hmmmm……

Ever since we were little we couldn’t help but be a tiny bit nervous that something dangerous, like a shark, could be in the ocean we swam in when we went to the beach on those hot summer days. Since the beginning of time we have been warned to beware of sharks, that they are dangerous vicious fish. This image was only enforced by Hollywood’s harrowing portrayals of sharks in movies like Jaws (1975) and Open Water (2003.) However, many of us hold the wrong the wrong impression about sharks. 

Sharks do not want to eat humans. In fact, they do not search the waters for people to munch on. Most sharks just mistake people for fish, or seals. Sometimes, they even mistake humans for predators. Sharks have the ability to not only see what around them, but they can feel them as well, “a shark can sense a prey in turbid water or buried beneath the seafloor by electrical sense alone” (PBS.) So when they feel a person’s presence near them and that person is really nervous so their hearts beating extremely fast that shark is more afraid of the person than you think. Numerous amounts of people go scuba diving with sharks and haven’t been eaten. In fact, there are more deaths by Soda Pop vending machines a year than there are by sharks, “People get angry at the machines when they steal the $0.75 the person honestly inserts for a cool, refreshing soda. But if no soda comes out, people often viciously attack the machine, trying to make it cough up the soda or the cash. The machines viciously retaliate by falling on and crushing their tormentors” (PBS.) 

However, people’s illusion of sharks has ultimately led to their demise- and could very well lead to the downfall of our world. The ocean accounts for almost 75% of the worlds oxygen sources. Kill the top predator and you slaughter the oceans ecosystem and our oxygen levels will be compromised. People don’t have the same appreciation for sharks like they do for those cute and cuddly koalas, or those elephants that never forget. However, “elephants are bigger killers; they do in 200-plus mahoots and trainers each year. Talk about vicious — dogs kill thousands” sharks kill 100 people (PBS.) They don’t think sharks need to be protected because they are blinded by their violent exterior. Some people even feel the need to go out and hunt those sharks to get rid of them and therefore “safeguard the ocean.” These vigilantes are only succeeding in decimating the shark population, destroying the ecosystem. 

However, vigilantes aren’t the only. The shark industry is huge and lucrative. China is one of the main consumers of shark products. Sadly the main part of the shark that is consumed is the fin. “Unscrupulous fishermen catch sharks, cut off their fins and throw their living bodies back into the sea, where they cannot move or swim and either starve to death or drown.” (Jaws.)  Shark fin soup is a delicacy in China and can even make or break a wedding or any other important gathering. China also consumes other parts as well. People can buy dried shark products that are thought to help with arthritis. One can even purchase the fish in pill form because it’s thought to have healing powers because sharks are less prone to cancer and other diseases. Crazy? Yes, especially since sharks have been proven to do none of these things, “studies conducted since the early 1970’s by such institutions as Harvard have failed to show a shred of evidence that suggests that consumption of shark cartilage by humans will cure cancer” (The Truth.)   

Many fisherman use harmful methods of fishing. Long line fishing, though illegal in many waters with a more abundant shark population, is the method of choice since it’s the easiest. The fishermen tows “Long lines ranging from one mile in length to over one hundred miles in length are baited with fish, (often illegally killed dolphins or seals)” behind their boat and wait for their catch(Long line.) However, many times they succeed in catching other creatures like turtles and other protected species. These organisms most often die when they get tangled in the line. Long line fishing is an irresponsible and sadistic way of fishing that is destroying the shark’s population. “If long lines are not abolished, the oceans will lose most species of sharks within the next decade” (Long line.) However, waters like the Galapagos have fought back to make long line fishing illegal and there are laws that protect international waters, but nobody to enforce them. Those who have tried, Like Sea Shepard (a ship designated to protecting sharks and other marina organisms from unlawful capture) are only met by the corrupt legal system in other countries who are controlled by and actual mafia that specializes in the shark trade. Others who try to capture long line fisherman have been attacked with tear gas and other weapons.   

