"This is a dick measuring contest to perform masculinity."
Two fisherthems, as the noted chanteuse Sam Smith would call them, have come under fire after killing a beached shark with a knife through the brain, ignoring the leas of shocked onlookers who had offered to drag the fish back into the ocean.
In the minute-long clip posted to Twitter, we see two men dragging a blacktip reef shark up the beautiful New Myrna beach sands as Mariana Sabogal, who filmed the event on her telephone, protests.
Two men kill a shark for no reason 😳 pic.twitter.com/9Jjj4u3uML
— More Crazy Clips (@MoreCrazyClips) May 21, 2023
“Can you put it back?” she says.
“You put it back!” says one of the men.
“We will! I’m not a vegetarian. You should not be doing that with animals. Please do not do anything to it. Please do not do anything.”
One man picks up a knife and plunges it into the rough location of the fish’s brain, which is just behind the eyes although it doesn’t die instantly suggesting a missed shot.
“It’s legal harvest!” he says. “There’s nothing you can do!”
“Why are you doing that?” asks Mariana.
“Because it’s natural!”
“Are you fucking insane, honestly,” she says. “Are you enjoying this?”
“No, I’m taking this to eat. “
Shortly after the ruckus, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission released a statement that read in part,“It is common practice for anglers to euthanize sharks after landing for ethical and safety concerns. This video is not currently under investigation as no violation of state law regarding the method of harvest occurred.”
One man’s euthanasia is another’s execution, of course.
“There’s a lot of things that are legal, but they are not morally right,” said Mariana.
Bit of back and forthing in the comments with many readers correctly pointing out that the method of dispatching a shark ain’t no different to what is dealt to millions of delightful sea creatures every day, including the wildly intelligent octopus.
Others not thrilled.
“This is a dick measuring contest to perform masculinity.”
Where do you stand on this matter?
I swing both ways.
Most people prefer their food killed on a conveyor belt by a machine, packaged up, dyed red, and sold on sale just before rotting and needing to be thrown in the dumpster out back.
Where can I sign up for that treatment?
Not ‘flake’.
Although that’s a little Port Jackson shark usually. V tasty.
Blacktip reef sharks are edible so hopefully they ate it.
If not, then they are just assholes.
“we are going to feed our small community…”
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6-IH…
Sharko Tuesday!!!
Because most of them pee through their skin.
Much like hunters, fisherman are often cunts too. Exploiting the last few living things on the planet to fuel their bloodlust. Then dutifully posting images of their catch or kill on instagram to emphasise their ignorance and moral fuckedupness.
While I’m no fan of trophy hunting most hard core hunters are committed to maintaining healthy animal populations to hunt.
And in most places licensing fees from hunting are a solid source revenue for municipalities.
The people poaching animals are usually assholes in general and assholes who don’t get licenses.
I was just in Wyoming a couple weeks ago and they had a hard winter. Apparently lost 75% of Mule deer to it. Then on top of that the state didn’t adjust amount the tags given out. Gonna be a tough come back. I always just thought the deer were used to that kinda stuff? The more you know……..
Yeah…I read about that. It was a hard winter with deep snowpack so the food supply was scarce.
It will be interesting to see how this goes.
Generally the weaker animals die first and the stronger ones survive which leads to a stronger stock…larger, healthier animals.
Or the herds are weakened and take years to replenish.
They breed like rats. I wouldn’t be too worried about them rebounding
The fact is that animal and fish populations have been decimated pretty much everywhere and it’s time to adjust our thinking about hunting and fishing. So while trophy hunters like Trump Jnr etc are indeed the worst scum it’s reached a point where killing more than what’s already on the shelves is nothing but gratuitous fun. The argument that hunters are needed to maintain/cull animal populations is also flawed because the environmental authorities can do this without the bloodlust element. And revenue can be generated just was easily by charging people to just see what left of our wildlife in its natural habitat.
Recreational hunters and fishermen have nothing to do with commercial over fishing.
What’s the bloodust element?
Do you not know where your meat comes from?
Some people prefer to harvest it themselves and these days it can be cost effective instead of buying it tye grocery store.
Animal populations in many place need to be managed and recreational hunting is an effective way to do that.
Plenty of local people here in Hawaii supplement their diet with wild boar it’s free and food here is expensive the pigs are also everywhere so it’s a sustainable example of hunting.
