(Part 3) Reddit mentions: The best biology of fishes & sharks books

> I’ve since learnt that they are actually quite intelligent. They can recognise each other, communicate, and grieve the loss of their companions. Some can even use objects as tools, and others make art in the sand to attract mates.

I'm only semi-familiar with animal cognition research, but I found this section very surprising. So, in case others thought it sounded like a stretch, here were some articles I found talking about some of the things he mentioned:

Tool use: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fishes-use-problem-solving-and-invent-tools/

Cognition/emotion: http://www.animalsandsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/170-172-Do-Fish-Feel-Pain.pdf which refers to this book

"Making art in the sand": http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/15/whats-this-mysterious-circle-on-the-seafloor/ (I wouldn't call mating displays "art" but I see what he was getting at)

(I couldn't find anything about "grieving for their companions")

At least for me, it still reads a little bit like hyperbole, but reading these was useful at challenging my preconceptions.

That's cool. I mention chartreuse because I read a book called "Trout Sense." The author did some underwater tests and found that chartreuse is the best streamer color for high and dirty water, as it sticks out.

So, I tied up some streamers with chartreuse marabou, and I tied up some black ones dubbed with chartreuse ice dub for the heads. We'll see how it goes!

For fish, I really like this one!

Good book here: http://www.amazon.com/Sharks-American-Waters-Natural-History/dp/0890961433/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1407304285&sr=8-6&keywords=sharks+of+north+america

also, if you're interested in knowing more about this, I recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Eels-Exploration-Zealand-Sargasso-Mysterious/dp/0060566124

Original post: http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/mdgsg/this_is_my_grandpa_bill/

Here's a book on how to do it. I wonder how the curvature of handlebars would affect this.

Fish Do the Strangest Things by Leonora Hornblow, I think.

http://www.amazon.com/River-Monsters-True-Stories-Didnt/dp/B0057D8RQO/

www.amazon.com/Fishes-Dangerous-Alan-Mark-Fletcher/dp/B0033Z4BUE

I think it can be done - it's discussed briefly to in this book:Simple Fly Fishing: Techniques for Tenkara and Rod and Reel. Apparently you should expect to do some stream-side running, and it's not uncommon for anglers to have to toss their rods into the water, wading in to retrieve it later when the fish return to it pre-hooking lay.

Was it this one?

Amazon has it for $25

Is it Fish Do the Strangest Things by Leonora Hornblow? Its not all about sharks, but it includes the text from your image and the paperback version has a shark on the cover.

Fish Do The Strangest Things https://www.amazon.com/dp/0394800621/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_D1f8BbSA2CMPW

Possibly this book. I’m looking for my copy.

Here it is I think: http://www.amazon.com/Fish-Strangest-Things-Leonora-Hornblow/dp/0394800621/ref=tmm_hrd_img_popover

In case you're still wondering, the book is called Fish do the Strangest Things by Leonora Hornblow

For some more nastalgia this site has some more images from the shark section of the book.

https://www.amazon.com/Biology-Sharks-Rays-Peter-Klimley/dp/0226442497

Fishes can be correct, so you may be inconceivably stupid. https://www.amazon.com/Fishes-World-Joseph-S-Nelson/dp/0471250317

Fishes is generally used when you are talking about multiple different groups of fish.

I haven't read any research on this but you might want to look at this book: https://www.amazon.com/Fish-Feel-Pain-Victoria-Braithwaite/dp/0199551200 I can't imagine how one could recreationally fish with the knowledge that fish are sentient. I'd say that animals being hunted suffer less than fish being caught recreationally, but that's just an intuitive guess.

Fish farming in general is much worse than animal farming in consequentialist terms: http://reducing-suffering.org/how-much-direct-suffering-is-caused-by-various-animal-foods/

However, the long run impact of wild caught fishing is varied and unclear: http://reducing-suffering.org/wild-caught-fishing-affects-wild-animal-suffering/

It is a complex topic. Only a few shark species regularly attack humans. The top three nearshore species prone to attack are the great white, bull, and tiger. Each has different characteristics. Great whites (GWs), for example, almost never eat the people they kill.

The topic is also contentious because it is highly probable that the low level of attack is correlated with the large number of sharks killed. When we hear the narrative “Sharks attack fewer than 100 people per year; you'll sooner be hit by lightning,” it is usually followed by: "People are much more dangerous; we kill 60-100 million sharks a year." No connection between these two?

Conservationists lobby hard for shark protection. Almost all shark species have been seriously overfished. If it is conceded that sharks are a significant problem to humans, rather than only a negligible one, the case for culling sharks for public safety is much stronger. (TL_DR 2, below, has some info on shark culling--a heated debate.)

Conceding this would be problematic for some shark conservationists. So the inquiry into shark danger is not exactly a welcome one. The topic is also very contestable. As another poster here correctly says: “human-shark interactions are insanely difficult to study within a scientific framework.” That means one has to use logic to seek answers.


