I am more curious what kind of shark is this?? is it harmless black tip or ..?

Posted by Sue on March 14, 2014 05:15

It's so bad to see a farang in a kind of combat outfit with a dead very small harmless shark. Hope next time he meet a great white.

Posted by Retired roadworker on March 14, 2014 08:27

I am surprised a shark exists around the coast of Phuket. The closest toothed sharks I have ever seen were out at PhiPhi, never seen any closer to the island of Phuket, except at Shark Point, where Leopard sharks once swam.

Posted by geoff on March 14, 2014 08:42

An outrage, indeed! Any sharks in local Phuket waters are extremely rare, and in my many years of diving inshore around this island I have never seen one, and I know of no one who has ever seen one off the beaches - until this guy comes along and kills one.

These spear-fishermen are becoming more common off the beaches. I believe that many are from eastern Europe where I suspect that environmental respect and education is of no particular priority.

I can also see an accident waiting to happen with a speargun, given the popularity of swimming in Phuket. The speargun guys make me nervous whenever I find myself in the water with one, and I tend to give them a wide berth.

Hate to be a naysayer here, but even if education,social and legal system reforms were implemented here this very day, it would take some time for positive effects to be felt. Much of our local flora and fauna no longer have the time to wait.

Posted by Treelover on March 14, 2014 08:55

All local sharks are harmless, and very important to the eco system.

Posted by stevenl on March 14, 2014 10:16

Not nice but fish have quite a good chance to escape from the spear of the fishermen. It's a 1:1 challenge. However, it is complete different with the trawlers and their hues nets, damaging and destroying our seas. WHERE THE OUTCRY ?

Posted by Resident on March 14, 2014 12:56

Has this guy done anything wrong, if not, then please shut up and mind your own business. He is obviously taking it home to eat, no different than any of you going to the market, yes, a lot more fish of all sizes( many considered undersize in many countries). Go pedal your distain to Greenpeace or the Sea Shepherds or better still go for a walk and calm down. He is only doing what man has done since he climbed down from the trees. Why not complain more about the extinction of tigers, black leopards and elephants, from Phuket or any environmental damage. Geez, one shark, get a life.

Posted by Laurie Howells on March 14, 2014 13:48

@LaurieHowwells This person, and I know who he is now, does not catch food for himself. He sells it, which is illegal. I even know to who. Just because there isn't a law against doesn't make it ok. We know shark populations are dwindling. There has been a single juvenile black tip around Kata and Koh Poo for years. Many people have seen it. Each year it gets a little bigger. It was a thrill to see in it's natural habitat. I think this guy just killed it. This really showcases the need for stricter environmental protection laws in Thailand.

Posted by NomadJoe on March 14, 2014 18:02

The horror! What has the world come to when people stoop to killing fish?!

Posted by Jonny on March 14, 2014 20:25

@NomadJoe, I'm not calling you a liar, but really, why would someone go through the trouble and expense, to kill one shark, simply to sell it? The wetsuit alone would be worth more than the catch, if he did sell it, and you say he does, then you are an accomplice by not reporting it, this makes you just as guilty. By saying "there isn't a law against doesn't make it ok," well this is simply your opinion, you are entitled to it, but it doesn't mean it is everyone's opinion. I would suggest you take a trip to Tesco, and the fish markets, and protest, they are selling these shark, dead. Why do you protest so strongly anonymously? I would also add, that according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature it doesn't even come close to threatened. I guess you are also against any fishing, as there are far more threatened species being caught every day around Thailand, I also hope you do not eat fish. I finish by saying, NomadJoe, take some action, otherwise your comment here could be taken as fiction.

Posted by Laurie Howells on March 15, 2014 12:02

Jonny, your bleeding heart makes me laugh. I hope you are vegetarian, otherwise you are a hypocrite, every animal you eat has been killed, to help fill your stomach. This shark would have suffered much lest than fish caught in nets and slowly died, or in the hull of boats, it also pales into insignificance to the panic, due to the smell of death animals sense, at an abattoir. It's time you grew up and faced the real world.

Posted by Laurie Howells on March 15, 2014 12:09

I m used to spear fishing in kata noi and other place , but i will never shoot some species like shark.this guy is irresponsible.what a sadness.

Posted by Phil on March 15, 2014 12:32

Laurie - I'm with Treelover on this one. Do you do much swimming in Phuket - say between Kata Noi and Prom Thep Cape? If so what do you think about the current state of the marine life? Each week I swim many kilometres, and have done so for years, both way off shore (2-300 metres) and around the rocks at Ao Sane, Nai Harn, Ya Nui, Phrom Thep etc. In the last four years - apart from some rather small parrot fish and various other small tropical varieties - I have only seen one large fish (something silvery and rather deep down approximatey two metres long about 200 metres off the beach at Nai Harn) and one rock lobster on the southern tip off the rocks as you go from Nai Harn to Ya Nui. That's it. I also once happened to swim right over a two metre sand/or leopard shark at the southern end of Kata Noi in 1983 - a one-off experience that was quite unnerving even though the creature was harmless. Pretty much like the small shark this spear fisherman finished off. Let me tell you there is almost bugger all out there. Now this clueless clown kills something that, by its very rarity, would be best left alone to be admired by swimmers/snorklers who get a bit jaded with seeing very little in the ever more polluted water apart from dead grey coral, bits of floating and sunken debris and some small reef fish.

Posted by Kaen Phet on March 15, 2014 14:52

@Kaen Phet, I understand your point of view, I myself don't eat fish, I would like to see all o them still happily swimming around. I to have done a lot of diving, it erks me to see how devastated the coral reefs are, especially those close to shore, eg Phi Phi, it's a disaster, but that doesn't change my view on this guy legally taking one fish, possibly to feed his family, though NomadJoe disagrees (with no proof given). Instead of concentrating on this one fish, you need to look at the greater destruction, so many comments on here, the other media sites and "Go Eco Phuket" condemning this guy but not one person saying or willing to do anything to stop the greater destruction, you should go and protest at the fishing piers or where the longtail boats leave/arrive with their loads, these are the greater offenders. Now, as I said to NomadJoe, according to the " International Union for Conservation of Nature" this species doesn't even come close to the threatened category, never mind endangered. If you buy and eat fish, you are a hypocrite.

Posted by Laurie Howells on March 15, 2014 15:28

The challenge to saving these creatures is hoping that the locals might soon understand and accept the economic fact that one shark is worth much more to them alive than dead. For example, the Bahamas embraced the concept of shark protection because they understood that sharks rank high on most scuba divers "must see" list.

