🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <354C4DF4.FF03F4BD@gate.net>#1/1,
  Harry Krause <hkrause@gate.net> wrote:

> Jeff Nelson wrote:

> > jdtmorris@hotmail.com wrote:

> > > The reason there has been no other shark attack since then is that, as
> > > you mentioned, the Hong Kong government purchased some shark nets. They
> > > have installed nets on every Hong Kong beach ( 46 beaches ).
> >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Francois

> > OK, here's my politically correct message of the decade:

> > These shark nets ravage the local wildlife.  They kill sharks,
> > they kill ALOT of sharks, often hundreds per month in some areas.
> > They also kill many other large fish and mammals that might
> > be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

> > (PBS did a special on this, I guess some of it sank in.)
                              - Jeff

> Killing sharks in this fashion is no different than our killing of Native
> Americans (aka Indians) in the last two centuries to make the country
>"safe" for the white man.

> Sharks are just out there trying to earn their living, and, unlike guys with
> guns, they only kill to put meat on their tables.

> Surely there are humane ways to control sharks OTHER than stringing up nets
>that kill so many of them.

I am not for the use of nets to kill sharks either. This is another reason
why I am interested in the electronic shark repellent technology which is
currently being developed in Australia and is being billed as a more
effective electronic repellent than the SharkPOD:

http://starbulletin.com/97/12/22/features/index.html

If found to live up to its billing, perhaps the Australian electronic
repellent technology could eventually be adapted to replace the deadly
netting.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading