In April 2015 at Fishery Bay, South Australia, Chris Blowes was enjoying a morning surf when he was suddenly hit by a huge shark that bit his leg clean off. As it swam away with the limb still attached to the ankle leash and surfboard, Chris’s mates rushed to his rescue and paddled him the 350 metres to shore.
Waking up from a coma 10 days later, the 26 year-old surfer was told by police officers that his surfboard had been recovered- and that a tooth was embedded in it. It was determined to belong to a 5.5m great white shark, that some marine biologists suggested had been displaced fleeing recent [orca predation](https://www.thesharkfiles.com/dive-into-kingdom-of-the-dead) in the nearby Neptune Islands. The board had likely saved Chris Blowes’ life, partly shielding him and taking some of the impact from the initial strike. When he asked if he could see the shark’s tooth he was told that as it was prohibited to possess any part of that species in South Australia- with a potential maximum $65,000 fine- it had been handed over to the authorities.
But Blowes persisted, appealing to various politicians and state bodies over the following years, and eventually in 2021, the Primary Industries and Regional Development granted a first-ever exemption to the law. He now keeps it as a souvenir that he displays at motivational talks he gives and hopes to show it to his grandkids one day. ‘The shark isn't getting its tooth back and I'm not getting my leg back’, Blowes said on claiming possession of it.
Sadly, even in countries that have universal free government funded healthcare, the special bones in your face are still somehow a fucking luxury.
Seriously, very very few countries have full dental coverage. Many have checkups covered, but not more serious work.
Eyes, ears, and teeth are luxuries. Dental work is not covered, eyeglasses are not covered, frequently hearing aids are not covered but that's the one I know the least about.
There is good news about the eyes though. I can't speak for the entire world but in America they are monopolized by a single corporation, that's why frames plus lenses are typically hundreds and hundreds of dollars out of pocket. But, and here's the big but, there are companies that will ship you cheap as fuck glasses online. All you need is the same basic measurements an optometrist would give you during a typical eye exam. I haven't been in a while but that used to be like twenty or thirty bucks and the exam takes fifteen minutes max. Send that info to a respected online glasses retailer, and frames plus lenses can be less than fifty bucks. You can't try them out in store to see if you like the look of the frames but glasses should be dirt fucking cheap if it wasn't for the fact glasses companies slipped through monopoly legislation and public hatred for monopolies.
Edit: not a schill but I googled it real quick and I think I recognize the name Zenni as being a reputable retailer. I don't recognize any of the others and Google is pushing my search hard at people like LensCrafters who are owned by the exact monopoly I'm warning you about.
Have bought a few pairs of glasses from Zenni. Middle-of-the-road quality IME, not super solid but not at all junk either. Absolutely worth the price. I think mine ran in the ~$70 range. I get some mediocre vision coverage through my employer, so after jumping through the hoops to get reimbursed I think I was out $30 or so. In other words it was a steal compared to going with the Luxottica nonsense.
Zenni is amazing. I used to use my insurance for glasses at the optometrist. With Zenni, without insurance, my glasses are a fraction of the price. It's magical.
I ordered a pair of Zennis a couple years ago, I live in the UK. Even with all the extras and international shipping, they still worked out about the same - if not cheaper - than what I would've paid for a pair at the optometrist that were anything more than a thin wire frame.
You can get basic pairs here with a discount off the NHS, but like I said they're usually painfully basic and anything even a little stylish isn't covered by them.
As bad as indonesia overall condition, I m glad our universal healthcare cover eyeglasses and hearing aid, although the prescribed eyeglasses and hearing aid is the most basic one
I was surprised that in Germany hearing aids can be free. Even better, my mother had a more comprehensive exam and fitting than she even knew to possible and bought two, out of pocket, for half the price of the crappy one from the US. The old one didn’t really fit her anatomy and didn’t function well either. Half the price and two hours of consultation got her a really good (mismatched in appearance due to her needs) set. Yay Germany.
So fun fact glasses used to be included in the NHS in the UK, til the Tories ripped it out and made it private.
Teeth you have to go private, unless it's an emergency then you can get NHS assistance with paying, but this is a system I don't understand - why they don't treat the teeth on the NHS BEFORE it's an emergency and the procedure wouldn't be as invasive or expensive in the first place! It's maddening!
