Article

Reunion Island Bans Surfing

In response to recent attacks, Reunion Island shuts down its lineups and plans to cull 90 sharks

| posted on July 29, 2013

Government officials on Reunion Island have banned surfing outside of the island's lagoon to help stem shark attacks, leaving the lineups of St. Leu conspicuously empty. Photo: Joli

In response to a surge in shark attacks, government officials in Reunion Island have banned surfing outside of the island’s lagoons until October 1 of this year. Anyone caught surfing outside of the lagoon will face a $50 fine. Additionally, they plan to cull 90 sharks—45 tiger sharks and 45 bull sharks—from the island’s waters to help combat the attacks.

“I think it’s stupid. I’m shocked they banned surfing in the area,” said Damien Ferrere, 16, who lives in the south of Reunion. “If we want to surf, we risk 38€ and possible prison time. If I want to surf, I will.”

The government of the island released the following three-point plan to deal with the attacks:

“An immediate prohibition of swimming, surfing and bodyboarding within the coastal strip of 300 meters from shore in the department of Reunion until October 1st, 2013. These activities are only allowed within the shallow ‘lagoon’ and supervised areas as determined by the prefecture. Beachgoers who do not comply with the restrictions will be subject to a fine of 38 Euros ($50 U.S. dollars).

“A total of 90 sharks should be ‘taken’ as part of the scientific ciguatera program to assess the marketing objectives of sharks in Reunion Island.

“A new website, dedicated to inform the public about the shark risk in Reunion Island, will be established in October 2013.”

The 90 sharks that will be killed will be done so under the veil of the island’s ciguatera program. It should be noted that only tiger sharks and bull sharks—the two species most commonly associated with attacks on the island—will be killed.

Over the past six years, the French territorial island has suffered an onslaught of attacks, with two fatalities in the past three months alone. The most recent attack occurred when a young woman was killed just yards from the shore while she snorkeled with a friend.

The island’s residents have been divided on whether or not the government should implement a culling program to trim the number of sharks in the area. Following a fatal attack of a popular local surfer in August of last year, 300 surfers demonstrated outside of the local police department demanding that the shark population in the area be culled. Others aren’t sure that a shark cull is the answer to the problem. Reunion Island is home to a marine reserve where fishing is limited. Some surfers on the island believe that this reserve, which was enacted six years ago, has allowed the number of sharks in the area to overpopulate, leading to the rise in attacks.

“I don’t think that killing 90 sharks is going to solve the problem. It’s a lot more complicated than that. I believe they need to let more fisherman into the marine reserve to cut the shark’s supply of fish,” added Ferrere. “I think they need to balance out the whole ecosystem; you can’t just kill 90 sharks and expect that to work.”

This was not the first time the government on Reunion Island has issued a cull for sharks. In August of last year, in the wake of three deadly attacks in a single year, the government opted to cull 20 sharks in the marine reserve.

  • KP

    So annoyed. I’m going there in September to go surfing! So gutted!

    • 20ftat20seconds

      Refundable ticket? I was just thinking that anyone who had a surf holiday booked already for the Fall would be pretty agitated by this.

      • KP

        I think its wrong that the government are going to cull the sharks. Been surfing for over 20 years and seen many sharks in the water in my time. I am annoyed that Reunion have banned surfing to cull the sharks. Its their grounds we choose to play in it! I am happy to get fined to go for a surf in uncrowded Reunion in September but they will be attracting the sharks to kill them which means I will now be more at risk. I just spent $500 on an ESDS device to protect myself from the sharks. Frankly sharks net have proved that they work world wide where they use them so why haven’t Reunion given this a try first before killing 90 sharks! Drawing these sharks to kill them may not have the effect they hoping for and lead to future attacks!!!
        I know the risks entering the water when I paddle out. Its their home and I choose to play in it!

    • Matt

      At least you’ll be coming back..

      • KP

        I won’t go back. Costing me a fortune to take my whole family and now they ban the reason that I am going to Reunion during the duration I am there. Won’t risk that happening again.

  • zg

    Killing those sharks for them simply trying to eat. That’s their instict and were invading their space. Maybe a simple sign saying enter at your own risk would do. Or even relocate the sharks?…

  • JV

    They’re going to kill sharks for being in the ocean? Wow.

    • God

      That’s right, humans have the ability to kill sharks just as sharks have the ability to kill other fish. It’s about humans getting the balance right to protect their interests in the long and short term including keeping biodiversity intact. Your view is simplistic and naive.

      • CriticalMass

        wild animals cant be reasoned with and when human beings enter the ocean we risk harm to our bodies and lives. anybody that tries to manipulate a natural system is stupid. i am a former surfer and I still have my life because sharks didnt take a bite out of me, its a 50/50 chance not that complicated to grasp.

  • Marc Armstrong,geordieindevon

    I’d happily pay $50 to surf uncrowded waves at reunion island any day

    • Bez

      YUP!!

  • Minlandia

    Tell that to the families who lost their love ones, dick!

    • Laird

      Your not even a fucking surfer you should not be in this conversation because killing sharks is not a good thing you need to be a surfer to know that. So stay out of our conversation with your murderous thoughts.

      • Ryan

        Well I am a surfer and I value a human life over the life of an out-of-control species that is by no way shape or form endangered. We kill millions of fish every year to eat, please explain to me the significant difference between killing a Bull Shark and lets say tuna? Other than the obvious size difference. And btw, what does being a surfer have anything to do with being in this conversation?

        • Mickey

          Killing tuna to eat is completely different to killing sharks because they need to eat. Sharks don’t hunt/kill for fun, they do it for survival.

        • Alyssa Edwards

          It is NOT an out of control species, and they are quite close to being endangered with people such as these taking matters into their own hands and killing them off by the hundreds. It’s ridiculous. There is a problem with overfishing (yes, even of tuna!) and we need to be aware of that before taking drastic measures such as this. People are aware of the risk when they go in the water, yes it is very tragic that people loose their lives but they willingly and knowingly took the risk. That doesn’t give us the right to go in and exterminate the natural predator of that habitat.

          • Paupo

            Not all types of sharks are endangered species. Bullsharks and tigersharks are not, and specially not around the island, since no on can fish them for a good couple of years now. Those sharks are newly settled on the West Coast for many reasons. Not only human lives are at risk, but also other marine species and rare reef fish and sharks, preys of the bullsharks and tiger sharks. Why aren’t you concerned by those other fish types? Are they less important? I don’t want my island to become a nursery for bull sharks and tiger sharks. I want the balance of our marine ecosystem to go back to normal. The West Coast and its shore was never the habitat of those dangerous sharks and it should never become one for them.

          • drh2141

            Again I disagree with you. There are tons of bull sharks here on the East Coast of the US.

        • 360airwalk

          we, including you, are the only out of control species on this planet.