Since logic--inferior to measurable science--is all we have here, this is my stab at delving into the topic. (This is likely TL-DR for most people.)

• • • -
      
      You are right in suggesting that it is counterintuitive that sharks don't attack people more often. It's somewhat a mystery, and there is value in comparing sharks to other predators. If one lacks specialized knowledge, one would logically think that generalist feeder sharks (tigers and bulls) are similar to crocodiles. (Hereafter “sharks” refers only to bull and tiger sharks.)
      
      Sharks and crocs both target a wide variety of prey. But sharks don’t attack people often; crocs (Nile and Salt Water) are far more dangerous. Crocs attack about 1,000 people per year, killing 2/3rds CrocBITE, even though people make a big avoidance efforts. People swim near sharks all the time, without problem. Crocs are many multiples more dangerous than sharks.
      
      Sharks are also far less dangerous than lions and tigers (which in turn are much less dangerous than crocs.)
      
      If sharks are unlike crocs in attack proclivities--every hungry croc of sufficient size will attack a human--we should ponder if sharks are more like tigers (the big cat) in their danger to man. The history of tiger attack reveals that the offending animals are by a large degree injured or old and feeble--with difficulty in killing normal prey.
      
      In short, a subset of every tiger population disproportionately attacks humans. Same thing with sharks? Probably. Logically, large, aging sharks can be deduced to pose the most danger to humans and be responsible for most attacks (or would be if these sharks still remained in significant numbers).
      
      Observations, assumptions and questions:
      
      

1. The aging processes between tigers and sharks differ: The big cats become feeble, have difficulties hunting. Sharks grow steadily larger and heavier in old age, more formidable. Old sharks are slower, though, no longer flitting around reefs, snatching up small fish.
   
   Key data we lack for sharks, which we generally have for other predators: What sort of hunting challenges do sharks have in old age? Might they be prone to seeking large prey, and not excluding a human if they came across one? What is the total tiger shark population, for example, near the Hawaiian Islands (including migrating sharks)? What percentage is 30 years or older? (Life expectancy 30-40 years.) Do large tiger sharks prey on each other? Suffer GW predation? Are aging tiger sharks more lethargic, and prone to loitering near land, which might put them in conflict with humans? Etc., etc.
   
   
2. A large shark, say a 30 year old, 14-foot, 1,600 pound tiger shark, that bites a human, even once, will inflict much more damage than a smaller one. There are many cases of people fending off an attack by punching the shark. Far less likely with a large shark. It is correct that in many cases, maybe most, that sharks bite only once and then swim off. We do not always know the motivation. Were the sharks uninterested? Were they deterred? Are some other shark species also using the GW strategy of biting once, letting the victim bleed out and die, and then returning to feed?
   
   The role of the fewer-larger-fish factor. This well-known phenomenon has much affected long lived ocean species like tuna and marlin. Matt Rigney discusses the matter in his book In pursuit of giants. Rigney doesn’t touch on sharks much but since sharks are long lived, we should assume a similar outcome.
   
   My conclusion:
   
   Sharks, while far less lethal to people than crocodiles and the big cats, are significantly more dangerous than the fewer than 100 attacks per year metric would suggest. The heavy suppression of shark populations for at least a century has reduced human-shark encounters. More significantly, this suppression has disproportionately removed from the world’s shark populations those individuals most dangerous to people--large, aging sharks. Far fewer attacks are occurring than would be the case if shark populations were intact.
   
   It is near impossible to predict how dangerous sharks would be over time in a proverbial state of nature. Today, worldwide, tigers also attack less than 100 people a year. This from a population of about 3,500-4000 animals. Before tiger populations were reduced, the toll was much higher. Estimated death toll from tigers, primarily in India and SE Asia, 1800 - 2009: 373,000 people.
   
   

• • • -
      
      TL-DR 2 Shark culling - a contested topic
      
      Australia and South Africa have culled since the 1960s. Sharks killed 6 people in 3 1/2 months near Durban in 1958, [initiating their program] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_December). Many shark experts say this was a one off event. Australian cull data; South African shark control organization
      
      The logic for culling is explained in this book on the great white, pp. 491-494. Many shark conservationists contest the effectiveness of culling. Two sources:
      
      1994 study conclusion: Shark control programs do not
      appear to have had measurable effects on the rate of shark attacks in Hawaiian
      waters; and
      
      [Deakin University Professor questions statistical link] (https://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/shark-nets-do-nothing-reduce-chance-attack-study/2923848/)
      
      The culling debate has been particularly heated in Australia. [2014: Thousand protested culling plans]
      (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10611526/Thousands-rally-against-shark-cull-in-Australia.html) Nations that cull sharks acknowledge the environment harm from lower shark numbers and have greatly reduced kill levels in the past 20 years.