Consequently, over the past 20 years shark related tourism has generated over US$800 million to the Bahamian economy, according to the Bahamas Dive Association. A single reef shark there is estimated to be worth US$250,000 over its lifetime for tourism if kept alive on the reef. If it is fished, that same shark generates a one time value of US$50-60.

On any of the many dive boats that I have been on around the world, the highlight of the trip usually involves a shark sighting - which have become much fewer in our region. Sharks have a special place in every divers heart, which is why I can fully understand and support the backlash against this so-called "sportsman".

I feel as if he had harpooned my dog.

Posted by Treelover on March 15, 2014 20:47

@ Laurie Howells. Forgive me for being frank, but this is what I do, and you have no idea what you are talking about.

Globally IUCN Red list lists blacktips are as "near threatened", not "no where near threatened" as you say. But what researches recognize as a problem with this listing is that it is "globally" That is a problem because reef sharks are not pelagic, i.e. not a wide ranging species like most sharks, and local populations are very susceptible to overfishing are prone to extinction locally. This is what has happened around Phuket. Go interview the divers as I have who have been diving this island for 40 years and you will learn this. Families of blacktips used to be common along the west coast of Phuket, even Raya Yai. These population are now extinct.

As to your comments that I am as guilty as this guy (whom you claim is not guilty) Again, you really shouldn't comment on things which you have no idea. You have have no idea what actions I have or haven't taken, what I have reported and to whom, or what other conservation efforts I have been engaged in. I and others spend a great deal of time and money for causes which we feel are important. It just so happens that I and others have taken action against local and international chains for selling shark and shark fin soup. Sometimes we are successful and sometimes not, but I am proud of what we have accomplished and what we hope to accomplish in the future. I am a member of a few marine conservation groups that do many things from educate youth and locals on the importance of sustainable fishing practices, report violations to authorities, and even lobby legislatures to strengthen laws.

Through the power of social media I now know who this person is, where he works, and I know that he illegally sells his catch regularly, in this case a blacktip reef shark, probably one of the last in the area. I even know to who. Stay tuned.

This incident is a bit shocking to me as he is a divemaster working in the dive industry and should know how wrong his actions are. The only reason it's legal is because of political apathy towards and general ignorance about the environment here. For 2000B he has removed any chance of another diver or snorkeler enjoying this increasingly rare species which may now be extinct in local Phuket waters. He is a sellout in the truest form of the word. If there is a more selfish act, I am unaware of it.

And no, I do not eat seafood period, but not on conservation reasons alone, but also due to the modern day slavery taking place on Thai fishing fleets.

If you want to know how to get more involved with conservation efforts in Phuket, email me at nomadjoe74@gmail.com. There are some very big things on the horizon.

Posted by NomadJoe on March 16, 2014 11:32

I'm with you Laurie. Amazing how one animal brings out all the tree huggers or in this case the seaweed sympathisers who can quiet adequately guesstimate the worth of an animal to a related industry if left alone. I would like to see how the calculations stack up, that one single fish has a value of $250,000 to tourism. Let us see how the mathematical ability of a brain is inversely proportional to the level of fanaticism.
I would be more interested if the story provided details of what sauce the fish was consumed with and whether red or white wine was selected.
Poor treelover, you feel as if he has harpooned your dog. Seek medical care and the problem may be addressed but I bet right now after reading this, the anxiety level is uncontrollable and you feel like your pet bird has been roasted,

Posted by Manowar on March 16, 2014 12:48

@Nomad Joe, a well written reply, from someone with a vested interest. However you lose credibility by complaining about one man with one fish, far better if we see you, and the other bleeding hearts, down at the pier, and departure/arrival beaches and protest to the fishing industry. You also lose credibility by using the wrong word to gain credibility "pelagic" - The blacktip reef shark (Carcharhinus melanopterus) inhabits tropical and warm temperate seas. They are pelagic sharks meaning that they spend their entire lives swimming in the water column as opposed to resting on the bottom. They must always remain in motion in order to respire valuable dissolved oxygen from the water. According to Wikipedia, these sharks will migrated from their northern boundary to their southern boundary, which contradicts what you say. Someone is wrong, but I believe wiki. sorry.

Posted by Laurie Howells on March 16, 2014 13:43

"According to Wikipedia, these sharks will migrated from their northern boundary to their southern boundary, which contradicts what you say. "

No, not true. The exact quote from Wikipedia is 'There is equivocal evidence that sharks from the northern and southern extremes of its distribution are migratory.', so something completely different from your claim.

Posted by stevenl on March 16, 2014 14:32

@Manowar, if it was worth that much, $250,000 to tourism, I would sell it back to them for $20,000 and they would still be ahead.

Posted by Laurie Howells on March 16, 2014 14:57

To Nomad Joe,don't worry,your black tip is still alive,a black tip shark has distinct black markings for about 30% of the way down the pectoral and dorsal fins.....this shark that was caught looks similar to a grey reef whaler which you don't wish to get on the wrong side of if it was bigger.

Posted by Anonymous on March 16, 2014 15:25

Laurie, I think you ve just discovered the first profitable Eco tourism business.
How many times do you think you could re- catch it and sell back to them again before they realised what was going on. You could use a bit of spray paint after each catch , however the wrong colour could result in a new species being discovered.

Posted by Manowar on March 16, 2014 15:35

@ Laurie. I am not sure where you got your definition of pelagic, but your comments really showcase the problem with people Goggling topics of which they know nothing about then regurgitating their findings as fact.

Sharks are either obligatory swimmers relying on ram ventilation or they are buccal pumpers, those that can force water through their gills while not swimming. Black tips are the former. Neither one of these are the definition of "pelagic". No, I did not Google any of that.

You doubt me because of my "vested interest", but I would think we all have a vested interest in healthy oceans. You say you are a diver, but your comments seriously contradict that. Divers are usually educated about these things.

@Anonomous. 100% a blacktip. Here is a clearer picture where the black tip is clearly visible: http://i1258.photobucket.com/albums/ii531/nomadjoe74/1901582_606213266132200_1855910788_n.jpg

Posted by NomadJoe on March 16, 2014 17:13

My apologies to NomadJoe,after seeing a larger/cleared pic of this shark, i do believe it to be a black tip reef shark..see attached extract on this shark:
Named for distinctive black tips on its fins, the blacktip shark also goes by blackfin shark, black-tipped shark, small blacktip shark and spot-fin ground shark. Potentially dangerous but never fatal, blacktip sharks do attack, both unprovoked and provoked. They make up roughly 15 percent of shark attacks off the Florida coast, often biting surfers.