The invasive boar, goats and cats , mongoose etc. do incredible damage to the ecosystem and are killing of countless native species.
They should be hunted until they are eradicated .
I hear the wild pig problem in the US is off the hook. Biden could get a lot of credit with the shooty peeps by paying for them to go reduce the numbers.
Ur a deadset worry
Ja and it sucks to worry about people too dumb to know.
Dont be so hard on yself
The list of animals that made huge comebacks in conjunction to sport hunting is long. Take a look at the populations of white tailed deer in the US from 1900 until today. The population has grown across the board while hunting has increased.
Also take a look at the money that flows into conservation from licensing fees as well as philanthropy. Take a look at the acreage that have been conserved through organizations like pheasants forever and ducks forever. Also take a look at the numbers of hunters who actually get their hands dirty through habitat restoration projects, etc.
Now go talk to your environmentalist friends and see how much money and time they donated last year. Or look at us surfers and how few of us do even a cunt’s hair worth of work. The extent of surfer’s environmentalism is mostly limited to a two hour beach cleanup that entirely focuses on grabbing pics for the gram.
I would argue that the one of the largest groups of environmentally conscious people are hunters. Unless we are counting online environmentalists, than that group is the loudest at claiming to be environmentalists while doing fuck all for the actual environment.
You can hate hunting and fishing all you want, but definitely be aware that those scumbags are doing orders of magnitude more good for the environment than the ecowarriors who populate our online dystopia.
As someone from a hunting family in South Africa I’ve lived, heard and evaluated the ‘hunters are conservationists’ argument long and hard. For sure there are hunters who love the natural environment and make the effort to keep it intact. But facilitating or funding the breeding of animals just to kill them is a zero sum game, especially when it’s bloodlust driving your motivation.
But it’s not a zero sum game. I don’t know much about South African hunting so I can’t comment, but I do know a lot about American hunting. It is well-regulated and the animals hunted for sport have had their populations increase almost across the board. The few that have declined can almost all be tied back to habitat destruction, which is not led by hunting.
Look at the numbers of acres of wetlands which have been restored by or funded by hunters. Look at the amount of CRP that now abounds. That increased habitat doesn’t just help game animals it is beneficial to all the animals that use the cover and food.
If it was a zero sum game the populations would have remained steady for the last 50 years, but again they have increased for most species.
I can respect your disdain for killing animals. That being said, it is near impossible to claim that legal hunting (at least in the US) has been anything but a positive for the animal populations.
Putting aside the positives I list, think of the theoretical negatives that have been avoided due to people’s self-interest in hunting. The only reason anyone gives a shit about CRP is because of hunting, without it most of the midwest would hold almost no game as farms would literally cover 99% of the land property line to property line. Think about how many waterfowl would not exist without the amount of wetlands that have been restored. It is an ugly reality, but humans generally only put time and money into something out of self-interest. Yes, hunters are doing positive things out of a desire to hunt more, but those positive things are happening and those things are benefiting the environment.
You can hate the bloodlust all you want, but if you are campaigning against legal hunting, you are doing a disservice to wildlife. The evidence isn’t even close.
You are seriously delusional about how much hunters do compared to non hunters .
It’s the regulations on hunting that are preserving the animals not the fact that people hunt them. Obviously
Hunting groups donated 1.6 billion dollars to environmental causes last year.
While non hunting environmental groups donated 16 billion.
The gun loving GOP consistently fights against clean water and air and the acquisition of public lands for conservation.
Like you said the evidence isn’t even close
So you’re comparing hunters to literately the rest of the world? Thats weird. Buuuut if your numbers are true, hunters alone contributed 10% of what everyone else contributed? Thats actually massive.
The hunters are not contributing directly.
They join hunting organizations so they can put cool stickers on their trucks and those organizations donate some money to charity.
Pot kettle black.
Are you?
I didn’t say anything about total dollars, I was talking about amount per individual. There are much larger numbers of non hunters donating to environmental causes, because hunters make up less than 5% of the population.
Almost every hunter I have ever met, belongs to at least one of the conservation organizations (ducks forever, pheasants forever, etc.) How many surfers that you know dedicate real time or money to environmental causes? How many of the online “environmentalists” donate real time or money to their causes?
