U.S. Senate Committee Just Voted on a Shark Depredation Bill to Prevent Sharks From Eating Fish Off Fishing Lines

I'm so conditioned by the internet to see a headline and expect the stupidest explanation possible, that when I first came across a version of the "Senate Voting on Bill to Prevent Shark From Eating Fish", my brain immediately went to PETA launching a "Save The Fishes" campaign. Honestly, that wouldn't have shocked me. I've seen dumber things. Turns out it's pretty much the opposite. The fisherman are sick and tired of those damn sharks encroaching on their ocean and eating their fish. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is scheduled to vote Wednesday on legislation to that aims to stop wild sharks from biting fish on fishing lines.

The so-called SHARKED Act (S. 2314) would create a task force to study shark behavior and make recommendations. Unfortunately, the bill falls short by not explicitly forbidding the task force from proposing shark culls or population reductions as a solution, leaving the door open to killing sharks.

I always think it's kinda funny when people say things like, "Are human lives really more important than animals?"

Yes. Yes they are. We are the smartest. We are the highest on the food chain. I'm not out here advocating for the Jimmy John's owner who's seemingly made it his personal mission to hunt every species of animal in the world. I'm not a monster. I even thought the room Quinn Ewers sat in on draft night was a little bit much. 

It was really just the moose that got me. I love moose. I like drawing pictures of moose engaging in real world human activities. I have an original "Moose Writing Blog" on my kitchen counter right now.

But as a human, I still think human needs should come first. If you asked a shark, I'm pretty sure the shark would tell you that shark's needs should come first. That's how nature works. But we can at least be reasonable about what our "needs" are. It's not hurting humans to leave endangered species alone. Humans will be fine if we don't clear entire Rainforests to build a tropical resorts. Harambe probably wasn't going to squeeze that baby to death.

And we shouldn't be messing with the ecosystem unless it's really necessary. I'm not a fisherman. I'm sure sharks eating the fish off of your line is frustrating as hell. I know the fisherman affected by this are people who are only trying to make a living and feed their families. But are we that desperate for fish? Is there some sort of major fish shortage in the United States?

Actually, yes. Kind of. 

Silo – Every day, fisheries and fish farms are pushed past their limit, resulting in the seafood industry being unable to meet consumer and retail supply and demand. In fact, the reality is that 85% of fisheries are at or beyond their limits. 

Even so, the seafood industry is expanding rapidly across the globe in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Oceania. This matches the forecast and report of a 14% surge in global demand by 2023.

The seafood industry is definitely growing. There is definitely a higher demand for fish than fisherman and fisheries are able to meet. The economy would certainly benefit (at least in the short term) from laxer fishing regulations (and less sharks). But the fact that we even reached that point can probably be attributed to things like climate change and overfishing. Things brought on by humans. I don't think it's a hot take to say the fish population would be better thriving if fish were not a primary food source for 8 billion predators. 

Advertisement

Now this bill, which cleared the Senate Commerce Committee today, sets out to create a task force that will work towards solving the problem is shark eating our fish. "Shark Depredation", they call it. Maybe this task force has a creative solution up their sleeve to keep sharks away from fishing boats in a way isn't harmful to the sharks. But some people who strongly oppose this bill are worried this will result in the killing (or culling) of a whole bunch of them.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The so-called SHARKED Act (S. 2314) would create a task force to study shark behavior and make recommendations. Unfortunately, the bill falls short by not explicitly forbidding the task force from proposing shark culls or population reductions as a solution, leaving the door open to killing sharks.

Unless you take a firm "death to all sharks" stance, whether or not you think it's worth it to kill sharks in favor of fisherman, that would objectively suck. Nobody wants to resort to killing a bunch of sharks just to meet fish demand.  

I love fish. Seafood is my favorite genre of food. I also don't like sharks. They scare me and I don't care for them as food. But sharks eat fish, man… With the use of whatever modern day fishing technology is available, we already have a MASSIVE advantage over sharks when it comes to catching them. Obviously there's going to be one side who's furious that we're fucking with nature, and another side that's staunchly pro-fisherman. My only request is… just don't kill ALL the sharks, guys. We don't want this to turn into a Japanese whaling situation. 

But if the task force is looking for advice, I believe I have a solution. Every commercial fisherman needs to be accompanied by a sniper. Either a sniper, or a scuba diver with a high-powered harpoon. Whichever makes most sense. The fisherman proceed with their jobs as normal, but while they're in the act of fishing, the sniper (or harpoon guy) has free reign to shoot any shark that threatens his catch. That seems reasonable. We don't want to wipe out all the sharks. Just the bad apple sharks. If we only kill single sharks as they're trying to steal the fish, I'm guessing that wouldn't be too alarming of a number. 

Problem solved. You're welcome, task force.