Posted by Anonymous on March 17, 2014 06:31

@Nomad Joe, you might not accept black tipped reef shark as being pelagic, so I suggest you email these organisations and tell them they are wrong:
http://www.pittsburghzoo.org/ppganimal.aspx?id=14

http://edu.environmentalatlas.ae/Tutorials/Learn/Marine_Environment

http://www.exoticfishcheap.com/product.php?id_product=213

www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf.../Identifying-sharks-and-rays.pdf???
and these are only a few.

Like I have said a few times, go protest at the bigger offenders.

Posted by Laurie Howells on March 17, 2014 10:35

"Like I have said a few times, go protest at the bigger offenders."
With your reasoning nothing will ever change.

Your sources had better check the definition of 'pelagic' before using the word BTW "They are pelagic sharks meaning that they spend their entire lives swimming in the water column as opposed to resting on the bottom."

Posted by stevenl on March 17, 2014 11:27

I once swam into a manowar Its venomous tentacles delivered a series of severe and debilitating stings over my face and arms, and I required emergency medical attention.

Bystanders referred to the incident as an 'attack', but they were merely ill-informed as the manowar is a collection, albeit complex, of protoplasm and zooids and lacks any ability to reason or rationalize. It was just doing what marine cnidarians do.

The blame was with me as I put myself into its environment, and I accepted the risks. It would not have happened if I was not there, as it were.

It would be a similar risk if I entered a Soi Bangla beer bar and expected to have a meaningful discussion with any of the hard core punters about the basics of sustainable tourism economics.

Unless it concerned the price of tinnies and sheilas, the concept would be completely lost to them - and might also mean that I would be on the receiving end of another delivery of severe and debilitating pain.

Posted by Treelover on March 17, 2014 12:21

Treelover your an idiot and I assume you nickname was chosen because of that having a similar IQ. While You may consider you are occasionally subject to self inflicted pain, I think you will find those in your vicinity are subject to far worse. I'm sure as your nickname suggested your hobby gives you a real woody!

Posted by Manowar on March 17, 2014 13:49

Treelover, If I mention the " c" word does it make you urgently book am appointment with your physiatrist? Well sorry can't help myself... Chainsaw

Posted by Manowar on March 17, 2014 14:04

@stevenl, mate, you really do like making a fool of yourself. Nowhere did I say these sharks are not pelagic, in fact it was NomadJoe quote "That is a problem because reef sharks are not pelagic." You show stupidity in not reading what a person writes. Now, be a good kid and go kiss a shark... a bloody big one.

Posted by Laurie Howells on March 17, 2014 14:30

"Nowhere did I say these sharks are not pelagic, in fact it was NomadJoe quote "That is a problem because reef sharks are not pelagic.""

And NomadJoe is right, these sharks are not pelagic. The quote I gave is from one of your sources, which is clearly and obviously not a good source.

Reread my post and you'll understand, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Posted by stevenl on March 17, 2014 16:52

@ Laurie. FYI shallow pelagic is not the same as pelagic.

I can use Google too:

"The blacktip shark inhabits inshore and offshore waters, but is not a truly pelagic species" - http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/ichthyology/Gallery/Descript/Blacktip/Blacktipshark.html

I am surprised the Pittsburg Zoo has an incorrect definition of "pelagic" on their website.


@ Anonymous: Do you have a link for that Florida attack statistic? Everything I have ever read indicates they are responsible for a couple dozen or so "attacks" worldwide since records have been kept. There is no way that can translate to 15% of "attacks" in Florida.

Posted by NomadJoe on March 17, 2014 17:10

@NomadJoe, clearly you have come up with a term that either doesn't exist or is in very limited use, can you please define "shallow pelagic," remembering pelagic does not refer to coastal waters.
"Pelagic" is an adjective that means "of or relating to the open or high sea, as distinguished from the shallow water near the coast." It is most commonly used to refer specifically to animals that dwell in the ocean's pelagic zone.

@stevenl, I suggest you go argue with the sources I provided, and while you're at it, check many other sites, you seem to think you are right and they are ALL wrong. I will not debate this anymore, you seem to believe only yourself and not that of more scientific minds. As for the source you quote, yes, it is right, but here is where you fall down, again, nowhere did I say that these sharks "rested on the bottom" this is simply in your mind. Again you read things that just aren't there... silly boy.

Posted by Laurie Howells on March 17, 2014 19:01

I will give the subject of sustainable shark tourism another few words to try to put the topic into a local perspective that should be more easily comprehended by most people, even if they might have already emptied a few tinnies.

Understanding that the Bahamas are in a different hemisphere, in more ways than one, and that I do respect the concept that "figures lie and liars figure" (although I stand by the Bahamian numbers), it would be negligent not to mention a small bay on an island here in Thailand that has experienced economic success in part due to a healthy and somewhat protected shark population.

On the island of Koh Tao there is a bay that for many years now has been the home to a community of blacktip reef sharks. Like clockwork, the blacktips arrive to feed in the bay every afternoon, and the tourists who are waiting to see them are armed with cameras, not spearguns.

It is not an easy island to access and visitors must utilize a series of planes, trains, automobiles, and boats to get there from their home countries. But still they come, many of them because they know that they will in all likelihood swim with sharks off the beach at Rocky Bay.

A local lady who was enjoying the benefits of steady employment that the influx of diving and shark tourism had brought to the island eloquently summed up the economic situation there: "farang like shark too much."

I'm sure that if the Phuket shark killer had walked out of Rocky Bay with a blacktip over his shoulder he would have been lynched.

Posted by Treelover on March 17, 2014 19:20

Treelover, it's quiet simple, you stated a value of $250,000 and I asked to see how that was calculated.
You stand by this value so clearly you understand how it was calculated. Please inform the PW readers and prove to us that it is not just a figure plucked out of thin air, with no basis other than in your mind it justifies your level of fanaticism.
There is only one threatened species on this planet. They are scientists that base a theory or conclusion on all known facts and are willing to submit such conclusion for peer review.
We have plenty of the non threaten species, the ones who decide the result they want, selectively choose what they consider right, ignore that which does not suit their objective and will never accept review of their work. They label those who raise questions as either sceptics or deniers but in fact all they are, is lazy.
Accurate scientific work and environmental fanaticism are not compatible.

Posted by Manowar on March 17, 2014 23:00

Laurie, give it up. It's not a pelagic shark, it's a reef shark. It's right in the name. Ask 100 marine biologists if a black tip reef shark is a pelagic shark, 100 will say no.

Posted by NomadJoe on March 17, 2014 23:12

Laurie you should actually read the links you post before you post them. The "shallow pelagic" term came from one of them.