  • Stan-Malo Gesnel

    Surf
    is now illegal here since we got the worst shark attacks rate in the
    world. Some white douche manipulate the politicians to forbid
    traditional fishing covering that with so called environment concerns.
    The harmony we had between sharks surfers and fishermen was destroyed by
    fucking Parisians absolutely unaware of the reality of the Indian
    ocean. The big fisheries keep fucking up the resource out
    in the open ocean and they created a marine reserve right in the middle
    of the surf beaches of the island. No so called scientists at any point
    thought that the shark population would go through the roof like it
    did. The bull-shark took advantage of that situation being the most
    aggressive, rejected from the open ocean they started killing the other
    smaller coastal sharks ( black, white tip ) Now we have a pool of only
    one specie of fucking aggressive sharks all over our surf breaks and
    we’re dying like flies. The worst thing is that sea sheperd is fighting
    us because we want harmony back which means fishing that absolutely not
    endangered specie to regulate its population to a normal number. At the
    same time big fisheries kill tons of mako and blue sharks every year and
    sea sheperd don’t do shit about that. All around Reunion Island i smell
    hypocrisy, Surfers are second class citizens here. They waited on the
    situation to rot until swimmers started dying too. Now they’re parking
    swimmers into the lagoons and natural pool using
    bulldozers to dig them fucking up the reef. WELCOME IN REUNION ISLAND

  • Tracey von Ott

    Killing sharks is not the answer. It’s creating and balancing an Eco-system in the marine reserve, which only environmental scientists and marine biologists can achieve. Not government officials decisions!

    • Christophe Folio

      The marine reserve is a big excuse in Reunion. Politicians and so calles scientist polluted the water by releasing huge quantities of dirty water without paying the taxes or any control on it but themselves !! Almost all politicians have parts in these industries !! 47 dirty rivers pollute the reserve and they made industrial tourism… onto the reef !! A industrial group: the SAPMER, over-fish 27000 tons of tuna, mako and blue sharks + others species around in high seas !!! The “reserve” destroyed in less than 5 years all the protected shark species !! The reef sharks and hammerhead sharks… ALL !!! The most speicies of fishes disapear from the reef !! It brokr all when it was made to protect !! Corrupted people do that !! They’ve locked all !!! And, yes, they take the excuse of the attacks to construct big structures onto the reef !!! Onto wild reefs men !!! They’re killing our island !! Ask Shark Angel France !!! The information you got come directly from the powers who lock all in our island !!! Wher there are bulldozers distroying the reef, it’s more guarded by the police than the NASA !!! THEY’RE KILLING ALL HERE !! IT’S BECOMING A BULLSHARK AND A TIGER SHARK DESERT !!! An estimation gives this number: more than 3000 bullsharks on 30 km of coasts !! Traditional fishermen can’t fish out of the reserve ! Sharks take 50% of their fishes before they take fishes in the boat !!! I’ve never seen such crazy things in my life !! There is 2 attacks per montf on 15 km of coast even if there is less than 100 surfers in the water !! The last death, the teenage girl just put his legs in the water !!! Just that ! She had been cut in two by a big shark eating the upper part of the body !! Each surfer of Reunion island almost know someone who have been attacked !!! 13 attacks on 30 km of beaches between 10 am and 16 am in two years !!! 5 dead, 2 people badly injuried !! I never thought there could be such a shark quantity in a coast !! Scientist almost said that its a place for there reproduction !!! All around the island at less than 100 meters from the shores !! Invasion ! In the harbours, inside the lagoon, I’ve seen fishes head… They are everywere !! Even in the harbour, it’s not safe ! I would tell you what I saw these two years, you wild not believe me !! Sad world… The other people telling you the bullsharks weren’t there before at places where attacks happen by dozen are right, the ones who tell you an industry overfish in high seas around are right, the reserve overpolluted till it was created, they tell the truth… Truth is a hard thing to live with my friend… I wish no one to suffer what is happening to us… Even my worst ennemy. Horror is among us…

      • Paupo

        The marine reserve is here to protect and save the ecosystem of Reunion, but I do believe that in the end, it probably re-shaped it in another way. I also wonder what happens to those other species that are probably eaten by those new-comers, bulls and tiger sharks. Why aren’t people concerned by those other types of fish and sharks that are rare and were present on the reef and that are completely gone now? I do have the feeling that we should never play with nature and try to transform it, even for the best. Things can turn wrong, and they did turn wrong.

    • Paupo

      Scientists don’t have a clue on hwhat happened and on how to solve the problem. They did not expect this invasion of sharks. Prevention is no longer a solution since attacks occur in all sorts of conditions, good, bad, in clear water or not, during good hours or late, close to the shore or further away and on any kind of sea users. Playing around with nature was not good. The reserve marine is just the proof that trying to implement a type of ecosystem supposedly good for nature has just completely unbalanced the whole thing that existed there. We are paying the consequences now.

  • Bruno Rigo

    dont kill, more sharks will replace them very soon. you have to implant trackers on them, monitor their locations and make an alarm system with buoys or lifeguard whistle code

    • Paupo

      It’s being done. 80 sharks have been marked within 6 months (Check on the IRD site). The last attack, in July, was not caused by an un-marked shark. Following this attack, 3 sharks were captured, of which one marked. The other two were not. The killer shark was not captured. All the elements, testimonies of people seems to demonstrate that many more un-marked sharks are around the island. Trackers have shown that the marked sharks concentrate on 2 specific points on the West Coast and often get close to the shore of popular beaches. But then, assuming that only 10% of the existing sharks have been marked, how can we monitor the whole sea? tracking is not enough either. Bullsharks and tigersharks are spreading rapidly here. No predator around them and no human to fish them since the marine reserve has been created. How can this not damage the balance that existed on the West Coast so far? Those sharks have about 10 to 40 little ones every 10-12 months, they will need to get food…

      • Chris

        They not need predators, they are the predators, they need a healthy population of prey. The “balance” that you repeatedly is not a static issue, but a dynamic state. Oceans don’t need humans to fish and recover that suppose balance. They need food and their food is in open ocean, we need open ocean reserves or strict regulations on fish quotas. Sharks aren’t the problem just the symptom.

  • Al

    What a sad day…surfer demanding to kill sharks…

    • Paupo

      I guess you did not get the whole story right…

      • cleanSooke

        ^ I thought he was referring to all the comments on here. Safe to assume we’re all surfers here.

        • Paupo

          I’m not :-)

  • Sharknado HQ

    What Reunion needs is a……..SHARKNADO!!!!!!!!!

  • Seabass120

    Silly frogs.

