Much has been written about the economic advantage of preserving nature and the natural environment, much has also been written about the wasteful way in which sharks are destroyed, wasteful, since in most cases the sharks that are tagged are thrown into the sea after their fins are cut off
Much has been written about the economic advantage of preserving nature and the natural environment, Much has also been written about the wasteful way in which the sharks are destroyed. Wasteful, since in most cases the sharks that are tagged are thrown into the sea after their fins are cut off. The cruel and wasteful fisherman is driven by superstitions and silly traditions about the health properties of soup made from shark fins.
73 million sharks are killed/killed every year mainly for their fins, we remind the readers that the material used for the soup is... Sachus, even a well-known "chef" of a Chinese restaurant in San Francisco says that: "The shark fins can be replaced with any other starchy material since the special flavor comes from the sauce.
In other words, the basis for the "miraculous delicacy" can be replaced with any cartilage from another source, the belief/tradition causes the destruction of millions of sharks in the entire world. The shark is a super predator in the marine system and the negative impact on the environment when a super predator finds its way has already been discussed before
One of the first countries (island country) to recognize the environmental danger and thereby the economic danger, a country whose authorities understood the illogicality of destroying sharks on the one hand, and on the other hand the enormous advantage of protecting them, was the island country of Palau, Palau first country in the world to proclaim a shark sanctuary, which lies in the Pacific Ocean.
In 2009, the president of the island declared the territorial waters of Palau a "shark sanctuary in the waters around the island" and the sharks a "protected fish", the declaration was addressed to the United Nations, since then Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands have joined the initiative. Marshall Islands authorities have banned the fishing, sale and/or possession of shark fins.
In other words, tiny island countries have realized the folly of cruel fishing and the environmental and economic advantage of preserving and protecting sharks. In a framed article we will mention that with us the shark is a protected fish that is not allowed in fishing.
Sharks that "visit" the reefs around the islands generate huge income according to the Institute of Marine Science at the University of Western Australia (hereafter AMS) Australian Institute of Marine Science University of Western Australia. One shark that lives for about 10 years will generate an income of 2 million dollars for the island coffers.
From the analysis that quantifies the economic benefits of the diving "industry" on the island, it appears that the profit generated by a live shark is hundreds of times greater than the profit from shark fishing, the study focused around about 100 sharks that regularly visit five diving sites, the study did not count sharks that are not "regular visitors" to the island's waters,
Enric Sala, a marine biologist who participated in the research states that: The internalization of the scientific information about the need to protect sharks will be clear and logical to the residents when they understand the economic advantage of conservation over fishing. For shark fishing is equal to slaughtering a goose that lays golden eggs.
The survey of A.M.S. He showed that the annual value of one shark that visits the reef is equal to 179 thousand dollars, or about 2 million dollars throughout its life.
Diving to watch sharks earns the island authorities about 18 million dollars every year. The total salaries paid by the shark diving operators is approximately one million dollars, the total taxes paid to the authorities each year from the diving revenues constitute 14% of the state's (Pelo) tax revenues.
The chairman of Global Shark Conservation says that tourism to watch sharks is an economic engine of utmost importance. Wild shark fishing causes fatal damage to the marine environment and the economy, the EMS survey shows that the preservation and protection of the shark population is an economic initiative with a much higher added value than their destruction, and it is to be hoped that the survey will convince and compel more countries to adopt a policy of preserving the marine environment in general and for sharks in particular, a policy that will pay off financially,
It has already been said that the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.
14 תגובות
Dr. Rosenthal
"The predators in general, the super predators in particular and among them the sharks
Contribute to the balance by removing/predating the less qualified individuals:
Expenditure that improves the health of the victim population,
A healthy population is a population with survival skills,
Populations of healthy animals/fish are strengthened in a healthy environment,"
- Definitely answers my question. Thanks.
to R. H. Rafai.M
The answers to your questions are given in many lists, some of which are on the website,
To summarize:
A healthy environment is an environment in which balance exists
Among all the factors and natural resources
- Plants, herbivores and carnivores,
The predators in general, the super predators in particular and among them the sharks
Contribute to the balance by removing/predating the less qualified individuals:
Expenditure that improves the health of the victim population,
A healthy population is a population with survival skills,
Populations of healthy animals/fish are strengthened in a healthy environment,
In other words, the sharks contribute to the balance and health of the marine environment,
This is of course only when the negative "contribution" of
The human factor is neutralized.