Posted by NomadJoe on March 17, 2014 23:27

It was a shallow swimming pathetic shark who's fate was determined by Darwinism

Posted by Manowar on March 18, 2014 05:05

Not to dampen the story but you oz monkeys big beach protests to protect your own sharks, have seen more than 110 killed off the surf line in the last month. Wake up you bunny huggers and veggie munchers. Its a friggin' reef shark and good tasting too. There is not much left underwater to see when diving here, so who worries about the death of one fellow. You should see what the Thai fishing boats pull out every night from nearby reefs?

Posted by Dingo on March 18, 2014 11:50

I owe you an apology, manowar. It seems that I may have erred in quoting the Bahamian figure of US$250,000 per shark. A brief quantification of the numbers for Koh Tao reveal that the figure there is significantly higher.

Before I get into the numbers, however, I must first refer you to background information for the economic per shark values of both the Bahamas (US$250,000) and Palau (US$1.9 million): Bahamas Diving Association, Shark Diving Overview 2008, pg 1-36; Australian Institute of Marine Sciences, Population structure, spatial ecology and socio-economic value of reef sharks in Palau, Micronesia, 2012; Business and Biodiversity Campaign, Economically, Sharks Are More Valuable Alive than Dead, 2013.

These studies, and others, are available for viewing on line.

As you appear to harbor a deep mistrust of scientific studies, however, it might be to the advantage of the discussion that I have been unable to find anything related to shark values on Koh Tao. So we can walk through each step of my own observations and analysis in hopefully a clear and concise manner.

Staying in Rocky Bay about 15 years ago, my accommodation cost $US10 per night and a plate of ginger chicken with a beer about $3. As the popularity of the bay increased, in 2002 a new resort opened on the beach with a listed price range of $215 - $434 per night, with a plate of chicken costing more than I once payed for a room. For the sake of argument, I'll use a round figure of $200 per night for each of the 36 guest rooms at this property, and an annual occupancy rate of 80%.

So in the 11.5 years that this hotel has been in operation catering to the tourists that have come to Rocky Bay to see the sharks, the potential room revenue alone is an estimated $24,177,600.

Note that this is only the potential income from the rooms of one hotel. I am not going to attempt to estimate the amount of money spent by each guest on food, local transport, dive gear rental and scuba trips, sightseeing, tinnies, sheilas, massage services, hair braiding, tattoos. . .ad infinitum. Suffice to say that it is "money too much."

I also don't know how many sharks there are in Rocky Bay. If I use a round figure of 20, which is probably high, then the economic value of each shark to this one hotel is around $1.2 million.

But simplifying the discussion even further, if we suppose that the Phuket Shark Killer got into Rocky Bay and harpooned 19 sharks, missing one, then suddenly the situation takes on a completely different dynamic.

That one shark might just have become the most valuable fish on the planet.

Posted by Treelover on March 18, 2014 13:44

@NomadJoe,here is the link to the shark attack files in Florida as requested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacktip_shark

Posted by Anonymous on March 18, 2014 14:10

@ Anonymous,

The first line of your link reads 'Not to be confused with the blacktip reef shark, Carcharhinus melanopterus.', and we're talking blacktip reef shark here (reef, not pelagic).

Posted by stevenl on March 18, 2014 14:25

It's been entertaining guys. Just a footnote, there is the Black Tip Shark and there is the Black Tip Reef Shark. Two different beasts.

Posted by Sudo Nim on March 18, 2014 14:36

Your post, while I can appreciate an attempt to justify a conclusion, exactly confirms my previous post.
The suggestion that the estimated gross turnover of a hotel somehow relates to the value of a species is flawed. Flawed on the basis that you have no idea of why people chose that hotel, how many went specifically for the purpose stated, how many went for other reasons and what proportion would have occupied the premise whether these shark were there or not.
Unless you have such information and it is obtained accurately, you quiet adequately fit into the non threatened fanaticism branch of science being those who will use any figure that suits, whether relevant or not, to justify what is in fact a guesstimate.
Your attempt to justify a figure out of thin air more than adequately confirms my previous post. I would say thank you but it was nothing more than I would have expected from someone with Eco tunnel vision.
I could go into numerous detail of how you theory of value is flawed but it would be waste of my time and I doubt you would comprehend what you don't like to hear.
When I hear someone from either the environmental or scientific world who is willing to state that they are concerned about an issue, as yet they don't have findings of the effect of all variables associated with the issue, that they will not guesstimate a financial loss and intend to further research the issue and then when complete submit or publish it for peer review, comment and to be critically analysed then that will be arson worth listening to. Anything less is no better than fiction.

Posted by Manowar on March 18, 2014 14:53

Treelover, you don't owe me an apology. I would save that for those who provided direction to you in life and paid for your education. Maybe they owe you the apology!

Posted by Manowar on March 18, 2014 15:02

Sudo Nim, all this entertainment from a three line article!

Posted by Manowar on March 18, 2014 18:03

I would be delighted to undertake a comprehensive study of the economic benefits of the shark population of Rocky Bay, @manowar, utilizing all of the criteria that you suggested and more. In addition to being an environmentalist, I am also an enthusiastic capitalist, so of course a significant retainer would be required. I would insist, however, that I be allowed to share the results of my research with marine scientists, economists, and local and national government leaders in this country to further highlight the critical need for immediate and enforceable environmental protection.

Successful and timely completion of this assignment would also require that I stay at the subject hotel on Rocky Bay. Using a Phuket model in favor of your arguments, I will assume the highly unlikely event that I will be the only swinging Willie to visit the hotel this entire year exclusively for the sharks. Out of a total of 13,140 available room nights at the hotel this year, only one tree hugging, seaweed sympathizing git makes the long journey out there on account of these sharks - for a total of 7 days.

The other 13,133 room nights are taken by the tinnies and sheilas crowd.

Still hypothetical, you determine that my services are too expensive and that a much cheaper and more attractive alternative, suitable for a gentlemen of your temperament, would be to hire the Phuket Shark Killer to completely cull Rocky Bay of all of the resident blacktip reef sharks. Six months to a year hence, all it takes is a phone call to see how the hotel occupancy rates are doing compared to the previous year. You are pleased to learn that you have won the debate, but you have no interest at all in listening to the hotelier whinge about the outrageous behavior of his new type of guest. There is nothing tangible that you can accept in his description of rampant vandalism, thefts, burning rubbish, fireworks at all hours of the night, shirtless fat lager louts running amok, and other outrages associated with the change in the economic dynamic of this once tranquil bay.