  • Olivier LD

    Reunion island waters are infested by big dangerous bullsharks and tiger sharks, 2 species that are not threatened and not protected. The infestation begun in 1999 with the fishing stop. These 2 species threaten biodiversity of the ecosystem. It’s time to regulate to get a balance …

    • Alyssa Edwards

      That doesn’t mean that we have the right to go in and mass exterminate them. Just because they aren’t in danger now doesn’t mean they couldn’t easily become that if we start taking actions such as this one. The killing of sharks is a huge problem, and murdering 90 of them for the sake of vengeance (which this is) is not a solution. Not to mention you’re just clearing the area for other sharks to move in and take over. We don’t get to decide how or when to regulate, nature will do that on its own.

      • matt obrien

        murder only happens between humans. killing animals for whatever reason IS NOT murder. It is killing. A big difference. As for the killing of the sharks, when a species runs rampant on an ecosystem, the species must me thinned out. That is why deer are hunted every year, as rats, mice and other species that have a the ability to threaten an ecosystem. This issue isn’t as black AND white as you portray it.

        • Innes

          Humans have run rampant and destroyed many ecosystems much more than deer, mice, rates, and other species have. A big difference. The issue isn’t as black AND white as you portray it.
          Humans must be thinned out.

          • Mitch

            Agreed, humans have caused more wide spread damage throughout the worlds ecosystems than any other organism that has existed in the last 65 million years. If the threat is really about ecosystem destruction, I think first of all we should take action towards human activities.

          • matt obrien

            Now You ARE Advocating murder! I was wondering if somebody would reply to my reply that way… but to get 2! Silly.

        • drh2141

          So we should stop coming up with cures to diseases and stop handing out vaccinations? Yah, I am sure you would appreciate that when its your son or daughter who comes down with tenus, polio, TB or HIV.

      • drh2141

        And who is to say we are not part of nature? They have a way more than normal amount of bull sharks and tiger sharks, so in order to balance out the ecosystem, they thin their numbers. We do the same with alligators here in Charleston. And no part of the animal goes to waste.

  • Paupo

    In order to trace the routes of some sharks, the IRD captured, marked and released 80 bull sharks and tiger sharks within 6 months (mostly 2.5 and 3.5m sharks). In comparison, other sharky countries capture an average of 20 within 3, 4 years. There seems to be a lot of sharks around here nowadays. The whole western side of the island is part of the marine reserve now. Noone can fish in there, no predator eat those sharks either. it’s been going on for a couple of years now. Reunion Island has become a real nursery for bull sharks and tiger sharks. Despite they are not endangered here in Reunion, they are treated like a sacred beast by a bunch of activists. People die, other coastal species die, coral reefs die with people overcrowding the lagoon, the economy is also dying, but still we have to see our island turn into a shark nursery.

    http://www.clicanoo.re/379128-requins-deux-zones-sensibles-a-saint-gilles-et-a-l-etang-du-gol.html?var_mode=calcul

    • william

      Paupo, here in Recife, Brazil, we have a inverted factor. There´s no fish and the bull -tiger sharks attack at shore. Last week a 18 year old girl was killed with water on her waist. The security cams on the ocean avenue captured all the action. before she could drown (the life savers were already on the water and the rescue jet sky was about 10m from her) the bull shark took her leg off.
      I dont know nothing about ecology, but here the ambientalists say thats because of the lack of food, and I understand that in reunion is because the great amount (offer) of fish, how come????
      Surf is banned since 1995 and hundreds of attacks are masked by the authorities to prevent tourism..

      • Paupo

        Oi William,
        This sounds dreadful. We are still very puzzled, in distress and angry each time there is an attack. We always hope not to see that again, but it never stops…
        Noone knows for sure why the sharks suddenly appeared in such big groups on the West Coast. We just can guess. The marine reserve was created in 2007 and since then we can only witness the increase of shark attacks. They also are extremely violent and occur in any context, good or bad. The reserve grows a lot of fish, things are going quite well on that side. To give you an idea, the whole western Coast, where all the popular beaches and surf spots are located, is now part of this reserve. We can no longer fish in those waters. There is a very strict protocol with guards and everything. Also was created a fish farm at the border of the reserve around 2007 too (close to were the last attack occurred). I suppose that sharks became attracted by this profusion of food, since it appears that further away in the ocean, they have less and less food. Then other factors may come into play, pollution for exemple. I believe that sharing information with you in Recife can be extremely useful in solving the crisis, despite the possible differences in the causes of the attacks.

        • william

          for sure we can exchange information.

          here theres an ambientalist group called CEMIT that “study” the problem since 1992. the most dangerous beaches have information signs to try to prevent attacks but as swimming isn´t forebidden people (mostly tourists) enter the water and are attacked..

          there are 59 “official attacks” by the CEMIT, 29 deaths, since 1992.

          they say that suape port and pollution are responsible for the attacks. but there are about 350-400 “suspect” drownings, when the dead bodies appear at the beach and are classified as unknown cause… they say that they dont know if the person died before (drown) or after the attack… if you have curiosity try “aliados do propesca” in facebook or https://www.facebook.com/groups/DESPITPE/ there´s a great confusion going on here, there is a lot of money involved, last week the goverment finnanced 1,000,000. u$ dollars for research, so many believe that CEMIT doesn´t want to quit the attacks so they can mantain their $$$$.

    • drh2141

      We don’t get nearly the number of surfers here on the East Coast of the US, but we have been seeing larger and larger number of Bull Sharks in our waters. They are naturally from this area, but I haven’t heard of so many popping up the way they have been. They also swim up rivers with brackish to fresh water for miles. Its crazy.

  • Andy

    If you walk in the forest and get attacked by a bunch of mosquitos what are you going to do? Swat them, right? Is surfing any more selfish than taking a walk in nature? If you get bent out of shape for killing sharks, then don’t kill mosquitos (I don’t care about mosquitos, just making a point). BUT, maybe they should just leave the sharks alone and let people take their chances huh?

    • cleanSooke

      Don’t like sharks in the ocean…don’t surf. It’d be better for all involved.

  • Leucadlover

    If sharks were killing people, surfers or not, at my break, as much as I respect them, I would want a “thinning of the herd.” Sorry Charlie, I don’t want my daughter, myself, or anyone else getting killed by a shark. When their food source gets too thin, the sharks stop with the testing and just start eating. It is inevitable. We take their food and they eat us. So either we stop fishing or some have to go.

  • Rick

    Terrible reactions all around. Killing sharks is not a solution, nor is banning surfing. Sharks are part of the territory there and should not be killed just for being there – you want to talk about overpopulation, the most overpopulated species on the planet is humans. and

  • cleanSooke

    Any surfer that goes in the ocean and doesn’t think he/she becomes part of the food chain should not surf. It’s like thinking there’s no chance of drowning. I feel for the families of the dead, but my family knows if I get killed by a shark/jellyfish or drown while surfing, I was doing the one thing that has brought me peace for the past 40 years and they know I’ve done so knowing 100% what my position in the line-up is. Don’t like it, don’t surf.

