“The [bonnethead shark] successfully digested the seagrass with enzymes that broke down components of the plants, such as starch and cellulose. Lacking the kind of teeth best suited for mastication, the fish may rely on strong stomach acids to weaken the plants’ cells so the enzymes can have their digestive effects. In all, more than half of the organic material locked up in the seagrass was digested by the sharks, putting them on a par with young green sea turtles.” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/05/bonnethead-omnivorous-shark-species-identified
Even sharks are adopting a reduced meat diet.
Did you spot that this ‘news’ is exactly one year ‘olds’?
“Scientific objections to … culling sharks centre on the fact that in order to reduce attacks, a substantial number of animals will have to be removed, which will have a serious impact on the survival of already threatened species. … Shark attacks often attract huge publicity, but the risk of death from these animals is low compared to other causes of death. For comparison, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1,522 people died in transport accidents in Australia in 2011, 1,845 died in falls and several died after being bitten by dogs. … Shark attacks in Australia [averaged] 6.5 per year in the 1990s to 15 per year in the 2000s.” (http://www.nature.com/news/australian-shark-cull-plan-draws-scientists-ire-1.14373)
Should we propose
(a) culling cars,
(b) culling dogs, or
(c) expanding the Darwin Awards?