The hired speargunner, meanwhile, was quite happy to accept the proceeds of his catch as remuneration - there were 20 sharks so he pocketed a one-time payment of $1,000. The total cost of my lodging, food and beverages at the hotel for one week was $2,000. If the sharks were still in the bay, and the louts cleared out, I would return every year for a week well into the foreseeable future.

The sharks are demonstrably worth more alive than fished.

Posted by Treelover on March 18, 2014 23:01

I am sure you would be delighted. The only problem is that any such report would be flawed and tainted by your predetermined objective.
The difference between what you would produce and what competent science would product are not comparable. Proper science has no predetermined objective other than present the truth based on all facts. You do not show an indication that such a result could be achieved by you.
I also doubt you are a capitalist, more than likely a socialist as anyone with even minor capitalistic values would never fail to realise that the capital investment in the construction of the hotel you referenced makes a significant contribution to the realised gross turnover. You somehow ignored this fact, why, because it did not suit you predetermined objective.
This was either caused deliberately in an attempt to persuade uninformed readers that your guesstimate had some tangible accuracy or that you do not understand the basis of capital investment and required returns.
I forget what your last and revised estimate was but it clearly showed the level of fanatical extremism that you are willing to present in order to try and impose you views on others.
I have no doubt the shark has value and probably more in the water than out but your exaggerated approach does more damage to your intended cause than if you had said nothing at all.
As I have said before scientific research and theory requires accuracy and unbiased objectives. Extremism on either side devalues not only belief in science but also increase tolerance by the majority of offences against issues that do require action.

Posted by Manowar on March 19, 2014 07:35

Alan, thank you for the bonus in my paycheque this week. I have put it to good use; a new speargun and chainsaw blade!

Posted by Manowar on March 19, 2014 08:13

Your enviable intellect and incomparable capacity to fully perceive and understand all things has cornered me, manowar. I have fallen into your trap and have no other recourse but to expose myself. My fanatical agenda must be put out for full public scrutiny.

Rather than imposing my views on others, I prefer to be used as a resource in providing guidance and direction leading to awareness. My fanatical agenda, if you will, involves a basic element of economic theory that sustainability requires using resources responsibly and efficiently in order to realize long-term profitability. My aim is to raise awareness for the critical need for immediate and enforceable protection of environmental resources.

Being referred to as a fanatical extremist by one person does not bother me, but I would be affected if I was to think that my opinion is a minority viewpoint.

Your grasp of hotel economics is exceptional, using the word in a politically correct sense. But it does nothing for the discussion but muddy the waters. It is a simple concept: One man goes to the hotel for one week for the only purpose of seeing one shark. He spends $2,000, which goes right into the hotel coffers.

It matters not whether the money is then amortized, assetized, capitalized, ostracized, marginalized, or shoved up somebody's backside. The $2K would not exist for this hotel if it did not have a shark resource available for the one man. He simply would have taken his money elsewhere to see his shark.

The capital investment in the construction of the hotel makes a significant contribution, as you say, but to the local, national and Burmese economies. If the business plan of the hotel was dependent on the shark tourism market and the shark resources became unavailable,then they either hope they can diversify or build it elsewhere.

Posted by Treelover on March 19, 2014 20:53

Treelover, no!
Initially you stated where the value of a particular shark was $ 250,000.
I then queried how such a calculation was justified.
You then suggested that the value of the shark was in fact more based on your own experience and suggested the sharks value was directly related to the projected gross turnover of the hotel you stayed at. This calculation suggested that every dollar realised was a direct result of the shark.
I then rejected this theory as flawed on the bases that it did not consider all relevant facts. One being that the capital investment to build the hotel in you view was irrelevant.
Now you are suggesting that if the business plan of the hotel was based around the shark, the construction while helping the local economy, is all dependent on having this shark.
So we now have the situation where we assume someone of intelligence, a business person or company, will invest millions of dollars on the basis of a business plan where the sole objective is based around a shark which any day could die, be eaten by fisherman or just swim away.
So we have established that in your mind, the sharks value relates to the gross turnover of the hotel although you concede now that the construction of the hotel does in fact contribute to this turnover. So if the hotel owner built a 72 room hotel instead of the 36 you stated in your example, the value of the shark would now double.?
So your theory is that the value of a shark is directly proportional to the gross turnover of a hotel, or proportion of turnover, that was build for the purpose of allowing tourists to stay in the vicinity.
If, rather than building a hotel, the owner built a camping ground and if we assume the turnover was less than 20% of the hotel, do we now say the shark only has a value 20% of that which you previously?
As a self proclaimed capitalist, can you see where again your objective opposes all common sense?
I am sure your intentions are good but I don't think you are doing yourself any justice. You need to sit down, relax, remove all the preconceived ideas you have, as any capitalist would do, and have a long hard think whether of not objective may be clouding your judgement.

Posted by Manowar on March 20, 2014 02:53

There is a lot of petty people here.

But does make sense in S$ to have wildlife protected in the sea, I went to stingray city in Cayman just to see that nothing else (a few rums on the beach as well) They reckon each stingray is worth approximately 500,000 Tourist dollars, does not matter what type of shark it is its also valuable to the eco system and the reef

Posted by Michael on March 20, 2014 03:22

Deja Vu, retourner a las case depart!

Posted by Manowar on March 20, 2014 07:43

Monsieur, I fear that the only one back at square one is your goodself. In good faith, I have attempted to engage in an enriching, honest, and open discussion on a subject that is of great importance to many people.

To that end, on 18 March I provided links to relevant background information which should have addressed all of your concerns regarding the quantification of the $250,000 number. As I was unable to locate any data for Thailand, I patiently presented and explained a simplified example reflecting my observations and experience with a situation locally.

All of this has been completely rejected by you out of hand.

Rather than bogging down in a muddy path of minutia, I will take this opportunity to wish you good day as I withdraw. Should someone wish to raise the discussion to the higher level which it rightfully deserves, I would at that time be pleased to rejoin it.

Posted by Treelover on March 20, 2014 22:07

Manowar, you deny that sustainable tourism is viable and that any animal has economic value other than it's value on a dinner plate? Could you supply some facts in support of this argument? Sustainable tourism is a fairly accepted concept world wide, it is your argument that this fish has no economic value that would require justification. You are correct that people are susceptible to intellectual deceit and false bias based on preconceptions, you are incorrect in not requiring the same standards to be applicable to your own argument.

There is little evidence to show that ignoring local environmental responsibility is good for tourism. There is a great deal of historical evidence that localities and societies ignoring their environment only discover too late the value of a single animal and species. Please provide evidence of tourist destinations that wiped out local animals and environments and benefited from it. Otherwise go back to watching Ted Nugent on Fox.