Sharks can be violent. It is not up to humans to decide which species can live or die. Keeping with this type of behavior will only succeed in decimating certain animal’s population and creating an unbalance in our world’s ecosystem- an unbalance that could cost us our own lives.

advocacy.britannica.com. 2007. Britannica. 4 May 2008<http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2007/08/man-bites-shark/> 

nautilusproductions.com. 2000. The Truth. 4 May. 2008<http://www.nautilusproductions.com/sandtigersharks/scam.html>  nhm.ac.uk. 2008. Natural History Museum. 4 May 2008<http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/reptiles-amphibians-fish/fathomseminar-jaws/session4/no-fish-fathomseminar-jaws-session4.html>

 pbs.org . PBS. 4 May 2008<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sharks/masters/myths.html>

peopleandplanet.net. 2008. People and the Planet. 4 May 2008<http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=3117>

seashepherd.org. 2008. Sea Shepard. 4 May 2008<http://www.seashepherd.org/longline/>

 By Anika 

 CRAZY DRINKING FACTS…that you probably didn’t know 

                

             America has always faced the issue of underage drinking, as well as drunk driving. In fact, during the 1980’s drunk driving had become so bad that the mothers of America established MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. People were dying due to alcohol related accidents and nobody was doing anything to stop the remarkable number of deaths. Their goal was to spread awareness of drunk driving and stop the horrifying number of deaths resulting from it, as well as end underage drinking once and for all. Since MADD “alcohol-related traffic fatalities have decreased by about 44 percent, from over 30,000 to under 17,000 and MADD has helped save over 300,000 lives.” (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) Although these numbers do not take into account the increase in safety of motor vehicles, and an increase in the usage of seat belts, essentially it is the trend in numbers that is a good thing. Yet, while their success is appreciated by everyone, as MADD continues to tighten the ropes on underage drinking many have begun to raise the question has MADD gone mad?

            Since the 1980’s MADD has prompted many changes, from raising the drinking age from 18 to 21, and even establishing stricter laws against Americans who participate in or condone underage drinking, particularly those that supply alcohol to those below the legal age. It is great that America is addressing the continuous epidemic of underage drinking, and spreading awareness of drunk driving. However, since the 1980’s laws have only become more stringent, yet underage drinking has not stopped. The votes are split, should America continue to create strict laws that try scare teens out of drinking, or should we try a new approach and possibly even lower the drinking age and integrate a new view of responsibility regarding alcohol into our culture?

            Some states are beginning to ask the same question. Vermont, for instance, has even publicly announced that they are thinking of lowering the drinking age. Hinda Miller, the state Senator, has argued against MADD’s reasoning, “The laws are not preventing underage drinking. What they are doing is putting it outside the public eye. So you have a lot of kid’s binge drinking. They get sick, they get scared and they get into trouble and they can’t call because they know it’s illegal.” (VT Lawmakers…) However, if they chose to lower the drinking age they face the same threat that caused them to raise it in the first place, “Vermont would lose $17 million in federal highway aid if it changes its law.” (Vermont Lawmakers Consider Lowering Drinking Age) Vermont is

“Trying to see if there are states which would, if Congress should grant a waiver of that condition, come up with a plan that would not simply be lowering the age,” said McCardell. “We don’t simply advocate the lower age, but believe mandatory alcohol education and licensing with very strict enforcement for violations of the state’s alcohol laws might work. If Congress would grant a waiver, the states would be willing to try something, and at least then we could get some evidence and see whether things are better or worse.” (Vermont Lawmakers Consider Lowering Drinking Age)

            Many people oppose Vermont’s new strategy because they fear a repeat of what happened before MADD. Also, many people are content with the laws because they have proven to be effective-but to a certain extent-”Today all States have set the minimum legal drinking at age 21. Increasing the age at which people can legally purchase and drink alcohol has been the most successful intervention to date in reducing drinking and alcohol-related crashes among people under age 21. NHTSA estimates that a legal drinking age of 21 saves 700 to 1,000 lives annually.” (Underage Drinking ) These people also advocate for other extreme tactics like raising alcohol prices, enacting zero-tolerance laws, and stepping up enforcement laws. By creating these laws it is believed to make it harder for teens to get their hands on alohol, and therefor prevents underage drinking. However, by using this tactic, we are only increasing it’s appeal-people want what they can’t have.

            While these methods have decreased underage drinking in some cases, they have obviously have not ended it. If we decided to teach the effects of alcohol, and promote safe comsumption by integrating it into our culture we could prevent underage drinking, and perhaps make the amount of underage drinkers a minority. However, with more and more teens trying drinking for different reasons it’s hard to keep up. Whether it’s peer pressure, or a temporary solution to a problem, MADD’s tactics have certainly not stopped underage drinking, “People aged 12 to 20 years drink almost 20% of all alcohol consumed in the United States. Over 90% of this alcohol is consumed in the form of binge drinks. On average, underage drinkers consume more drinks per drinking occasion than adult drinkers.” (Quick Stats Underage Drinking) Exposing teens to safe consumption of alcohol by watching their parents drink it at dinner and other social gatherings will help eliminate the stigma that people drink just to get drunk. It will teach teens that alcohol is something to be enjoyed in limited amounts, and it’s purpose is not to drink it as quickly as one can to get “smashed.” In many ways MADD’s influence has created outreagous laws that promote even riskier behavoir and compromise the health of many American youths.

