Fish, Fisheries and Queryomics
The controversy continues. Australian boxer Danny Green and his tiger shark are being investigated by West Australia’s fisheries department according to a report by MSN. Evidently Danny forced himself on an oversize shark. And vice versa. (But, hey, what happens in Oz, stays in Oz, right?)
“The Department of Fisheries is aware of the tiger shark photographs and is making an assessment prior to any further investigation of the matter,” said Tony Cappelluti, West Australia Fisheries’ regional manager.
“The entire World is aware of the tiger shark photographs and is laughing their arses off about this tempest,” said Beel den Stormer, fishery scientist and writer.
Please friends, let Beel put this one to bed (so to speak), the shark may or may not have been of legal size. But it is so close to legal size that no one will be able to definitively prove otherwise. This will never go to court.
Beel well knows the old rules of thumb: Danny’s penis is twice the length of his hand, his hand is 1.5 x the length of the bill of his hat, the bill of his hat must be at least 6 inches long, which is 1/2 the length of his dong, except of a Sunday, then 7/16ths, etc. Ain’t gonna fly in the Magistrates Court.
Just measure it. The shark, the shark, you tuna tossers. Then, get over it, Australia. Rebuild your bluefin tuna stocks. You’re gonna embarrass yourselves as badly as did the Kiwis.
Update added 3 February 2013, from news.com.au:
“Tony Cappelluti, WA Fisheries’ Regional Manager Metro, said his department and a shark scientist had assessed the pictures and decided not to prosecute, despite the shark being ‘close to the maximum size’ allowed.
“We agree that this shark is close to the maximum size, but there is insufficient evidence to conclusively determine its legal size.”
Beel told you so (see main story above).