Ron.P.
Look, I'll phrase the question I asked differently (although I think the first wording is clear enough):
Humans have a positive and negative impact on the environment (like all other animals).
If we refer (for the purpose of the discussion) only to the 'positive effect' that a person has on the environment and define the positive effect as a "contribution to the environment", it will be possible to say: that the person contributes to his environment by conserving endangered animals. Or the person knows how to cure diseases...
If we refer not to humans but to sharks - what will be their contribution to their natural environment?
(Note: the question is not 'what will happen if we take the super carnivore out of the equation' or 'what will happen if we take the human out of the equation' - it is clear that if we take the super carnivore out of the equation then smaller predators will take over the environment. Just like what will happen if we take out the human from the equation, or if we take the dinosaurs out of the equation).
R.H. is definitely a spot on question, but don't be lazy.
Search for yourself…
I quote: "The shark is a super predator in the marine system and the negative impact on the environment when a super predator finds its way has already been discussed before."
As soon as you take a super predator out of the equation other details will take its place for better or for worse, we won't know that 🙂
Respondent 9
No. It doesn't explain anything related to the question I asked.
You provide a link to an article that tells about the super predators doing less damage to humans (mostly) than small predators.
If you want to say that the sharks' contribution to their environment is: 'causing less economic and agricultural damage' then that is not an answer to the question I asked.
If you didn't understand the question then you better not answer, because you are confusing other innocent readers.
I repeat the question again: what is the contribution of sharks to their natural environment?
(For commenters like 'Assaf' or commenter #9: the natural environment of sharks is not the environment where humans are!).
Maybe this will explain to you
https://www.hayadan.org.il/super-preditors-missing-2211099/
Respondent 5
You wrote "sharks are the top predators in their environment..." - and if a killer whale (orca) enters their environment? Even then the shark will hunt? Or will he become the hunted?
If we assume that at the top of the food chain is man - who can kill a lion and eat him - what does this say about the lion who can devour a human?
The same with the sharks - they can eat many other animals (including chicken - provided you throw it in the environment where the shark is) but they also eat the sharks, and they also eat you, but they eat the sharks.
Hence - your statement regarding the 'contribution' of sharks to the environment - is equivalent to the 'contribution' of all other animals that 'eat'. That is, what you are actually saying is that 'if humans eat then they are contributing to their environment'. Basically in your answer you contributed nothing to the discussion.
It is clear that sharks can be beneficial to humans. As written in the article - you can make money on them.
But money can be made from almost anything.
What I asked is: what is the contribution of the sharks to their (natural) environment?
Perhaps the solution is to fish more of the sharks' menu and thus reach a balance without harming cruel traditions.
Respondent #5
In a healthy and natural environment - respondent number 3 (whose response was deleted) would have been "deleted".
Avi Blizovsky
Is there a possibility that you will block commenter number 5 who violates the website's rules and impersonates Dr. Assaf Rosenthal?
to my people
In many places, hunters became inspectors, loggers became forest guards, whale hunters became tourist guides.
For whale watching and so on and so all residents and visitors benefit.
to R.H.
Sharks are the top predators in their environment and as such maintain a healthy environment by "diluting" everything
included in their menu,
Dr. Rosenthal
I did not understand what the sharks' contribution to their environment is, I would appreciate it if you could clarify.
To 3
Said by anyone who doesn't want creatures like you harming the environment.
I have a great idea.
In light of the above: "...even a well-known "chef" of a Chinese restaurant in San Francisco says that:
"You can replace the shark's fins with any other starchy material since the special flavor comes from the sauce."
After all, it is possible to make artificial shark fins from industrial edible starches and sell them as a material
Raw material for shark soup, much like they produce and sell soup powder from artificial starch as if it were soup
chicken. This could make shark soup a global hit and also save the sharks from extermination.
I do not take a percentage of the profits.
One of the sharks worked for the Mossad and did damage to tourism in Sinai.
Nice article! I understand an important thing from her: shark diving should be separated from the tourism industry in order to convince shark divers not to fish for them. Money is money and the fisherman has to eat, because his business is fishing and not shark diving tourism. So if a live shark is worth 2 million dollars for tourism and a pair of fins is worth XNUMX dollars for a fisherman, then it is possible to close this problem with a small amount of money.