Posted by martin on March 20, 2014 23:48

Martin, you are also an idiot. Nowhere I'd I ever deny an animal has value other than on the dinner plate nor did I even comment that sub stainable tourism is not viable. The fact is I don't know and therefore I prefer no to comment on such issue.
Your opening comment is therefor false and it is your misunderstanding of what I have said before, or it is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the facts.
I have previously stated that the value of the animal was guesstimated based on no factual evidence and therefore must be the intention to present an inaccurate opinion to preference ones ideology.
You also seem to suffer similar effects, however in addition you wish falsify you interpretation of what someone else has stated.
I suggest you read all the posts so that you can fully establish the type of goose you are or that other already understand you to be.
In accuracy, tunnel vision and falsehood to me are undesirable traits but that should not stop you from your level of acceptance.

Posted by Martin on March 21, 2014 08:52

Please explain the martin-Martin-Manowar connection.

Posted by stevenl on March 21, 2014 10:48

Name calling is not a very good method of adding to a discussing or making a point. At risk of feeding an obvious troll I will say that technically you are correct you did not directly state that an individual animal had no value, you implied it. You seem unduly upset with the figures treelover extrapolated and that is also understandable. Now it seems that we can get back on topic.

Treelover and others have stated that the shark is of value which you just stated you agree with. They also stated that sustainable tourism requires the protection of these animals which you also agree with. So your point seems to be that people who quote numbers they cannot support are irrational fanatics twisting facts to their own agendas a gross generalization I can't agree with. Innaccurate? Perhaps but not necessarily fanatics and it does not immediately invalidate any points they raise.

If that isn't your point then what is your point and what value does it add to the discussion?

Do you think it is a good thing that this shark was taken? Is it something that should be promoted or panned? Should Phuket be trying to address these issues or ignore them? I think that these questions are more important than whether or not treelover is pulling numbers out of the air (which he did explain by the way)

Posted by martin on March 21, 2014 11:37

Martin, you are correct. My point was that people who quote numbers or figures that cannot be justified invalidate the points they make.
Science is not based on guesstimate on. It is based purely on facts that can be proved, have been analysed by peer review, have been questioned, confirmed and can be reproduced..
There are only three possible outcomes; it is accepted as fact. ( ie acceleration due to gravity, speed of light, existence of the dinosaurs), it can be accepted as possible or probable but requires further research ( ie black holes, the universe, global warming) or can be deemed false ( ie the world is flat, the worlds oil resources will run out by 1990).
Scientists do not guesstimate; they experiment, calculate, test, theorise and test the theory, ask for critical analysis, they want other to question their theory because the more it is questioned and analysed, the more it will be accepted.
Newton didn't say, let's just call it 10 meters per second squared, close enough, light was not deemed to travel at 200,000 miles per second, close enough, these figures were determined exactly and even though the estimates are within 5%, scientifically they would be flawed.
If a scientist published a theory that could not be justified or of they said " I've just guesstimated that part", any opinion or result is flawed as would be any future opinion or theory they have. Their reputation would also be damaged beyond repair.
You should be happy that such precision exists, as I do,as most aspects of our life result from previous experiments,theories and the application of sciences.
To pluck a figure out of thin air for the pure basis of persuading others towards your point of view does invalidate any conclusion or opinion. This fabrication is either caused by laziness to complete a correct analysis or caused by the inability to fully understand and comprehend all aspects of the subject.
However it does get worse and today's scientists are also to blame. It would appear they consider the only way to promote their findings or cause is to exaggerate potential results or outcomes that present knowledge can neither confirm nor deny. This is fanaticism, extremism and just pure negligence and damages the reputation of those who do not have any particular point of view except to search for and eventually know only the truth.

Posted by Manowar on March 21, 2014 13:15

Stevenl, the connection is the opposed opinions related to acceptance of guesstimation as having any relevance.

Posted by Manowar on March 21, 2014 13:37

Martin, you are probably right, I made the assumption that you were an idiot based on your idiotic interpretation of what I had previously said.

Posted by Manowar on March 21, 2014 13:49

stevenl, perhaps it has something to do with a bad connection or a faulty keyboard on the grog shop computer.

Posted by stephenC on March 21, 2014 15:07

"Science is not based on guesstimate on. It is based purely on facts that can be proved, have been analysed by peer review, have been questioned, confirmed and can be reproduced."

Try reading Tarski's law. All science is probabilities, facts are elusive and those who Know are most dangerous of all. I will leave you to your proven facts and that anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot.

"Martin, you are probably right, I made the assumption that you were an idiot based on your idiotic interpretation of what I had previously said."

See above. I will say that it seems from the comments that others had the same idiotic interpretation of what you wrote. If several people interpret what you are saying "idiotically" who then is the idiot.

Posted by martin on March 22, 2014 00:01

I also don't recall when economics and statistical analysis became exact sciences.All about the info available at that time and all.

Posted by Andrea on March 22, 2014 12:30

Martin, I think you need to read Tarski's theory a few more times and once understood maybe you could search for a better example.
Mathematical statistics have probabilities and science contains probabilities where the full extent of variables are unknown.

Andrea, you are correct that economics and statistics are not part of science unless you are estimating a probability of an event occurring based on the historical data of similar events. It is generally used because the variables that cause such an event are not fully understood or are unknown.
This conversation evolved from an economic value being put on a shark. When asked to justify this value, it was then further amended to increase the value in proportion to the gross turnover of a hotel near where a particular shark existed. I stated this theory was flawed.and all it was is a guesstimate to persuade others to a particular point of view.
Economics does not form part of science, however the cost of undertaking scientic works may be decided on what potential benefits can be achieved. They are certainly not based on a figure out of thin air.
As for Martin calling me an idiot, I cannot find any any other logic than to accept this as a compliment considering you previous reasoning. Should you have agreed with me, this would concern me!

Posted by Manowar on March 22, 2014 13:52

If there is anything I have learned from all this, other than that you should never kill sharks, is that you should also never call martin an idiot.

Posted by stephenC on March 22, 2014 15:43

Okay so you don't believe Tarsi applicable. How about the Intl Science community? "Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ''true.'' Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."

You continue to assert that treelover is an idiot and intellectually lazy because he just pulled numbers from air and did no research but with a little effort I found the following in support of his lazy research
" a joint study by the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the University of Western Australia which used measurements such as shark tourism revenue as a percentage of GDP, annual income in salaries paid by the shark diving industry, The annual tax income to Palau generated by shark diving as a percent of the country's business tax revenue, and other tangibles to validate the value of Palaun shark resources.