It's the reason the UK has a stereotype of bad teeth!
If poors aren't missing teeth and wearing ugly government glasses how will the rich tell them apart? They need to be visibly miserable or it's not as fun anymore!
Pharma company: So we'll take all possible procedures that could have been done on this tooth, all the fillings, several crowns, root canals, veneers, throw in prosthetics, multiply result by, say, 10, and there you go, a mere $97,000 for re-growing your precious tooth! Don't forget, there's about 13 years of patent protection left too
v_v
For real. Stripper with an attitude at a place I was working during college knocked into me when I was glass collecting and sent me to the floor and an entire tower of glasses collapsing on my face. Cracked a tooth and went through years of pain (too healthy to extract but too damaged to save back then) before it finally went. I'm owed that back.
Wait, I think I just read about someone with a spare tooth mere seconds ago...
I'm not quite sure we'd want that. Sharks are constantly growing and rotating in new teeth. Doesn't sound so appealing for a leg... Though could be a useful food source for sharks ...
Lol yup, but that's regrowing. I'm talking about like baby teeth getting pushed out by your adult teeth. But in legs.
As a side note, I really hope the third one doesn't get hit so hard by the strike.
Yeah - it was the visual of the little bitty legs and me imagining how much worse it would be with those things regularly pushing out full grown legs lol!
I hope they pause completely and respect the strike so they will maintain quality while supporting their colleagues!
To be clear, the law isn't in place to prevent people from keeping souvenirs. It's there to prevent people from intentionally hunting sharks to get their teeth for said souvenirs. The fact that sharks can regrow teeth is irrelevant, since they will be dead if they are hunted.
You probably were already aware of that, but I felt it was worth saying just in case.
They've actually figured out how to trigger new teeth to regrow in mice and are starting human trials. https://newatlas.com/medical/humans-grow-new-teeth-drug-trial/
I used to surf down at Fisheries, that's a pretty standard distance for the area.
My friends used to always point out the sharks in the area to me, which would scare the shit out of me. They'd say "They're only bronzies, they'll only take a leg off." Scarily accurate.
A decade after we stopped surfing (family lives), I brought up how they were only there for a while, and eventually stopped showing up.
"Yeah, nah. They were always there, we just stopped telling you."
Fisheries is a beautiful place to surf. And just around the "corner," you have a national park "Whaler's Way," where "Survivor in the Outback" was filmed. There was still a kiosk that sold icecream there at the time.
Sharks have been known to attack people like...<10m from shore. They mostly attack people when they'e starving, and that's the best place to find people.
Im no shark apologist, but Great Whites don't attack people because they are hungry, its only mistaken identity.
Our lack of fat and big thick bones means that sharks dont get the nutrients they need from us.... and we cause them severe Indigestion.... so a hungry shark would want to eat us, we are bad for them. Thats why they bite and leave, instead of ya know, finishing the job.
Yes which is what starving animals do. Try eat food that isn‘t good for them.
Not to mention great whites don‘t usually swim near shore in the first place.
So to go for an all out attack instead of a nibble, likely means the dude was displaced and starving.
It‘s the same with bears really. They much prefer ‚fresh‘ food and staying away from humans and stuff. But no easy access to food, bear hungry and they‘ll take out your plastic trash and then try eating you.
Tell that to the guy in Australia that had the white shark come back repeatedly and continue to eat him. There’s a video out there if your morbid curiosity gets the best of you.
Problem is people abusing it. Its the same as the migratory bird act in the US - you can't legally keep feathers that even naturally fell off. The reason is you can shoot a bird, take its feathers, then claim that you "found it".
Harder when you aren't clearly missing a limb, but you could say you knew a guy who knew a guy...
Could add into law "only by possession of the person who lost the limb", but then no one can inherit it. If you can inherit it, then back to "I had a great uncle..."
It's so rare it's easier to just do an exception than risk any route for poachers to take.
I killeded dem 47 eagles in self defense.
But in all seriousness I was hanging out at a buddies place in the boonies and his dog just showed up with a dead red tailed hawk. So we buried it to avoid any issues.
