This is an ethical question, not a scientific one. Just one comment on "they were believed to be an endangered species" - you make it sound like they were not endangered or believed to be endangered anymore. Apparently, they still are: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/3855/0, http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v455/p229-244. The (ethical) question is thus: Is it ok to further decimate an endangered species to allow a sub-group of humans to have fun?

This is an ethical question, not a scientific one. Just one comment on "they were believed to be an endangered species" - you make it sound like they were not endangered or believed to be endangered anymore. Apparently, they still are: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/3855/0, http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v455/p229-244. The (ethical) question is thus: Is it ok to further decimate an endangered species to allow a sub-group of humans to have fun?

Hi, I can understand that, as a surfer, you might be disappointed to not be able to surf where you want. But, I feel extreme to kill animals just to have fun in waves. If we have to destroy all parts of our planet where there are dangerous snakes, bugs, spiders, carnivores, bacteria (and so on), we will destroy most of ecological systems, our environment, our planet. What is the most important? Living in a beautiful planet in a peaceful way or just enjoy of what is not destroyed yet as long as we are still alive? 

The ecological balance in nature can be compared with a cobweb. If a string is torn, a hole is created. If too many strings are torn,  the entire cobweb will collapse. The living organisms are like strings of environment and they should not be destroyed by any means.

Thanks Stephanie. I have adjusted the sentence, which now says; "The majority of these sharks were great whites, which have been protected for 20 years, to allow the population to replenish." I am not sure about your formulation of the question. Maybe.

Thanks Michel and Subir. I think it is too easy to just side with mother nature. I see that option as simply avoiding responsibility. As a member of a community, I feel a moral responsibility to do what I can to protect the young people, who might not value their own safety, as well as their families and the broader community, who suffer emotionally whenever somebody is attacked.

Thank you Daniel.I agree with you.

You will have to mitigate the situation considering the local factors  as we do after Environmental Impact Assessment so that development of industry do not come to a halt.

Hello Daniel,

As a father, my responsibility is to say to my children that it is dangerous to surf with some sharks (for instance) and certainly not to say that we should kill these sharks. For many people, it sounds ridiculous to support "mother nature" as you say. For me, Nature is beautiful and full of amazing things. So I try to understand it and the more I learn the more I love it, so I would like to protect it. 

Hi Subir,

I understand that we could mitigate the situation considering local factors but I am pretty sure that we could find local factors everywhere and every time due to humain activity. So what? We kill and destroy all that disturb us? Instead, I am sure we can find many things to do (even have fun) that leave the nature safe.

Dear colleague

  That God Almighty did not create anything in vain, and in the verse in the Koran, the name of Allah the Merciful (I'm everything we have created as much) ....

Thank you

Every organism in our planet has a niche in our biosphere, so no one love the nature accept to kill any kind of organism.

I am suspicious of the ecocentric viewpoint on this matter because it practically idolises Nature. It is as if Nature is finally having vengeance against selfish humans.

In any case, it is not a natural state of affairs, when the government protects one species of apex predator, while the rest of the ecosystem is conditioned by fishing and pollution. Some have argued that the policy to protect great whites has actually caused an imbalance, which is not only affecting humans, but also other species of shark, dolphins and sea turtles, etc.

I think the Greens are over-valuing great white sharks, when you consider the harm they cause to people. Although most of the victims are surfers, the impact is felt throughout the community.

Always humans are blamed in such perspectives to me human safety is the priority in the long run of competition sometimes cost may be exceeding environmental limits.