Using similar criteria, the Bahamas met a direct and critical threat to their shark population when a large Bahamian fishing company announced its intention to catch sharks and export their fins. Quantification values per shark were of the essence as the fishing company was armed with their own data showing that each fish caught that was currently interacting with the tourism industry would bring in $50-60.

Researchers showed that the same fish left alone for tourism would generate $250,000 over the course of its life.

Lawmakers in the Bahamas accepted this data and reacted by banning commercial fishing of sharks in their country in 2011, and creating a 654, 715 sq. km shark sanctuary."

So again I ask if you have one person who adds to a discussion with statistics in support of there argument and research that is easily available and other who kills discussion with name calling and hyperbole who is the idiot and who has the lazy intellect? Who is using research and science properly and who is adding to the community/discussion and who is subtracting?

Posted by martin on March 22, 2014 22:54

"related to acceptance of guesstimation as having any relevance."

No it's not. You're arguing that treelover and I are idiots, that he pulled his numbers out of thin air and that anyone who provides numbers that you are too lazy to research to confirm or deny with supporting evidence is a fanatic who is to be ignored. You're also saying all science that has been accepted by peers is fact. At least those are the ones you seem to be sticking to.

Posted by martin on March 23, 2014 03:40

Third post ED, I have come to the conclusion that Empty vessels make the most noise. Hence a lot of keyboard diarrhea over a stupid shark. Flip if people cared this much for the plight of the Rohingya and the ethnic Uighurs, sure debate this much? A bleedin' food source, pfhuh!?!

Posted by Dingo on March 23, 2014 07:07

Martin, there is no need to argue anymore whether you and treelover are idiots. At least google provides the opportunity for some to think they are anything but that which they truely are, brings together those having similar objectives and reasoning and provides entertainment for the rest.
As treelover disappeared just before martin appeared you may even find he is your split personality!

Posted by Manowar on March 23, 2014 10:52

"At least google provides the opportunity for some to think they are anything but that which they truely are, brings together those having similar objectives and reasoning and provides entertainment for the rest."

Some would maintain that a Soi Bangla Beer Bar offers exactly those same opportunities.

Posted by Treelover on March 23, 2014 13:05

Yes especially when wearing beer googles.

Posted by Manowar on March 23, 2014 14:06

This is the first time the Manowar has opened with a yes. I think that we have found something that we can all agree on: beer.

It is another hot day and I could do with a cold one.

Posted by stephenC on March 23, 2014 17:38

@stephenC: second that beer, mate!

Posted by Treelover on March 23, 2014 19:16

Ten days of life. You people. Unbelievable and totally unreadable.

And the silence of the ED. Did you really read what they send you?

Posted by Lena on March 23, 2014 20:39

Today I received confirmation from Fisheries via the DMCR that this is illegal.

Posted by NomadJoe on March 25, 2014 23:48

Very well done, indeed, NomadJoe. This story has suddenly taken on a new dynamic.

What a week for news about expats actually doing something to effect change instead of just whinging. We've got the dive operators, Reid Ridgway and his impressive visa run campaign, and now NomadJoe - and we are not even halfway through the week.

Posted by Treelover on March 26, 2014 07:46

Rogue fisherman, rogue polluters, rogue officials, etc. are making it difficult to live, work and play here. There are laws against all of the rogues, but no law is any good without enforcement.

Keep up the good work, NomadJoe. And you too, PW!

Posted by Diver Mike on March 26, 2014 10:56

" a new dynamic".. Really?....
Has the shaft been reincarnated and returned???
Sounds like another Treelover/ Martin exaggeration.
As for expats standing up against corrupt, negligent or criminal actions by either rogue operators or officials, nothing has changed except more publicity about what we already knew.
Entering a new dynamic maybe should be reserved for a time when even the smallest amount of progress is made rather than talk and hope.
Otherwise the tuk tuk problems have entered new dynamics many times over the last 6 months and the result has been.........? We understand now they have more power with authorities now than we believed before.

Posted by Manowar on March 26, 2014 15:35

Sad. There will always be those who work to affect change and take a stand and there will always be those parasites who sit on the sidelines and jeer at their efforts. If you don't try to make a difference you never will.

This is an article about a senseless act and outrage over it. It's not about tuk tuks or illegal human trafficking or corruption. They are important topics but discussed elsewhere. I will take my progress (and hope) where I can get them. Good news nomad Joe and good work.

Treelovers statistically supported exaggerations would seem more valid than someone else's empty negativity.

Posted by martin on March 26, 2014 23:35

martin, if it really annoys you that much and it's an issue of principle, rather than just talk, why not commence a private prosecution to affect change.
That is what anyone with real balls would do. If you can't afford the time or costs, get a group with similar objectives together to fund it. Success of your objective then is dependent on you, not on others.

Posted by Manowar on March 27, 2014 05:29

The change in dynamic is obvious to some as this story now has the potential to shift from a moral argument to a legal matter.

That fatigued-clad frogman might find his
dynamic change from a recreational fisherman at the beach to a prosecuted poacher in the dock.

Posted by Treelover on March 27, 2014 06:28

Treemartin,
Unless the alleged poacher rolls over and says, yes I killed the shark, I knew it was illegal, throw the book at me, nothing at all will happen. Even in this situation he may get only a small fine.
As a complaint has been forwarded to police, I assume they will acknowledge receipt to the complainant suggesting some type of investigation.
Even if after investigating, evidence is sufficient to proceed, the police will be required to establish the exact species, not an ammeters opinion but that of a qualified biologist. So this has to be established from photos taken by a third person which then will also require a statement to confirm the identity of the alleged and that the shark was seen alive.
A prosecutor then has to decide based on available evidence wether a prosecution is likely to be achieved. Possible.
He then must establish whether it is in the public interest, both the cost of obtaining evidence to achieve a successful prosecution and from an environmental aspect. The former probably not, the latter is possible.
If the offence is deemed to be illegal, will the prosecution deter others from the same offence. ??
Are public funds in running this case being used to the best affect?
Sorry to tell you but it's not going to happen. You can hope, dream, live on a promise or even suggest that as you are correct, the right result will be achieved. The real world and commercial decisions are not based on ideology or what should be done.
So after all the hope has diminished and realise nothing will be done, I look forward to being keep up to date on the success of you continuing to peruse the issue.

Posted by Manowar on March 27, 2014 09:03

The Manowar seems to have changed the dynamic himself when he morphed the shark into a "shaft." Or maybe its that gosh darn faulty computer acting up again at the grog shop.