            For example, in Conneticut, teens have been faced by a craze of restricting laws that not only threaten their rights as American citizens, but also restrict their ability to develope skills to make their own decisions and become free and independent thinkers. Such laws arrest any teens who are caught drinking or in possesion of alcohol, and even the sober teens who have made the right decision not to drink. It has become increasingly apparent these laws are not meant for halting underage drinking but are in fact just targeting teens. It is infuriating that a teen could go to a party and make the right decision (the decision that America has promted to adolescents all a long) but can still be subject to arrest. In some cases those teens aren’t even gven a chance to prove they are innocent by use of a breathalizer. Although this law is meant to force kids to stop going to parties where alcohol is served, the real hidden message the teens are getting is drink-because either way you will be punished. Still, the most infuriating aspect of these new Conneticut laws are that they violate the Fourth Amendement, the right for people to be secure in homes against unreasonable search, seizure, and arrest. Allowing police to arrest everybody, even those abiding the federal law by not drinking, violates those teens right to saftey from arrest in a private setting when they are not doing anything illegal. Conneticuts laws also indirectly encourage teens to not only drink, but binge drink and leave the scene for fear of being arrested. This is seriosly dangerous, and greatly compromises the saftey of many youths. They can be subject to drunken driving accidents, alcohol poisining, and many other compromising circumstances. In short these new laws are not effective in some ways, many argue “The new law will not change people’s attitudes about drinking underage or supplying those who are underage. Minors will simply try harder not to get caught.” (Connecticut Enforces Updated Underage Drinking Law, Effective October 1)

            While Conneticut may be an extreme case of MADD ideals gone wrong, the values being exerted in making these laws are everpresent in society. MADD has created unfair standards that penalize teens for making alcohol related mistakes. I’m not saying that DUI’s are little mistake, but socially drinking and throwing an un-chaperoned party where alcohol is served, however are. Instead of being given a chance to learn from these mistakes, teens are arrested and in many cases the extreme punishment can do anything from ruin a persons reputation to eliminate their chances of going to college. Now, these teens are not commiting mass murders, they are trying alcohol, but are treated like felons. MADD had affirmed the fact that in our culture there is no room mess up, to test the boundaries of right and wrong and learn from one’s mistakes. As a result, teens have become increasingly dependent on their parents and society for making decisions. They are not developing the skills to manage their own lives. Soceity is fostering a generation of intellectually lazy people who have no stance regarding their place in this world.

            In order to counter the effects of the current situation, America has to take a new stance regarding the effects ot underage drinking. MADD’s strategies have succeded in giving the world insight on drunk driving. However, its stance on underage drinking has only forced teens to try harder to attain alcohol, and has created more resitance by teens. If we want change we have to change the way America views alcohol. We have to erase the stigma that drinking alcohol is rebellious and cool. However, the only way to do that is educate teens on the effects of drinking at a young age and work with them to understand the reasons they drink and create alternatives. By lowering the drinking age we can show teens drinking isn’t a bad thing, but we should teach them to drink in moderation.We have to create a culture which promotes responsibility around drinking, not foster fear of the law and resentment towards a constricting society.

 

“Alcohol Alert.” pubs.niaaa.nih.gov January 2006. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. 9 March 2008.

“Connecticut Enforces Updated Underage Drinking Law, Effective October 1.” Hartfordinformer.com 28 September 2006. The University of Hartford Informer. 9 March 2008.

“Did you Know?” MADD.com. Mothers Against Drunk Driving. 9 March 2008.

“New Conn. Drinking Law a Buzzkill.” Dailycampus.com. 4 October 2006. The Daily Campus. 9 March 2008.

“Quick Stats Underage Drinking.” Cdc.gov. 5 June 2006. Department of Health and Human Services: Center of Desease Control and Prevention. 9 March 2008.

“Vermont Lawmakers Consider Lowering Drinking Age.” Jointogether.org 3 March 2008. Join Together. 9 March 2008.

CRAZY DRINKING FACTS