To be honest, I wasn’t even really putting down environmentalists, just pointing out that in my opinion a much larger percentage of hunters donate to environmental causes, than professed environmentalists, and without a doubt more than us surfers. The bigger point being, that hating on hunters is counterproductive to saving the environment. Because based on any real metric hunting is a net positive for the environment and the animals being hunted.
Please don’t assume you understand my politics, I have ZERO love for the GOP. GOP and hunting are not synonymous, other than in the minds of the overly online angerists. I have very much argued with GOP voters who are also hunters, that their party is actively hurting outdoorsmen by opposing the things you mentioned.
This is not only directed at you, but for god’s sake please stop adding your political shibeloths and unfounded assumptions into every discussion. Some of us absolutely LOATHE both sides of this bullshit partisan nonsense, where if someone disagrees with you on one point, it indicates that they have to be from the other side.
Calm down kid, I never said that you were a Republican. Though you argue like one. 42% of Republicans hunt while 18% of Democrats do.
I just raised the fact that the republicans are also the biggest polluters and destroyers of ecosystems.
If a person donates money to help conserve the ecosystem than that makes them an environmentalist.
If they donate money to an organization to be a member but don’t care where the money goes than they are not environmentalists .
Your logic that hunting is good for the environment because it gets non environmentalists to donate money is kinda silly.
And your idea that hunters are the ones protecting the land and air is absurd.
I’m not against hunting. Just illogical justifications
If you join an organization like a conservation organization, you do know where the money is going. The expenditures are outlined, you know what projects are being funded and what the goals of those projects are. Whether you call them environmentalists, or conservationists, or shitheads, doesn’t matter. The money is going for causes that help the environment.
Please explain how hunting motivating people to donate to environmental causes is silly. More and improved habitat is a good thing, wherever the money comes from.
I did not imply that hunters were the only ones protecting the land and air. But they are contributing to those protections.
You seem to be arguing with me over points I am not making, perhaps it’s my fault. My overall point is that hunters whether you like them or not (using the metaphorical you, not you personally) are a net positive for the environment. Even if those positive actions are completely made due to self-serving reasons.
BTW environmentalists and conservationists are the same thing. They just use different names because they dislike each other.
The political term “conservative” has absolutely nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with societal change.
It is another way of saying traditionalist .
Hunting is only beneficial when the ecosystem is out of balance because of the removal of predators.
And we know which group supports the removal of wolves and mountain lions from the environment and which groups fights for them
what in the world are you even talking about? I said conservationist, not conservative. https://dictionary.cambridg… This is what I mean about pulling politics into everything. You’re so caught up in us vs them, that you aren’t even paying attention to what you are reading.
Environmentalist: The environment is to be saved, preserved, set aside, protected from human abuse.
Conservationist: The environment is something we use, so we have to conserve it and take care of it, so that others can use it in the future.
Two different mind sets
one world problem…and I still pay my local trash collectors…
http://www.hcr-llc.com/hubf…
That red house has great view
over yonder?
Yeah, it looks nice a big, with a great view of a landfill
“there’s a red house over yonder…” Jimi
Ha!
Brilliant
I tend to take the side of those that possess the big three: lawyers, guns, and money…without contributing a wooden nickel or raising my voice; while walking like an Indian.
plus, I just saved about $200 as my non-dispensary security guard lodi threw in an extra ounce to the sativa bud deal. Black Market Tuesday! I’ll be in Greens for quite a while.
Sweet!
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
The effectiveness is not measured in dollars spent.
Why dont democrats voluntarily hand over their guns?
Wh6 don’t you learn to read ?
Sound like Hunters contribute way more than keyboard clowns
Hunter numbers would be miniscule compared to the faux enviro tools
Sounds like you failed math class
I have family from SA also hunters they live up in Namibia these days farming roibos. Would be interesting comparison between USA and RSA hunting and conservation efforts I’m sure there are plenty of differences between the two. I watched a documentary on SA farmers wanting to raise rhino in order to sell horn in an effort to create a legal market that would alleviate pressure on the wild populations. Very controversial but worth entertaining considering the plight of rhinos.
I recall a PBS doc on the impact of licensed hunting and fishing on US states: $60 billion in revenue. surfing is not the only sport of kings…just ask Uncle Ted!
You’re not a real man unless you’ve tasered a 95 year old lady with dementia, like us sic cunts here in OZ