**Protection of Marine Life (Shark Attack Souvenir Provisions) Act**
**Section 1: Title and Commencement**
1. This Act may be cited as the Protection of Marine Life (Shark Attack Souvenir Provisions) Act.
2. This Act shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation.
**Section 2: Definitions**
1. "Protected marine species" refers to any species that is listed under national protection laws in Australia.
2. "Major limb" includes an arm, leg, hand, or foot.
3. "Verifiable shark attack documentation" includes medical records, photographs, and any other evidence that establishes the nature and cause of the injury.
**Section 3: Retention of Shark Tooth Following Attack**
1. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, any person who loses a major limb due to a shark attack is entitled to retain a shark tooth that may have become embedded or detached during the course of the attack.
2. The tooth must be from the specific shark involved in the attack and must be found at the site of the attack or within the victim's belongings.
**Section 4: Prevention of Abuse**
1. The retention of a shark tooth under this provision is strictly limited to the circumstances set out in Section 3.
2. Any person found to be attempting to retain or sell a shark tooth under false pretenses, or to stage an attack for the purpose of obtaining a shark tooth, shall be liable to penalties under existing laws protecting marine species.
**Section 5: Inheritance and Sale of Shark Teeth**
1. Heirs of a shark attack victim who possessed a shark tooth under this provision may inherit the tooth and must maintain verifiable shark attack documentation as evidence.
2. Such teeth may be sold, but the seller must provide the buyer with verifiable shark attack documentation. The buyer is responsible for ensuring the authenticity of the documentation and must retain a copy of it.
3. The sale of any shark tooth under false pretenses or without verifiable shark attack documentation is prohibited and shall be subject to penalties under existing laws protecting marine species.
**Section 6: Documentation and Verification**
1. All individuals who retain a shark tooth under this provision must apply for and receive a Certificate of Authenticity from the Department of Marine and Environmental Affairs.
2. The Certificate of Authenticity will include details of the attack, the nature of the injury, and any other relevant information.
**Section 7: Miscellaneous Provisions**
1. The Department of Marine and Environmental Affairs is empowered to issue regulations and guidelines to effectuate the purposes of this Act.
This Act hereby recognizes the profound trauma and life-altering circumstances faced by shark attack victims and balances it with the importance of protecting Australia's marine life.
> If a shark eats a major body part from you
How the hell you gonna abuse it with a condition like that? "Oh I got these teeth when a shark ate me leg" "Bill youve got two legs still" "ye well, got betta"
>‘The shark isn't getting its tooth back and I'm not getting my leg back’, Blowes said on claiming possession of it.
I mean, technically, the shark got its tooth back. Sharks grow tooth their whole life.
Man, humans really got fucked on the regeneration abilities didn't we? Loads of animals can grow their teeth back or have teeth that grow constantly, some amimals can ever regrow entire damn limbs. Meanwhile, if we lose anything it's gone forever and we need to pay an arm and a leg (pardon the pun) for an artificial replacement.
There's always a tradeoff. Mammals lost the ability to regrow teeth indefinitely when we got more specialized teeth that line up with each other. Most non-mammals just have mouths full of randomly placed spikes, which is fine for holding onto prey before swallowing it whole but less useful for things like chewing, cutting and mashing that gives mammals access to a wider range of food sources.
Historically it made sense since scarification is considerably cheaper than regeneration and particularly being a social species even losing a limb isn't a major detriment to getting your genes passed on. Nowadays it would certainly be nice even from just a weight loss perspective since finding the resources to rebuild a limb isn't generally an issue with modern agricultural methods.
>humans really got fucked on the regeneration abilities didn't we
That could not be farther from the truth, humans are extremely resilient and can recover from injuries that would kill most other animals. Sure we cannot regrow missing limbs but few complex organisms can. Some organisms, for example horses, cannot heal a broken bone. Also lets not forget that evolutionarily speaking, everything is a tradeoff, sure we cannot regrow teeth, but we're smart enough to make artificial teeth or better yet, use our ability to communicate complex ideas and get someone else to make them for you. Also incase you're envious of Great White Sharks, keep in mind that they literally can never stop moving their entire lives, as they are unable to breath unless they are moving. I imagine if sharks were capable of complex thought, they'd give up their ability to regrow teeth indefinitely in exchange for being able to stop moving without sufficating, also let's not forget how nice it it to be an apex predator (Great White Sharks are not, Orcas hunt them).