  • John

    Wow I heard from mike Stewart when he went for a bodyboarding reunion down there and the sharks were a problem then a year ago. I think the one guy talking about too many fish might be the issue.

  • sampson

    kill the sharks.. Big deal. They are not even mammals… They are fish people… no different from a tuna, or salmon, except they’ll bite the f*ck outta you

  • Alyssa Edwards

    Killing sharks for being a top ocean predator is simply barbaric. Not to mention the fact that many shark populations are declining at a startling and disturbing rate. Killing them seems more like an act of vengeance rather than a scientific solution to the problem, and it’s only a temporary solution. Ridding the water of 90 sharks doesn’t mean that more won’t come in and take their place. Especially given the reason they are there in the first place- the abundance of fish to feed on. With those sharks out of the way it just makes the location even more ideal for other sharks to move in and take over the territory. If people still want to surf there-even with the threat of shark attack-let them do so at their own risk. It’s their life, and we shouldn’t punish these animals for the act of a human who is fully aware of the risk he or she has put themselves in.

  • Sharknado

    I’m going there to set up a eat st. vehicle, selling shark fin soup, and shark tacos. They want to eat surfers, than surfer can eat them also.

  • Toothless

    Marine reserves are silly, they disrupt the natural interaction between humans and fish, allowing the most dominant predatory fish species to overrun the area. Seen this happen with my own eyes over decades of diving. Cull some of the sharks, get rid of the reserve, problem solved. Put human lives over those of sharks, which in this case is a plentiful species. Sick of the enviro-mentalists putting everything but humans first.

    • Chris

      Make numbers mate… how many humans there are, and how many sharks, how many humans die by sharks and how many sharks by humans… this is not rocket science, for the health of the ocean sharks worth much more than humans.

  • Kk
    • Joe M

      I surf and I want dangerous sharks to be completely culled from areas where they kill people.

      Whatever peoples knowledge and opinions about the risks are, they are still people that are more valuable than the lives of sharks.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mykel1990 Mykel Cesare

    That is some grade-A BS.

  • My 2 Cents

    The best thing for our species is maintaining a balance in the ocean – not extreme local imbalances fueled by equal measures of convenience, guilt, and well-intentioned naivete. Open the reserve to local fishing, regulate the offshore fisheries, AND perhaps cull the shark population now to address the known risk in the near term.

  • ThomasP

    So now Reunion is the second place I know of where surfing is banned besides Norway, where many of our best spots are off limits for the protection of BIRDS. Motorboats are fine, walking your dog, no problem, but surfing is a big no-no. How do you like them apples?

    • Christophe Folio

      So you may have an idea of what we feel. For example of crazy ecologism lobby: Copenhagen ; Same problem, but lobbys made bird sanctuaries all around an airport !!! Crazy stuff !! You can’t remove the airport but you cas displace the bird sanctuaries… Because of the pression of these lobbys, birds sanctuary stayed.. It bacame the airport with the highest rate of bird-strikes !! People get injuried, somme killed… Aircraft engines distroyed and emergency declaration every month !! Insane isn’t it ? In Reunion, this is the same problem with sharks: they want to make a sahrk sanctuaries where all the human activities in the sea are… Misplaced powers in the wrong hands…

  • cazart

    Sounds like a seriously mismanaged fishery to me – somebody moved these predators’ food source. Sit the fishermen and the biologists down, for starters.

  • JML

    Luckily we already have a global cull of 20-100 million sharks per year, imagine how fucking over run the ocean would be otherwise! A cull of 90 is a drop in the fucking bucket.

    Ps. Tigers and bulls are two different shark species, not ‘breeds.’

  • Tassie

    I’ve read that, statistically, Reunion has quite a few road fatalities every year; apparently the ditches are dangerous. Perhaps the Govt should ban driving for a while and do a quick cull of a few motorists!
    While no one wants to get eaten alive anyone who uses the ocean has to be aware that there are risks involved. At present we certainly kill more sharks than they do people but that still doesn’t make the sea safe. After sharks, what next? Sting rays, jelly fish, rogue waves?
    As for the marine reserve being the problem, there needs to be more study into that tired argument. In Western Aust, where they has a similar shark issues, recent findings show that sharks were coming closer to shore due to changes in ocean temperatures (draw your own conclusions of what that might be a result of).

  • Victoria C

    Yet another example of politicians trying to regulate the water…surfers are the best agents to advise on a solution..and of course common sense.

  • Pesky Vrmt

    What is wrong with the human race?

  • jeff

    Sharks aside, WOW. Some scary opinions here. Racist and pro genocide. How far we have fallen. All so the power hungry can get the votes of the useful idiots? We have to learn from our history or we are doomed to repeat it and next time around it will be far worse because of our advanced technology. You people are scaring me.

    Sharks and surfing are nowhere near as important as the consequences your ideas are leading to.

  • Wildlife defender

    Screw all you goddamn surfers!! Sharks should not be killed because you want to invade their home!!

  • wildlife defender

    Screw the surfers!! In the first place people/surfers are invading the ocean, the sharks’ home!!! Sharks have a right to exist and do what they do. If someone wants to surf, those people have to be held accountable for the risk they are willing to take, just like people who hike in bear country, Yellowstone. Animals should NEVER be killed for the sake of human entertainment/play!!! That is just totally wrong…immorally, ethically, and environmentally!!!

  • Shark Stewards

    Tell the government that a cull is not the answer. Let surfers decide where they will take risks. http://seaisoursanctuary.blogspot.com/2013/08/reunion-island-government-proposes.html

  • Al Goodwin

    Sounds like a good idea to me. The $50 fine is to stop people getting killed which probably costs the local govt. a lot more than that. Killing 90 sharks is probably a reasonable amount, tho a round 100 seems better. After the cull surely they will drop the fine.

    Those whiners who want to keep things natural, well it’s a bit late for that and anyone who objects should be made to go out for a paddle outside the reef to see if they are hypocrites or just plain deluded idiots.
    I’m sure things will be sweet as and soon and we can say I told you so to all those naysayers and those sick waves won’t go to waste!

  • wildlife defender

    Sharks should NEVER be murdered to keep surfers safe!!!!! People surf for fun and recreation, not to sustain their own lives. If people want to surf, let them be responsible for their own safety. The ocean does not belong to humans, it belongs to the intelligent, innocent, and threatened sea life that resides there. If God has wanted mankind to spend a lot of time in the ocean, we would have fins and gills!!

  • Patrick Vitry

    In Hawaï, in Reunion Island, in South Africa, in Australia, in Florida, in California, in Brasil, the local surfers use violence with kicks, knives, axes and they have got great opponents, sharks. You are not heavy facing sharks, are you?

