Africa Geographic February 2005 [antikvár]

editorial u Each year more than 100 million, . yes million, sharks come to grief at the hand of man Recently we carried a major feature on South Africa's burgeoning cage diving industry, which is aimed at giving punters a reaUy close-up underwater experience with shaiics, notably the 'great white' (see 'Swimming with sharks', October 2004). Although some people have suggested that the practice of cage diving has given - and will continue to give - rise to increasing attacks on humans, the statistics don't support this perception. The link between cage diving and shark attack is tenuous at best Then in mid-November an elderly swimmer was taken, allegedly by a great white, off a well-known Cape Town beach. It was a sad and traumatic moment for all those on the beach that morning and it produced an emotional outcry ranging the full gamut to those who suggested that the shark(s) be hunted down. Reason prevailed and as far as I know there has been no vigilante armada setting out on a quest of revenge. Now, I don't want to diminish the pain and suffering of the victim, or of her family and friends, but it does behove us to reflect on sharks and the incidence of shark attack. Apparently there were some 2 110 reported shark attacks from all over the world between 1670 and 2001. Clearly there would have been quite a number that went unreported during that time and yet a few more since. And in the period from 1876 to 2002 there were some 250 attacks worldwide that have been attributed to great whites. Compared with the other dangers humans face through war, disease and pestilence, shark attacks don't even register on the scale. And when you look at the situation from the sharks' point of view, they (the sharks) have much more to fear from humans. Compared with some 10-15 people killed by sharks each year, more than 100 million, yes million, sharks come to grief at the hand of man. A small number of shark deaths could be attributed to ignorance and fear, but most are as a result of systematic hunting for their flesh, skins and other by-products. But perhaps the most senseless and despicable exploitation lies at the door of shark-finning. Shark-Aiming is driven by an Asian market that regards the soup made from the fin fibres, which have little flavour or nutritional value, as a culinary delicacy that may well sell for as much as US$100 a bowl. Making matters worse, the profitability of the shark-fin industry means that many of the fishermen involved simply catch the sharks, hack off their fins and discard the mutilated animals, leaving them to face a slow and agonising death. There can be little doubt that many shark populations face extinction and that sooner rather than later we could be witnessing a complete worldwide collapse of the shark-fishing industry. Should we care? Of course we should: on humane grounds alone, shark-finning warrants a global ban on the practice. But on scientific grounds, too, we should care: what would be the effect on marine ecology if a major, higher order element of the food chain were simply removed from the equation? About our maqaiine Africa Geographic is editorially and financially independent, it enjoys the support and endorsement of several non-government organisations, but it is not affiliated in any way to these bodies or lo any other publishing, environmental or political interest group. Alrica Ceographic strives to foster an awareness of wildlife, conservation, eco-travel, indigenous cultures and the general environment. It consistently advocates the wisest use of natural resourees in a manner that involves and is of real benelit lo the people of Africa. Alrica Ceographic is published 11 limes a year by Black Eagle Publishing, an Independent organisation owned by its shareholders and directors: Peter Borchert, Simon Espley and Murray lackson.