Posted by stephenC on March 27, 2014 10:00

I see a good deal of progress here and reasons for hope. It all started with someone concerned enough to take photos and then using social media to make them public.

Posted by Diver Mike on March 27, 2014 10:31

Just auto text, phone interruptions and inability to review

Posted by Manowar on March 27, 2014 10:37

People are aware of the problem, it is being discussed, these things are progress and steps forward. Without consciousness being raised and the community/authorized people knowing of the problem there is no chance for change. It is not necessarily important that anyone be punished, life is not always about I win you lose.

Suggesting that people always act in their own best interests is both naive and short sighted. There are many local people who are concerned about the local environment for reasons other than personal economic gain.

I am unclear MOW what you are suggesting is the right approach, in one post you favor filing a complaint and in the next you post that filing a complaint is a waste of time. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion MOW or are you just trolling to put down anyone who tries to add something. I know the answer to that. Please spare us your bilge. There were trolls here before you and I suppose there will be others after.

BTW anyone with any reading comprehension could see that treelover and I are different people. The writing styles are completely different as are our views. I have been commenting on this site for several years as the editor can attest. He could also verify that the ip's are different. It's not necessary as I promise to stop feeding the troll.

Thanks to PW for raising this issue and to those who added information and insight.

Posted by martin on March 27, 2014 12:33

Martin, nowhere did I suggest filing a police report as you incorrectly state. I think is was clear to most that it was not be high in the list of Phukets problems.
Tree lovers " it's an outrage, indeed"
NomadJoe " it's illegal"
Martin " a senseless act and argue,net over it" and " you're arguing than treelover and I are idiots". I never argued, I just stated fact.
Quiet obviously there was was a consensus of opinion that such a catch was either illegal or unjust. The talk continued and we entered a "new dynamic" apparently which was no different to the previous position.
I suggested that if such an even meant so much to you, rather than talk, post and complain, do something about it where you can control the outcome. It's quiet smile, you believe you are right and the fisherman is wrong, gather evidence and prosecute him yourself. How much simpler could it be? You have an issue with what has occurred, you believe it's an offence, you don't want such issues to continue and you have the option to ensure it won't happen again,
And your solution to progress is awareness and discussion. The outrage you express is clearly not evident by your actions.
Outrage, in my world leads to appropriate action not just talk and the hope that someone else will do all the hard work.
As for treelover not being your split personality, while I acknowledge Alan's comment, if he was, would you actually ever know?
As for trolls, I assume you mean those who talk about how outraged they are, post false or inaccurate information, obtain some little intelligence from the google brain but have little ability to actually do anything. You are right, they probably were here before, will be here in future, in fact, you could probably say they were where you have posted both past, present and future.

Posted by Manowar on March 27, 2014 15:43

It's a great shame the shark never got the chance to grow as large as this thread.

Posted by Sudo Nim on March 27, 2014 19:40

Sudo Nim, yes, the shark just got lost amongst all the testosterone and for others, just became a men stir all cycle!

Posted by Manowar on March 28, 2014 02:15

"I think is(sic) was clear to most that it was not be(sic) high in(sic) the list of Phukets problems."

I suspect that more than a few people were moved by the visual metaphor inherent in the dramatic photo at the top of this story, Manowar(sic).

Many consider that a powerful figure illegally destroying the little that remains of our rapidly diminishing natural resources for his own self interest is very high on the list of Phuket's problems.

Posted by Treelover on March 28, 2014 07:10

Treelover
" a powerful figure" and " the little that remains of our ever diminishing natural resources".
You really are full of dribble today. I suggest standing over a bucket or you could use the one generally over you head which inhibits your ability to see reality.

Posted by Treelover on March 28, 2014 10:30

"Sudo Nim, yes, the shark just got lost amongst all the testosterone and for others, just became a men stir all cycle!"

Kudos sir. By far the most sensible thing you have written in this thread. What a great addition to the topic at hand. Such insight and erudition has rarely graced these pages.

Posted by martin on March 28, 2014 10:31

"Just auto text, phone interruptions and inability to review"

In one short sentence you have summed up your entire two weeks worth of useless jibber-jabber, Man-or-troll (sic).

Posted by stephenC on March 28, 2014 10:37

StephenC. You mean similar to your useless contribution to life!
Have yourself another beer or shout all your friends. Either way, I'm sure its the same cost

Posted by Manowar on March 28, 2014 11:46

Well we know one tree lover, then there's alter martin and possible alter Stephen C.
It's not unusual for there to be at least 16.
You can't ask this question because of denial that the others exist.

Posted by Manowar on March 28, 2014 12:16

A keyboard warrior is becoming an obstacle to meaningful discussion on this topic. His militant username should have clued us all in at the outset. . .

Posted by Andrea on March 29, 2014 11:13

This thread has made me really want to book a stay at Koh Tao and swim with some reef sharks. Go treelover, unofficial spokesman of Kho Tao Island :)

Posted by Guava on March 30, 2014 12:06

The thrill of seeing the sharks on Koh Tao can also be enjoyed on occasion by non-swimmers, Guava, when the shark pups chase small fish right up to the shoreline.

This natural attraction could still be possible here on Phuket, but it would require that we start getting our act together immediately.

Posted by Treelover on March 31, 2014 10:05

A quality inshore diving site would be a big benefit to Phuket, and the south end of Kata Noi bay where this shark was poached would be an ideal location.

Posted by Diver Mike on March 31, 2014 10:49

I truly hope all you shark huggers went along to the Yamu fishing comp. and protested. They had a category for "sharks and rays."

Posted by Laurie Howells on April 7, 2014 10:23

lot of commentary for one shark, so many protesting ready to march on city hall, writing to local elected officials and newspapers damning this as unacceptable shame you don't adopt the same attitude to the road toll here.

Posted by slickmelb on April 9, 2014 20:26

Thanks for the report, Laurie. The annual Yamu competition is put on by the Paklok OrBorTor and aimed at promoting local fishing traditions - practices that originated when there were a lot less humans and a lot more fish on the planet. I understand that a word has recently been put in to the OrBorTor about the possibility of taking sharks and rays out of this competition.

Meanwhile, a few days following the Yamu event the Rawai Beach Fishing Club hosted their annual tournament off the Similan Islands. The RBFC maintain that "promoting ethical fishing practices is our foremost reason for establishing the Club", and 19 teams participated this year with some flying in from abroad. In line with the club's mission statement the bulk of the competition involved the sustainable sport fishing practice of catch and release.

Posted by Treelover on April 13, 2014 10:09