Australia - Sharks culled after attacks (1 Viewer)

Is it right to cull animals that attack humans when we put ourselves in their environment purely for leisure?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-50216173

We don't expect people to go walking through e.g Kruger National Park due to dangerous animals so why should Sharks pay the price just because it's the Ocean? I personally find this to be hypocritical, given that Australia has some of the toughest and best, animal and wildlife protection legislation in the World.

If anyone was stupid enough to try and swim the Darwin River and got eaten by a Croc as they surely would, would that animal be killed?

No it isn't right. The one exception I would be prepared to make would be a proven man-eating big cat, but Corbett said he would give even a Tiger that attacked a person a chance, and another, and yet a third before deciding that it was a confirmed man-eater. In very nearly all cases it turns out to be due to disability for whatever reason and a consequent inability to catch natural prey. Even then, the reason I would justify it is that if you fail, the likelihood is that locals will take action - poison baits, snares, traps etc that will take out animals unconnected to the man-eater's activities - more damage than by identifying and removing the man-eater.

If you go in the ocean you run the risk of falling prey to something. Culling - especially random culling of sharks, which are already under more than enough pressure from amoral Asian cultures - is flat out wrong.

Culling all comes down to thinking humans are more important than animals, its a hangover from the Book of Genesis and that human-centric thinking needs to be consigned to history.

John