  • D.

    Why not just let the Chinese come and fish all the sharks out!!!! Win win for everyone!!! Chinese get sharks to make soup and surfers can surf without thinking of a possible shark attack.

  • clubcardpoints

    Blithering little eco-humping pop-tarts. “its not fair; it’s their ocean; what about extinction; human’s don’t belong there; re-locate the poor bastards; don’t mess with nature” Get in the real World and think like intelligent people. Otherwise, sink to the bottom of the Pacific with the rest of those blind molluscs and whine as much as you want. Reunion is a volcanic island miles from any land mass, populated by many people who like to enjoy the Ocean. What do you propose? Tell your child to punch a 4m Tiger shark on the hooter when it casually swims up to lick his face? Jesus.

  • Spongebob

    Why not turn it in to the retarded tourist industry like we did here in SA? Throw normally sensible euro citizens who have left their boring desk job in to poorly assembled cages and bait the sea with tuna guts then print brochures with lots of teeth shots. Viola – million dollar industry. But dont ride your bike on Lionshead. Retarded – yup. Welcome to politics.

  • matt

    ohhh but what about the poor defenseless sharks (sarcasm)

    local governments do not like their citizens/visiting tourists getting killed…they’re kinda funny like that. this is not an ideal solution, but certainly not the “shark murder” some of you are getting worked up about. we are talking about 90 snorkeler attacking and tourism dollar draining sea beasts. take your save the shark bullshit to any number of the other places around the world where thousands are killed daily for soup.

  • Chris

    Ignorant comments upset me. Humans KILL 100 MILLION sharks a year the demise of sharks will effect the entire eco system. Sharks need to be protected not killed. Anytime we surf, hike or go into what little space we have left animals we are part of the food chain.

  • drh2141

    I have never surfed anywhere but in my local spot here in South Carolina, USA. We have tons of bull sharks in our waters but very rarely do they attack humans. We also have fishing here but I am guessing not to nearly the degree ya’ll are facing on Reunion Island. I honestly think the best method for mankind to fix imbalances in nature is to remove themselves from the problem for a number of years. If tourists (including foreign surfers) and big fishing were to remove themselves for a let’s say 3 years, would that balance out the Island’s condition? The same goes with pollution in the air. If there was a universal holiday once a month where everyone, excluding emergency response and hospitals, were to just shot everything off, would the world be worst off?

  • matt

    people don’t get it, humans started this problem by banning fishing, which allowed to bull and tiger shark population to grow uncontrollably. there for the balance of he ecosystem has been disturbed by humans so humans need to take action to restore the balance.

  • matt obrien

    huh? what are you talking about? Seriously, I tried to follow your reply to what I wrote and it doesn’t make any sense. Please explain if you would. I do enjoy a chat, just can’t understand your reply. I tried a few times.

    • drh2141

      it was directed towards Innes. I found his statement very cynical and lacking foresight when a “thinning of the population” pretty much means you are offering up your loved ones for the “greater good” of the ecosystem. Its all fun to say until its you or someone you loved on the chopping block. Of course, if he meant in that over the years we start working on reducing the population by means of birth control and better planning then he can disregard that previous statement. sorry for the confusion Matt.

      • matt obrien

        oh cool, I was under impression it was directed at me and I was lost. no problems. thought i was going bonkers for a moment! ha ha… probably am a little. cheers

  • Reef Road

    “I don’t think that killing 90 sharks is going to solve the problem. It’s a lot more complicated than that. I believe they need to let more fisherman into the marine reserve to cut the shark’s supply of fish,” added Ferrere. “I think they need to balance out the whole ecosystem; you can’t just kill 90 sharks and expect that to work.”

    Because of course, fishermen were always part of the ecosystem….

    • Pacifico

      Reef, I agree that it is tons more complicated than killing 90 sharks, not sure how they arrived at that number, but I don’t think it’s the number that counts, and I am a total amateur at this, but I think there must be combination of fish types that have to be regulated and done so in a long term scheme that includes sequencing the kills and the areas.

      In the mean time I would be one very cautious surfer, good luck to all of you!

  • nami84

    Surfers, more than anyone, should be out there protesting against the killing of sharks. Being in the ocean every day should leave you greatful and with respect for the ocean and everything that comes with it. Don´t be arrogant claiming the waves are yours. The ocean isn´t made for us to use and change it as we like. If you want to enjoy the ocean and beach every day, then the least you could give back to the ocean is to leave it unspoiled (that includes wax, boards, food wrapping, plastic bottles, beer cans etc).

  • Gel

    Then we should control the most uncontrollable plague on earth; HUMAN BEINGS which are threatening all life on earth including themselves|!

    • Joe M

      That is false. The idea of human over-population has been debunked according to every logical measure (available land, food, etc.).

      • bluemark0001 .

        You’re a fucking idiot. The human population was blown out of proportion long before any of us were born. Are you American by any chance?

        • Joe M

          Interesting. You call me an idiot and then misuse the phrase “blown out of proportion” in the next sentence.

          Assuming that you mean to say that the population has become too great, by what measure? Too great for what? Based on what logical ideal?

      • Pacifico

        Debunked or not, there are too damned many of us on this planet and we all want to be near the coast. Turn em all into cowboys and the rest of us will be fine.

        • Joe M

          Too many of us by what measure? Your opinion?

  • Joe M

    No. They are going to kill sharks in an effort to protect human life.

    I think it’s “wow” that anyone has a problem with this. We fish thousands of tuna out of the ocean for the purpose of optional eating and nobody complains. But, fish out sharks in an area where they kill people and people think that is wrong. What kind of logic is that?

    • bluemark0001 .

      How would you feel if by some bizarre miracle sharks started making their way onto land, regularly entering people’s homes and killing them because they want to. The ocean is their territory, it’s their home.

      • Joe M

        Your argument reinforces my position. If sharks could go on land they WOULD kill people. And my feeling would be exactly the same: that we need to destroy those animals so that they don’t kill people. In fact, we already do that with animals that hurt people on land (dogs, bears, etc.). The reason we dont with sharks is that most people dont go in the ocean and would rather collect politically correct points by protecting sharks than protect their fellow kind. It’s sad.

        The ocean is not the sharks “home”. The only reason they stay there is because it is physically impossible for them to go elsewhere. It’s absurd to talk about it as if they stay in the ocean because they politely think that its their home and that their feelings are hurt that we go into it.

        • goosey goose

          doesnt sound like you understand much at all!!! the ocean isnt the sharks home?!!! IT IS. i havent seen them anywhere else

  • Joe M

    Sharks are very easy to catch. It’s not a matter of trying to reason with them. It’s a matter of trying to remove them from the area to protect people.