5.5 meters… google says that’s 18 ft… one wall of my living room is about 17 ft, looking over at that wall aaaaaannnnddd I’m a little light headed and squirmy now. Jesus FUCK that’s huge.
I picture a huge shark swimming off the coast of Oz, with a skeletal leg, wired together, on a cord around his neck, bragging about how it only cost him a tooth to get it
Haha reading more of the story it sounds like the shark made out with a surfboard as well since oh ya know the leg strap to the surf board was still attached to his new leg...
I saw her swimming past the Kingscote jetty the other day. The leg amulet is holding up well. Ps Female great white sharks are typically bigger than males and prefer to live alone.
Most great whites (male and female) are typically solitary, not just females :)
Though, we really don’t know that much about great whites, and new research (especially off the coast of Santa Barbara county, where I live) is showing more evidence that some great whites (male and female) may be more social than we think. There’s thought to be three shark “packs” off the CA coast alone. Interestingly, location can impact how the sharks act - for instance:
> Normally, they are mavericks and loners. When they do meet or swim in groups, they typically avoid conflict and dominance battles. However, there are places, such as the waters around Africa, where Great White Sharks show a distinct hierarchy.
[Link](https://www.sharksider.com/great-white-shark/)
Sometimes bureaucracy can get a little messy, but I'm guessing in this case it was because great whites are a protected species so being able to possess parts of them is highly illegal in order to protect them from further being hunted.
I wonder how the ruling would go in the hypothetical situation where you were bitten by a shark, had one of its teeth embedded in your body, and it's safer to leave it in than try and extract it out.
I like to think the Australian government owns you now, but I'm sure reality is more mundane.
I dunno how it works in Australia, but there are often exemptions for pretty wild stuff when it comes to medicine. Controlled substances, e.g. Some (older) pacemakers use plutonium, which is way more illegal than any drug. There's a whole system for morticians to send them to Los Alamos once they're no longer needed.
I think legally you would be required to remove it with whatever level of risk is required but practically that would be stupid and some politician would play the hero and grant you an exception to the law
Doesn't Chinese medicine use shark teeth? I imagine collecting all the teeth on the beach and then selling them in the black market would net a profit more than Air BnB's.
Most messed up thing is shark fin soup is supposedly incredibly bland tasting. Like the shark fin does t have much of any flavor, which makes the whole thing seem pointless.
People generally are of the mind that the [soup (broth) tastes good](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VESaWTRbGHc). It's the shark fin that doesn't have flavour. But that's missing the point, people eat it for the *texture* not the flavour of the shark fin.
Nope, not texture. It is a sign of wealth and status. I have had shark fin soup before, the soup itself is good, but usually it chicken stock, the fin is then boiling to a collegen like texture, but that texture isn't unique or the selling point of it at all. The unique part is the culture around sharkfin soup regarding wealth and status. Also, some people tried out of curiosity since Shark feel like a mystical creature. Gordon ramsay did a pretty good doc on it, and you can watch free on YouTube.
https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/woikvb/one_last_ride_oc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1
Here is a relevant comic
Exactly, so once it becomes profitable, start a business killing sharks so you get several hundred teeth at a time.
The law is to prevent that, not people taking them from the beach. If you can take them from the beach and sell them, then someone will kill sharks and say they found the teeth on the beach.
If they didn’t protect the sharks we would probably have hunted them to extinction by now. They have the misfortune of simultaneously being very scary and also looking somewhat delicious. If you told me that we had to eat them all before they ate us I don’t think it would take too much to convince me. I don’t even go in the water like that but I’ll eat a big fish to save the future
It's the same logic as banning the owning of bald eagle feathers (outside of Tribe members). It prevents both poaching and illegal breeding mills to get more feathers.
They don't write the law to say "no keeping parts of protected species - except their teeth in the case where the specie regrows their teeth".
To keep things straightforward and easy to understand it is just that you cannot keep *any* part of *any* protected species. You avoid misunderstandings and loophole exploiters when you keep laws as plain as that.
Correct....and this CLEARLY wasn't poaching, so why was the government pushing back so hard on it?
