Human Appetite for Sharks Pushes Many Toward Extinction

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Maybe we should start eating lawyers to help keep sharks from going extinct. They probably taste the same.

Damn, Spooky...you don't want the lawyers after you.

I've had more than enough with lawyers. Bring it on!

[Ban Hammer 13,395]

Maybe we should start eating lawyers to help keep sharks from going extinct. They probably taste the same.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

White people aren't big eaters of shark. Do I still need to be guilty about it? I'm confused?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

White people aren't big eaters of shark. Do I still need to be guilty about it? I'm confused?

Don't be surprised if some of those "scallops", shad, and cod you thought you were eating turns out to be shark.

[Ban Hammer 13,395]

White people aren't big eaters of shark. Do I still need to be guilty about it? I'm confused?

you should feel guilty because you're white and people are eating shark!

[SuperDuper! 230]

Itz the white man's guilt! Shark's blood is on your hands.

[HAL 9000 96]

LOL! I had a feeling you would go there.

To be completely honest, I'm really a Progressive Liberal with Socialist leanings (PLSL).

Nothing heats up my jacuzzi more than suckin' on that Federal nipple.

Homeboy you're nearly there with that subconscious Marcism.

But that PLSL sounds like a mental condition!!! (j/k)

[HAL 9000 96]

As for the tangent... no surprise.

'Property rights' over wildlife is a very sad direction to take when dealing with practices that have been known to deplete wildlife numbers down to near extinction (and to extinction).

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As for the tangent... no surprise.

'Property rights' over wildlife is a very sad direction to take when dealing with practices that have been known to deplete wildlife numbers down to near extinction (and to extinction).

Spoken like a true commie liberal.

[mRx 16]

As for the tangent... no surprise.

'Property rights' over wildlife is a very sad direction to take when dealing with practices that have been known to deplete wildlife numbers down to near extinction (and to extinction).

The fishermen are merely continuing to capture fish as long as the cost of each additional fish caught is less than the benefit of each additional fish caught. It's basic economics. Since the cost is so spread out in the case of public or un-owned land, there is virtually no cost associated with overfishing until extinction.

If oceans could become property, however, then the costs and benefits associated with fishing, would be dialed in directly on the affected parties, and not spread out over everyone. Since overfishing until extinction is uneconomical, the solution of uncollectivizing the costs of overfishing would eliminate this.

Property rights is the only viable solution.

[HAL 9000 96]

As for the tangent... no surprise.

'Property rights' over wildlife is a very sad direction to take when dealing with practices that have been known to deplete wildlife numbers down to near extinction (and to extinction).

Spoken like a true commie liberal.

Of the scientific kind.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Apparently the free market wasn't around long enough to save many species that were hunted to extinction.

[Ban Hammer 13,395]

Apparently the free market wasn't around long enough to save many species that were hunted to extinction.

neither were liberals.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Apparently the free market wasn't around long enough to save many species that were hunted to extinction.

neither were liberals.

The sharks had a long run. Time for some other species to take their place. Perhaps they already have:

[scandal 951]

The sharks had a long run. Time for some other species to take their place. Perhaps they already have:

You're thinking killer bunnies?

I rather think the killer sheep have the upper hand. More firepower, too. I'm sure Charles will approve.