    I’m glad that you still have your life. If more people would recognize that humans are more valuable to society than sharks, perhaps we would have done something that would have saved the 15 year old girl who was killed at reunion island.

    • bluemark0001 .

      You clearly have no understanding of the balance of things. Humans wouldn’t be around without that balance, and with the current situation, won’t be for a very long time.

      • Joe M

        I think that my understanding of the balance of things is more accurate than yours. It’s natural for the balance to constantly change. Conserving animals to preserve some specific balance is an unnatural, human intervention.

        According to your line of reasoning, humans shouldn’t be around because wooly mammoths died out.

  • Joe M

    Killing the sharks is not for vengeance as you claim. It is to protect human life.

    We already fish hundreds of thousands of fish from the ocean for optional eating. Do you object to that also?

  • Joe M

    Innes. Changing an ecosystem is not to destroy it. Ecosystems changing is natural. They have never stopped changing.

  • Joe M

    Humans affecting the ecosystem is not an example of them destroying any ecosystem.

  • Joe M

    They aren’t being killed “for trying to eat”. They are being killed to protect human life.

    Ironically, we kill hundreds of thousands of marine animals (including sharks) for the purpose of optional eating. Yet nobody complains about that. But kill sharks to protect human life? What an outrage!

  • Joe M

    There is no reason that people can’t love surfing AND do something to not be “part of the food chain.”

    It’s a simple matter of valuing human life over shark life. I’m not sure why anyone thinks they are justified suggesting that we should protect sharks at the expense of people.

    • cleanSooke

      We need to protect sharks to help the overall population. Without sharks more animals die. Sharks keep the ocean clean and healthy, without them we have sick fish, dolphins and we suffer.

      It’s really easy to “value human life”…don’t go in. We take chances every time we surf. The number one chance we take is drowning, followed by a bevy of other things (reefs, surfboard impacts and such), shark attacks are a small % of those. So with your method of thinking, we should pad the reef, require all boards to be foam cushioned with flexible fins.

      We are in THEIR home, not ours, we invade THEIR space, they don’t invade ours. Same with cougars, tigers, lions, bears, snake and such. It’s about perspective, if you are truly worried about human life, ban surfing.

      • Joe M

        We need to protect sharks to help the overall population. Without sharks more animals die. Sharks keep the ocean clean and healthy, without them we have sick fish, dolphins and we suffer.

        I’m not talking about fishing out ALL sharks. We could cull dangerous sharks in areas where they hurt people and there would still be plenty of other sharks to eat other fish. There are 470 species of shark. Only a handful of them are dangerous to humans.

        Even if we were to take out all sharks, I don’t believe your argument is based on anything but speculation. The ocean would remain just as “clean and healthy” as it was before. Just with a different balance of animals that don’t kill people. That’s the way the eco-system has worked for millions of years. It adjusts depending on many changes.

        It’s really easy to “value human life”…don’t go in.

        The flaw of your argument is built right into your sentence here. Choosing whether or not to “go in” has to do with a limited personal decision. It doesn’t have anything to do with valuing human life. The fact remains that people go into the ocean. Whether or not they know the risks is irrelevant to the bottom line that those people are more valuable than sharks.

        We take chances every time we surf. The number one chance we take is drowning, followed by a bevy of other things (reefs, surfboard impacts and such), shark attacks are a small % of those. So with your method of thinking, we should pad the reef, require all boards to be foam cushioned with flexible fins.

        This is another argument that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Because surfing is dangerous in some ways does not logically mean that we must accept all dangers unrelated to the actual act of surfing.

        Your logic is similar to saying that because air travel can sometimes be dangerous, we should do nothing about the risk of terrorist attack. “Too bad about those terrorists! Everyone knows that flying is dangerous.”

        We are in THEIR home, not ours, we invade THEIR space, they don’t invade ours. Same with cougars, tigers, lions, bears, snake and such.

        The ocean is no more the sharks home than it is ours. It’s absurd to imply that sharks have a sense of home and space similar to humans. As if they don’t “invade” our space because they are polite and reasonable.

        Your mention of the other animals is ironic given that we already do kill those animals when they harm people.

        For some reason, it’s the politically correct trend of the day that sharks need an exception unlike any other animal. It’s incredibly senseless given that we fish literally millions of animals from the ocean for the purpose of optional eating. The vast majority of sharks are completely legal to fish. State governments provide detailed guides about how to catch them and which ones taste good. So, we kill sharks for food that we don’t need and just for fun. But, if we want to kill them for the purpose of protecting human life? That is supposed to be an outrage. What kind of twisted logic is that?

        It’s horrible that people pat themselves on their back as being enlightened about this. Meanwhile, people have been killed over their back-patting. Like this 15 year old girl at reunion island. People with your position should think this through more and be ashamed.

        It’s about perspective, if you are truly worried about human life, ban surfing.

        You mean like they did at Reunion Island?

        Maybe this is a good idea. It might bring proper attention to this issue and garner more resolve to cull dangerous sharks from areas where they hurt people.

        • cleanSooke

          You sure do build a lot of straw men.

          How do you know which sharks are more necessary than other? Just because they are dangerous to humans doesn’t limit their usefulness to the ecologic balance.

          • Joe M

            Point out where you think I have made straw man arguments. Otherwise, I think that is a nonsense claim.

            Necessary for what? The idea that there is some special balance that the eco-system must eternally stick to is both a human invention and a false perception about how the eco-system has always worked.

            Your musings about how the eco-system might adjust and change if a limited number of sharks are fished is not worth more than the life of any person killed by sharks. I’m all for carefully considering our role in nature. However, conservation at the expense of human life is insanity.

            We already widely allow fishing most sharks for fun. State governments publicly assist people on how to catch them and which ones taste good to eat. What kind of twisted logic accepts fishing animals for eating that we don’t need yet thinks it is wrong to not fish animals that kill people?

          • cleanSooke

            You obviously have no clue about our environment. There’s too many examples where we humans thought we “knew better” with tragic results. Hawaii and mongoose and US mid-west and killing wolves come to mind.

            You entire argument is based on what I now believe is your ignorance. Everything you say comes down to a lot of poor assumptions. You say one human life is worth more than a few dozen sharks and yet we kill each other over far less (oil, shoes, “respect”).

            We do know (I’ve only had one paper on Hawaii’s insular population of marine mammals around Kauai and Lehua, and been co-author of three more on False killer whales and Orca of Hawaii, so what do I know) that sharks eat anything, they have the ability to consume without the ill effects most other animals experience from eating sick flesh. Even though we’ve eliminated the fittest (in the Darwinian sense) from human life, it still exists in the wild. If there are fewer sharks to eat the slow, infirm, stupid or in any other way inferior AND sick dolphins, turtles (maybe Hawaii’s green sea turtles have more tumors than other places because we’ve killed so many sharks around the islands??), fish and other mammals then there will be more sick animals that live long enough to breed and spread their disease or defect.