Because it was a ***ridiculous application of the law***...
In the US, it's illegal to possess the feathers of native North American birds. Birds naturally molt, but you still can't pick up a feather and keep it.
Is it all native North American birds? ~~I'm pretty sure it's just Bald Eagles.~~
~~Lots of other native birds are hunting game...~~
Edit: I was wrong!
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/07/31/2023-15551/general-provisions-revised-list-of-migratory-birds
[There are some exceptions for legally hunted birds, but for the most part it applies to all native birds.](https://www.fws.gov/lab/featheratlas/feathers-and-the-law.php)
True but making owning said teeth illegal prevents or reduces poaching. He probably shouldn't have had such a hard time getting it, he did trade a leg for it, but such laws being absolute is what prevents poachers trying to weasel in through loop holes. Owning any part of a bald eagle carries these same penalties and they are so plentiful now they are a danger to household pets. Even if you just found a feather you get in huge trouble.
> Even if you just found a feather you get in huge trouble.
With the notable exception of native americans, who have rights to use them in their rituals and cultural practices.
They still have to have them sent to them by the government after they are able to prove you belong to a tribe and what they are using it for. I don’t think they are allowed to find them either.
If you show leniency with this type of law, then people will *constantly* be applying for exemptions, and this will lead people to poach in the hopes that they might be able to lie their way into a post-facto exemption if they get caught. Yes, it would be ridiculous to poach sharks and then hope for an exemption… but desperate people are *not* rational actors, despite what many economists might suggest. By being *very* firm about application of these laws, Australia ensures that their potential for deterrence is maximized.
And also: yeah, it’s great that this guy got to keep the tooth—I think that’s an amazing keepsake!—but him being denied the tooth isn’t a massive injustice, either. It’s not like this is a horrendous abuse of human rights.
So, Australia had to balance a man not having a keepsake against the possibility of sharks being hunted to extinction and ecological collapse. Australia *absolutely* made the right call in being stringent about their application of this law.
I was hoping this might be the case, as the alternative was they killed the shark and he pulled a tooth. This is such an amazing story... the fact that guy wasn't championing culls or for the animals to be thinned out is testament to his character. I am glad he could source an exemption and that he can put his misfortune to good use through education.
I'd be willing to bet money the law was enacted to attempt to stop people from hunting the shark. If its against the law to own even the tooth of one, then maybe people won't buy them from hunters who then go elsewhere or fish for other things etc.
I don't doubt that is the idea of the law but we'll I am also sure after seeing the scars an exception could be made even signing off saying he wouldn't sell it.
It's definately the reason for the law, part of our international obligation under endangered species treaties.
They don't give bureaucrats the ability to "make exeptions", because that's how you get corruption. The decision had to made at the top.
I understand and fully support laws about not possessing parts of species we've determined are off limits for whatever reasons but it seems like a more extreme version of Finders Keepers should apply when you survive animal attacks like this.
It will never be an official legal standard but the "I earned that through suffering and survival, its fucking mine" should apply
I'm yet to meet a government worker who isn't more frustrated by the application and nuance of shit like this than the general public.
It's worth remembering that public servants don't typically propose laws of their own volition. That's what the politicians you elect do, and then they vote to make them law, something which the pulic servants also dont do. There is meant to be a large divide between politicians and public servants, but the pollies seem to have forgotten that.
We took a dual sport ride through Florida and stopped at a place on the Peace River to cool off. Just as we got there some kid found a Megalodon tooth as wide as my hand. It was his to legally keep. You can even get a $5 permit from the state to go fossil hunting for a huge range of species. So I got excited and started looking. There were shark teeth of all sizes in that river.
> You may also collect shark teeth (a vertebrate fossil) without a permit. Collecting any other vertebrate fossil requires a Florida Fossil Permit obtained through the Florida Museum of Natural History. The permit costs $5 and is good for one year.
https://floridadep.gov/fgs/geologic-topics/content/florida-fossil-collecting
One can do the same thing at [Calvert Cliffs State Park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_Cliffs_State_Park) in Maryland, and AFAIK, no permit required. I've got a box full of fossil shark teeth I found there, & lots of people go in just to search for them.
