for them in their own habitat and it tends to be, for the most part, arrogance that gets these people killed.

There's a thread in the vids forum that bears this out. Very sad. Also, totally NSFW.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056890331

sesswhat

When thousands of wild predators are killed every day for commercial reasons, in fishing nets, to protect farming interests or simply just for 'sport', is it worth even considering the miniscule numbers targeted for attacking humans?

SV

Ush1 wrote: »

How do mean not natural? Just because he isn't hunting the lions? He still part of the natural world and is meat to a lion.

I think they would be stepping in to be honest. In fact, in the making of human planet they were dealing with a tribe doing this all their lives and the BBC crew didn't want them to do it and were hugely concerned about the tribesmen safety.

He's not part of the natural habitat as the tribesmen are.

Maybe they said they didn't want them to do it, they still liked it enough to film and show it on tv.

Wattle

It happened in New Zealand right? There's no death penalty there. Maybe the shark would get sentenced to life in a tiny miserable tank. The guards could tease him by putting their bare arses in the water.

nucker

Wattle wrote: »

It happened in New Zealand right? There's no death penalty there. Maybe the shark would get sentenced to life in a tiny miserable tank. The guards could tease him by putting their bare arses in the water.

I am against torturing animals :pac:

Wattle

nucker wrote: »

I am against torturing animals :pac:

How do you rehabilitate a shark though? Turn him into that nice Free Willy?

anncoates

If my mot got eaten by a shark, I'd want the thing killed and opened up so I could get the engagement ring and other jewelery back.

I'm not forking out all that money again when I meet somebody else.