ON the subject of sharks I cite the following hypothetical scenarios.
I am in a boat in Sai Kung waters and my kids are swimming in the sea. I see a large shark approaching and I have a gun. I will shoot the shark lest it will have my kids for lunch.
I am in a boat in Sai Kung waters and I join my kids to swim in the sea. My friend on the boat sees a large shark approach and he has a gun. If he declines to shoot the shark (in the hope that it will not have me or my kids for lunch) on the moral grounds of conservation our friendship would be tested.
I am cruising in a boat in Sai Kung waters and I see a large shark heading towards a beach crowded with swimmers and I have a gun. I would shoot the shark lest it should have a swimmer for lunch.
I am cruising in a boat in Sai Kung waters and I see a large shark heading towards a beach crowded with swimmers and I don't have a gun. If I radio the emergency services and they scramble a helicopter or fast boat, whose crew merely take photographs and monitor the shark's movements on its way to lunch, I would consider my efforts as well as my taxpayers' money were wasted.
In conclusion. Nobody advocates the mass killing of sharks, but in the case of shooting one or two who appear in an area where people have recently been attacked, it must be logical. Incidentally from what I have read about sharks they don't eat lunch. Apparently they only eat early in the morning or in the evening (as no doubt some conservationist would hasten to point out in their defence). However, I would not pause to ponder whether the said shark had eaten a hearty breakfast or was waiting for a tasty supper. Simple logic demands that the shark be shot as an absolutely necessary precaution for the conservation of human life.