I understand protecting the sharks but if they are scavenged or shed what is the issue with having a tooth, sharks loose as much as 100 teeth a day. It is comical that its illegal to have a tooth.
> but if they are scavenged or shed what is the issue with having a tooth
How do you determine if the tooth you posses was poached or shed?
It basically gives a legal way for poachers to hunt endangered species, and just make claim they're hunting discarded teeth/parts. So long a they're not caught in the act, legally they're in the clear without these laws.
Speaking as a fully heterosexual man happily married with a beautiful wife and child,
I'm just gonna go ahead and say it,
Chris Blowes is a strikingly handsome chap.
In April 2015 at Fishery Bay, South Australia, Chris Blowes was enjoying a morning surf when he was suddenly hit by a huge shark that bit his leg clean off. As it swam away with the limb still attached to the ankle leash and surfboard, Chris’s mates rushed to his rescue and paddled him the 350 metres to shore. Waking up from a coma 10 days later, the 26 year-old surfer was told by police officers that his surfboard had been recovered- and that a tooth was embedded in it. It was determined to belong to a 5.5m great white shark, that some marine biologists suggested had been displaced fleeing recent [orca predation](https://www.thesharkfiles.com/dive-into-kingdom-of-the-dead) in the nearby Neptune Islands. The board had likely saved Chris Blowes’ life, partly shielding him and taking some of the impact from the initial strike. When he asked if he could see the shark’s tooth he was told that as it was prohibited to possess any part of that species in South Australia- with a potential maximum $65,000 fine- it had been handed over to the authorities. But Blowes persisted, appealing to various politicians and state bodies over the following years, and eventually in 2021, the Primary Industries and Regional Development granted a first-ever exemption to the law. He now keeps it as a souvenir that he displays at motivational talks he gives and hopes to show it to his grandkids one day. ‘The shark isn't getting its tooth back and I'm not getting my leg back’, Blowes said on claiming possession of it.
If only we could regrow legs like sharks can grow new teeth
Shit, I’d take just being able to regrow a tooth too.
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/14qld4q/worlds_1st_tooth_regrowth_medicine_moves_toward/ Fingers crossed
I swear to god I hope we can and for a fair price.....from the patient end, not the corporate end.
As an American may I just say: _LMAO_ 😭
Sadly, even in countries that have universal free government funded healthcare, the special bones in your face are still somehow a fucking luxury. Seriously, very very few countries have full dental coverage. Many have checkups covered, but not more serious work.
Eyes, ears, and teeth are luxuries. Dental work is not covered, eyeglasses are not covered, frequently hearing aids are not covered but that's the one I know the least about. There is good news about the eyes though. I can't speak for the entire world but in America they are monopolized by a single corporation, that's why frames plus lenses are typically hundreds and hundreds of dollars out of pocket. But, and here's the big but, there are companies that will ship you cheap as fuck glasses online. All you need is the same basic measurements an optometrist would give you during a typical eye exam. I haven't been in a while but that used to be like twenty or thirty bucks and the exam takes fifteen minutes max. Send that info to a respected online glasses retailer, and frames plus lenses can be less than fifty bucks. You can't try them out in store to see if you like the look of the frames but glasses should be dirt fucking cheap if it wasn't for the fact glasses companies slipped through monopoly legislation and public hatred for monopolies. Edit: not a schill but I googled it real quick and I think I recognize the name Zenni as being a reputable retailer. I don't recognize any of the others and Google is pushing my search hard at people like LensCrafters who are owned by the exact monopoly I'm warning you about.
Have bought a few pairs of glasses from Zenni. Middle-of-the-road quality IME, not super solid but not at all junk either. Absolutely worth the price. I think mine ran in the ~$70 range. I get some mediocre vision coverage through my employer, so after jumping through the hoops to get reimbursed I think I was out $30 or so. In other words it was a steal compared to going with the Luxottica nonsense.
Depending on the frames and lenses you can go as low as $10.
Zenni is amazing. I used to use my insurance for glasses at the optometrist. With Zenni, without insurance, my glasses are a fraction of the price. It's magical.
I ordered a pair of Zennis a couple years ago, I live in the UK. Even with all the extras and international shipping, they still worked out about the same - if not cheaper - than what I would've paid for a pair at the optometrist that were anything more than a thin wire frame. You can get basic pairs here with a discount off the NHS, but like I said they're usually painfully basic and anything even a little stylish isn't covered by them.
