DESPITE being an ocean dweller and having profound respect and love for the life that dwells within it, I was surprised at the depth of hurt I felt when I heard a shark had been lured to a certain site then shot in the head four times and dragged out to sea to be dumped.
I guess the pain was bigger than the shark.
It was also about the nature of man and our attitudes toward the role and responsibility we have as caretakers of this planet and all life.
Particularly as our vital requirements for existence are dependent on the environmental choices we make.
While it may be a leap for some to connect the culling of sharks with our food, water and air supply, it is the nature of the choice and the belief system behind it that threatens other attempts to create a sustainable system for all.
I cannot begin to imagine the pain and grief of losing a loved one to a shark.
However, I have experienced the loss of precious human life due to senseless human choice, so I have some understanding.
In fact, both sides of this issue have the same core desire to sustain and protect life.
The question is, in the broader issue of sustaining all life long term, is savage intellectual killing to prevent natural, instinctual killing a sustainable, sensible choice?
Will that kind of choice actually protect human life in the long term?
In a world where our children are no longer allowed to climb a tree at school, due to insurance, entering the ocean remains a wild risky choice.
We simply calculate the risks, statistically tiny, and feel the thrill of that great untamed, unknown aspect of nature.
I humbly suggest that those who aren't interested in that thrill, stay in the shallows or on the beach.
The options and choices we have in terms of behaviour are what define us as human.
The sharks have no choice.
Fiona McLennan, Margaret River