            I guess the disconnect between the save human life at all cost and the environment is more important than human life is the value placed on the individual as opposed to the human race as a whole. Narrow view v. broader view.

            Those that choose to forget history are bound to repeat it (not an exact quote I’m sure but gets the point across. There are a plethora of examples that show humans screwing up the environment because of our arrogance based on ignorant assumptions.

          • Joe M

            You obviously have no clue about our environment. There’s too many examples where we humans thought we “knew better” with tragic results. Hawaii and mongoose and US mid-west and killing wolves come to mind.

            Those examples are not comparable to the situation with sharks. With sharks, the cost of conservation is human life. The circumstances with mongoose and wolves involved entirely different stakes and motivations.

            You entire argument is based on what I now believe is your ignorance. Everything you say comes down to a lot of poor assumptions. You say one human life is worth more than a few dozen sharks and yet we kill each other over far less (oil, shoes, “respect”).

            This is what your argument in this paragraph boils down to: “Because some people don’t value human life: that must mean that human life isn’t really as valuable as sharks lives.”

            What an absurd and completely irrelevant argument. Of course I also object to other acts involving people who devalue human life. I haven’t written anything to suggest otherwise.

            It sounds like you have completely lost touch with the reason we object to such acts: because of the loss and destruction that they cause. It makes no rational sense to object to people killing other people but accept not only animals killing people but to engage in actions that we know will result in more people being killed by animals.

            We do know (I’ve only had one paper on Hawaii’s insular population of marine mammals around Kauai and Lehua, and been co-author of three more on False killer whales and Orca of Hawaii, so what do I know) that sharks eat anything, they have the ability to consume without the ill effects most other animals experience from eating sick flesh. Even though we’ve eliminated the fittest (in the Darwinian sense) from human life, it still exists in the wild. If there are fewer sharks to eat the slow, infirm, stupid or in any other way inferior AND sick dolphins, turtles (maybe Hawaii’s green sea turtles have more tumors than other places because we’ve killed so many sharks around the islands??), fish and other mammals then there will be more sick animals that live long enough to breed and spread their disease or defect.

            So what? None of those things are as tragic as a 15 year old girl being killed. You’ve already pointed out that we have manipulated nature in some areas. Did Hawaii become over-run with cockroaches because of the mongoose? Has the mid-west become a barren wasteland because they lost wolves? No and no. Wildlife continues to thrive in those places as it would if we culled dangerous sharks. According to your logic, the eco-system can’t recover to what it should be unless we can somehow reincarnate the tyrannosaurus rex.

            I guess the disconnect between the save human life at all cost and the environment is more important than human life is the value placed on the individual as opposed to the human race as a whole. Narrow view v. broader view.

            I think that your point here illustrates the sociopathic nature of your position. You’re writing that some people need to be sacrificed so that other people can gain some undefined pleasure from the existence of some limited number of sharks.

            Those that choose to forget history are bound to repeat it (not an exact quote I’m sure but gets the point across. There are a plethora of examples that show humans screwing up the environment because of our arrogance based on ignorant assumptions.

            If people confuse history with current reality, we are bound to make wrong decisions. That some people will lament the absence of a species in some specific area is a tiny price to pay to protect human life.

            You can claim that my assumptions are ignorant. Until you demonstrate that any of them actually are, you’re simply engaging in name-calling.

          • cleanSooke

            You obviously know how to read but lack comprehension.

            As to your comment ” Has the mid-west become a barren wasteland because they lost wolves? No and no” It is totally false. Many examples of streams becoming barren due to kills of wolves in Wyoming and other mid western states. One example in the Yellowstone is where the kill of wolves caused major loss of habitat. As a result of lowered wolf populations, the deer, ek and other grazing animals were allowed to graze at their leisure, whereas before they were hassled and harried by wolves. What ensued was the loss of shrubs and other major plant life along the shore. When the plants left so did the habitat for fish…no bugs living in/on the plants, so no food-no cover for fish to lay in, and thus the stream died. This went on for over 50 yrs. In the 80′s they figured it out and reintroduced (mind you not killing them wasn’t enough, they had to reintroduce them) wolves back in. In a short time the shrubs along the shore returned and now 30 yrs later it’s 80% or so of what it was.

            In Hawaii, the killing of sharks (however limited it was) was enough to allow the turtle populations to explode (which was hoped for), yet now many green sea turtle populations have high rates of tumorous growths. Most of these turtles should have been eaten, but are allowed to breed and pass this along to others. Of course no one knows for sure about the green sea turtles, but there are some very strong evidence to support this.

            The Caribbean, the introduction of lion fish has done massive damage to the reef fish population and in turn the coral is suffering.

            Surfing is not a required or forced sport/lifestyle. No one is forcing people to go in the water where sharks are. So the protection of life is only the destruction of life for the pleasure of a few. You kill the sharks (especially the big sharks, because the biggest predator of small sharks are big sharks, and it’s the small sharks eating “your” food) you kill the reef. This is not conjecture, this is truth. I applaud your care for your fellow humans, but like I said, sharks are a risk every surfer takes (and a VERY small one at that) along with drowning and other higher probability dangers.

            No name calling. Ignorance is not name calling, it’s a statement based on your lack of knowledge about a certain subject (oceanography in this case). It has nothing to do with your intelligence, nor with your status as a person. But anyone with knowledge of this subject would most likely concur that your statements are said in ignorance.

            When it comes to sharks, I not only read and studied them in books, but I have swam with (while surfing, diving, free diving, spear fishing) every shark in Hawaii (except a GW…which took off when I jumped in, and thresher). While they can be dangerous, they are far less so than the big local guy you might have dropped in on.

            Feel free to break my statements down, misinterpret them, do with them what you will. I suggest reading up on the subject, but I am not here to, nor do I have time to educate you further than what I have.

            Peace

          • Joe M

            … In a short time the shrubs along the shore returned and now 30 yrs later it’s 80% or so of what it was.

            Your example doesn’t make any sense. If the streams you refer to “died”, there would be no way for the fish to come back later. You also fail to mention that deer populations are culled by humans in that area. Ironically, the “come back” you are referring to is far more likely the result of the type of human manipulation you seem to object to.

            In fact, your example is comparable to what many people on Reunion Island want to do. Due to human manipulation, the bull shark population has grown (just like the deer population grew). They want to correct that by culling the sharks (just like humans cull deer populations).

            My point stands. Eco-systems change for all kinds of reasons. Introducing species back into an environment is no less a human manipulation than culling them out is. You are simply valuing one affect over another. And thus, we are back to my point. You are actually valuing sharks over human beings. That is wrong.

            Of course no one knows for sure about the green sea turtles, but there are some very strong evidence to support this.