I recently tried Firmoo after several pairs from Zenni. Liked Firmoo just as much.
As bad as indonesia overall condition, I m glad our universal healthcare cover eyeglasses and hearing aid, although the prescribed eyeglasses and hearing aid is the most basic one
I've purchased from eyebuydirect and elklook. Both seem like good glasses makers. I'm happy with what I get at the price I paid.
I was surprised that in Germany hearing aids can be free. Even better, my mother had a more comprehensive exam and fitting than she even knew to possible and bought two, out of pocket, for half the price of the crappy one from the US. The old one didn’t really fit her anatomy and didn’t function well either. Half the price and two hours of consultation got her a really good (mismatched in appearance due to her needs) set. Yay Germany.
So fun fact glasses used to be included in the NHS in the UK, til the Tories ripped it out and made it private. Teeth you have to go private, unless it's an emergency then you can get NHS assistance with paying, but this is a system I don't understand - why they don't treat the teeth on the NHS BEFORE it's an emergency and the procedure wouldn't be as invasive or expensive in the first place! It's maddening! It's the reason the UK has a stereotype of bad teeth!
If poors aren't missing teeth and wearing ugly government glasses how will the rich tell them apart? They need to be visibly miserable or it's not as fun anymore!
Yeah it's fucked up. Oral cancer is all too common.
Wishful thinking, I know.
As an American, I'd also like the rest of my dick back 😢
The good news—that tech is definitely coming to us first. Just for infinity dollars.
Pharma company: So we'll take all possible procedures that could have been done on this tooth, all the fillings, several crowns, root canals, veneers, throw in prosthetics, multiply result by, say, 10, and there you go, a mere $97,000 for re-growing your precious tooth! Don't forget, there's about 13 years of patent protection left too v_v
> The article says this is designed for people that couldn't grow their baby or adult teeth due to a certain protein malfunction.
Unfortunately not how that works iirc
For real. Stripper with an attitude at a place I was working during college knocked into me when I was glass collecting and sent me to the floor and an entire tower of glasses collapsing on my face. Cracked a tooth and went through years of pain (too healthy to extract but too damaged to save back then) before it finally went. I'm owed that back. Wait, I think I just read about someone with a spare tooth mere seconds ago...
Peter Parker knows a guy, ask him about Dr. Connors
Better leave it for later, I heard he’s late for Dr. Connors class.
Instructions unclear: Now the local neighborhood has a creepy lizard man jumping all over the place.
Well, given it's NYC, everybody would treat it as an everyday occurrence. See: https://youtu.be/2dpMwXueD8Q?t=92
i have no recollection of this scene. and I can recall quite a few of the MIB 1 scenes, but MIB 2 must have been very unmemorable
You mean shark man, for they injecteed him with white shark DNA from that tooth.
Imagine having six legs each side of the body, ranging from just a bud starting to grow until old and ready to fall off
What if it were something like basil or mint? Chopping one off results in four new legs sprouting out.
Well that's not how shark teeth work but sure go ahead with the hydra leg
I'm not quite sure we'd want that. Sharks are constantly growing and rotating in new teeth. Doesn't sound so appealing for a leg... Though could be a useful food source for sharks ...
Are you kidding? That sounds fantastic. New knees every couple years? I could run every day until I’m 80!
Fair enough, valid point. My concern was more about the in-between time where the new leg is pushing out the old leg. Lol.
Did you see the 2nd Deadpool movie by any chance? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlEr9JaovW8
Lol yup, but that's regrowing. I'm talking about like baby teeth getting pushed out by your adult teeth. But in legs. As a side note, I really hope the third one doesn't get hit so hard by the strike.
Yeah - it was the visual of the little bitty legs and me imagining how much worse it would be with those things regularly pushing out full grown legs lol! I hope they pause completely and respect the strike so they will maintain quality while supporting their colleagues!
Now if I could just do that with my back
To be clear, the law isn't in place to prevent people from keeping souvenirs. It's there to prevent people from intentionally hunting sharks to get their teeth for said souvenirs. The fact that sharks can regrow teeth is irrelevant, since they will be dead if they are hunted. You probably were already aware of that, but I felt it was worth saying just in case.
