Paige continues, "As the

quantity of sharks being caught has fallen, the frequency and number of

shark attacks have been on the rise, reaching record levels last year."

In Florida, he says, where the majority of attacks occur, federal and

state protections for sharks have led to a more than 80 percent decrease

in sharks taken during the 1990s. At the same time, state restrictions

have created de facto shark sanctuaries in waters closest to shore, where

human-shark interaction is most likely to occur, and wherein one of the

sharks most often implicated in attacks on man the bull shark is known

to frequent.

It may not have occurred to

the bureaucrats that sharks eat game and commercial fish, as well as threaten

dolphins. The more sharks there are, the fewer are the other types of

fish. According to the Washington Times of Aug. 30, a lawsuit has been

filed blocking the federal government from imposing another major reduction

in Shark fishing at last someone is thinking.

Is the animal-rights lobby

pleased? Not according to the Audubon Society, whose web site declares:

"Even with current fisheries regulations, more recent analysis suggests

that large coastal sharks are in worse shape than reported in most recent

assessments..." One can only guess this means they don't outnumber

swimmers yet.

Hopefully, the Bush Administration

will be moved by such incidents as the above and take action to roll back

the ban. They should also declare that our government's policy will henceforth

be to favor human life where there may be some conflict between humans

and animals. This "pro-life" policy doesn't mean we can't encourage

the animal population it merely means that we must put big government

in the proper perspective, and recognize the rule of unintended consequences.

We can probably count on PETA opposing such common-sense initiatives.

William Fielder

Peachtree City

Back

to Opinion Home Page | Back

to the top of the page