            In other words this isn’t an example supporting your claim. Just an unscientific, correlation-is-not-causation fallacy.

            The Caribbean, the introduction of lion fish has done massive damage to the reef fish population and in turn the coral is suffering.

            This is like the mongoose example. It doesn’t compare to culling sharks to protect human beings. The reasons for the manipulation and the stakes matter. It doesn’t appear that lionfish were deliberately introduced in the first place. So, it’s probably not even a human manipulation at all. And if it were, I can’t think of any reason they were introduced comparable to the stakes of life and death.

            You call me ignorant. But, you seem to be standing on the naive position that it is unusual for humans to do things that impact nature. In reality, humans are constantly interacting with and changing nature. Simply building a single house has an impact on wildlife. According to your line of argument, building a house is a reckless outrage because of the way it might change the local ant population.

            Again, the reasons for the manipulation matter and it is extremely unethical to protect sharks at the expense of human life.

            Surfing is not a required or forced sport/lifestyle. No one is forcing people to go in the water where sharks are. So the protection of life is only the destruction of life for the pleasure of a few.

            This argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny for multiple reasons.

            A) Surfers are not the only people attacked by sharks. Some divers for example make a living by going into the ocean. Some areas economies depend on the safety of their beaches.

            B) Whether or not people go into the ocean by choice does not render them more or less valuable than sharks. The bottom line is that people are going to continue to go into the ocean and we have the ability to prevent shark attacks. It is unethical not to.

            You write “So the protection of life is only the destruction of life for the pleasure of a few.” Shark life is not equivalent to human life. Your sentence reads a lot differently when it includes clarifying words: “So the protection of human life is only the destruction of shark life for the ability to go into the ocean more safely.”

            You kill the sharks (especially the big sharks, because the biggest predator of small sharks are big sharks, and it’s the small sharks eating “your” food) you kill the reef. This is not conjecture, this is truth. I applaud your care for your fellow humans, but like I said, sharks are a risk every surfer takes (and a VERY small one at that) along with drowning and other higher probability dangers.

            Nonsense. Killing some sharks in some areas is not going to “kill the reefs”. There are all kinds of reefs in Hawaii, despite sharks being killed over the green turtles. That is more than conjecture. It’s fear-selling.

            Again, people taking risks does not change their value. Driving comes with risks. That doesn’t mean that we don’t continue to go to great lengths to minimize driving risks with laws, penalties and safety devices. People surf because they want to ride waves. Not because they want to be attacked by sharks. It is an unethical calculation to say that it’s an acceptable risk for an individual to make going surfing while knowing that our lack of action will result in someone elses death.

            No name calling. Ignorance is not name calling, it’s a statement based on your lack of knowledge about a certain subject (oceanography in this case). It has nothing to do with your intelligence, nor with your status as a person. But anyone with knowledge of this subject would most likely concur that your statements are said in ignorance.

            That is an appeal to authority fallacy. You have failed to demonstrate anything that I am ignorant about that impacts my argument. Unless you can do that, you calling me ignorant absolutely is ad hominem name-calling.

            When it comes to sharks, I not only read and studied them in books, but I have swam with (while surfing, diving, free diving, spear fishing) every shark in Hawaii (except a GW…which took off when I jumped in, and thresher). While they can be dangerous, they are far less so than the big local guy you might have dropped in on.

            None of that has any bearing on my statements or knowledge of the issue. My arguments are based on when sharks ARE dangerous. What does your experience reading about them or seeing them not be dangerous have to do with anything I have argued?

            Feel free to break my statements down, misinterpret them, do with them what you will. I suggest reading up on the subject, but I am not here to, nor do I have time to educate you further than what I have.

            The only thing that you have educated me about is that you are someone who is unwilling to confront this issue on the merits. Instead, you raise observations that don’t change my argument and insist that you knowing something about and swimming with sharks means you have to be right.

  • Joe M

    How does that make any sense “Laird”? Sharks kill non-surfers too.

  • Joe M

    Alyssa. You have just pointed to a potential side benefit of killing sharks. There will probably be more tuna to eat.

    Your “rights” argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Why do we have the “right” to eat fish but not kill them to protect our lives?

    • zach

      your retarded joe. its thier ocean and im happy to surf it with them its the chance we take knob head. in places like this its been proven sharks naturaly congregate in larger numbers. because its thier home… following? how would you know what thier natural numbers should be when we have destroyed them scince we could catch them. you have no idea what your talking about .

  • Joe M

    Mickey. That only makes sense if we need to eat tuna to survive. We don’t.

  • Joe M

    I disagree. I think it’s about time people address this issue.

  • Joe M

    Bruno. If there was a way like that to effectively protect people, I would be all for it.

    But, none of those techniques have been shown to work. So, the tragedy should be for the sharks. Not for the people.

  • Joe M

    It doesn’t take an expert to recognize that human life is more valuable than shark life. If there is tragedy, it should be for the sharks. Not for the people.

  • Joe M

    That’s a straw man argument. The sharks aren’t being killed “for being a predator”. They are being killed to protect human life.

  • KP

    I was in Reunion three weeks ago and surfed. There are plenty of people surfing St Leus everyday that I was there.

  • surferpl

    We should stop trying to “manage” the natural world.

  • fyuk,,

    wish theyd ban boards over 6′ here!

  • bluemark0001 .

    You’re an idiot, a 50/50 chance would imply that 1 out of every 2 surfers that enters the water is going to die from a shark attack. It’s about 1 in 1 million- not that complicated to grasp

  • bluemark0001 .

    Mmmm wouldn’t you say that humans have ‘run rampant’ on an ecosystem? Should we not also be thinned out? The sheer closed mindedness of people is embarrassing, what makes you think humans are more important than any other biological being? We’re causing far more destruction than all other species combined, derr.

    • Joe M

      The closed mindedness compared to your open mindedness? Where have you been open minded at all in this conversation?

  • Tito To

    testing comment for Omniture

  • Laura

    Nope. Human don’t have the right to kill sharks JUST TO PLAY IN THE OCEAN. Sharks kill human because they’re hungry ! And most of the time, it’s by mistake because they don’t like our meat. So NO, humans don’t have the ability to kill sharks. Humans kill for stupid reasons. This is so fucking selfish, and so stupid to think that way.

    • Christophe Folio

      Almost 50% of food’s humanity comes from the ocean. Feeding people is not a game. There’s poor fishermen in Reunion Island as everywhere else in the world. Even if you were vegan, you could not miss it… But I guess going to take food at the supermarket got you out of this reality. People in an island are in constant touch witth the ocean. Banning an activity or another for a long term period in this context is something very unreasonnable.

  • Laura

    Tell them their kids should have been more careful ;)

  • Laura

    Human beings are the only out-of-control specie on Earth.