Why the difference in dealing with attacking animals?
I was at Hapuna Beach State Recreational Area when the shark attack occurred, and was struck by the different attitude of Hawaiians to the attack compared to those of British Columbia to bear and cougar attacks. British Columbians and Hawaiians share a common bond with our natural environment and I would argue that we (mostly) revere our respective wildlife.
However, if a bear or cougar is involved in an attack on a human, it is tracked and shot. There are no second chances. We accept that these are apex predators and that attacks on humans are rare. We also go to great lengths to try and minimize these attacks, but when they occur, we say that a line has been crossed and that the individual concerned must be eliminated.
I was interested to see that the shark cruised the bay for a considerable time, in water less than waist deep while a helicopter hovered overhead watching him. In my country, by analogy, if he had not left the area and headed for deep water where he could not be identified, he would have been a dead shark, harvested by the government, studied and logged.
As someone who has spent my life avoiding interactions with large apex predators, I have a huge sympathy with the idea that we conserve them at almost all costs, but I agree with the idea of eliminating those individuals that have crossed the line when they can be positively identified. It did not occur to me that there would be zero consequences.
I am intrigued and interested to hear the reasons why there is such a difference in attitude between Hawaiians and their apex predator and British Columbians to theirs.
Matt Nicol
Heffley Creek, British Columbia