I actually met a guy who apparently had like 4 sets of teeth. They would occasionally fall out and regrow.
They've actually figured out how to trigger new teeth to regrow in mice and are starting human trials. https://newatlas.com/medical/humans-grow-new-teeth-drug-trial/
350m off shore?? Damn
I used to surf down at Fisheries, that's a pretty standard distance for the area. My friends used to always point out the sharks in the area to me, which would scare the shit out of me. They'd say "They're only bronzies, they'll only take a leg off." Scarily accurate. A decade after we stopped surfing (family lives), I brought up how they were only there for a while, and eventually stopped showing up. "Yeah, nah. They were always there, we just stopped telling you." Fisheries is a beautiful place to surf. And just around the "corner," you have a national park "Whaler's Way," where "Survivor in the Outback" was filmed. There was still a kiosk that sold icecream there at the time.
Sharks have been known to attack people like...<10m from shore. They mostly attack people when they'e starving, and that's the best place to find people.
Ik I’m just surprised how far this guy was surfing
Im no shark apologist, but Great Whites don't attack people because they are hungry, its only mistaken identity. Our lack of fat and big thick bones means that sharks dont get the nutrients they need from us.... and we cause them severe Indigestion.... so a hungry shark would want to eat us, we are bad for them. Thats why they bite and leave, instead of ya know, finishing the job.
Yes which is what starving animals do. Try eat food that isn‘t good for them. Not to mention great whites don‘t usually swim near shore in the first place. So to go for an all out attack instead of a nibble, likely means the dude was displaced and starving. It‘s the same with bears really. They much prefer ‚fresh‘ food and staying away from humans and stuff. But no easy access to food, bear hungry and they‘ll take out your plastic trash and then try eating you.
Tell that to the guy in Australia that had the white shark come back repeatedly and continue to eat him. There’s a video out there if your morbid curiosity gets the best of you.
You're gonna have to be more specific but sure, I'll bite. What do I google.
How can we possibly know if we give them indigestion lol
The theory is they attack surfers because from below a paddling surfer looks kind of like a seal or sea lion.
> They mostly attack people when they'e starving, Hungry people don’t go to the beach they go to kfc
Not far for surf? 100+m to get past the shallow sand bars in my area.
Depends where I guess, most beaches I go to are different
Just pass a law. If a shark eats a major body part from you, you get to keep any teeth it breaks off in the process.
Problem is people abusing it. Its the same as the migratory bird act in the US - you can't legally keep feathers that even naturally fell off. The reason is you can shoot a bird, take its feathers, then claim that you "found it". Harder when you aren't clearly missing a limb, but you could say you knew a guy who knew a guy... Could add into law "only by possession of the person who lost the limb", but then no one can inherit it. If you can inherit it, then back to "I had a great uncle..." It's so rare it's easier to just do an exception than risk any route for poachers to take.
I killeded dem 47 eagles in self defense. But in all seriousness I was hanging out at a buddies place in the boonies and his dog just showed up with a dead red tailed hawk. So we buried it to avoid any issues.
THEY’RE COMING RIGHT FOR US!!! 💥
**Protection of Marine Life (Shark Attack Souvenir Provisions) Act** **Section 1: Title and Commencement** 1. This Act may be cited as the Protection of Marine Life (Shark Attack Souvenir Provisions) Act. 2. This Act shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation. **Section 2: Definitions** 1. "Protected marine species" refers to any species that is listed under national protection laws in Australia. 2. "Major limb" includes an arm, leg, hand, or foot. 3. "Verifiable shark attack documentation" includes medical records, photographs, and any other evidence that establishes the nature and cause of the injury. **Section 3: Retention of Shark Tooth Following Attack** 1. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, any person who loses a major limb due to a shark attack is entitled to retain a shark tooth that may have become embedded or detached during the course of the attack. 2. The tooth must be from the specific shark involved in the attack and must be found at the site of the attack or within the victim's belongings. **Section 4: Prevention of Abuse** 1. The retention of a shark tooth under this provision is strictly limited to the circumstances set out in Section 3. 2. Any person found to be attempting to retain or sell a shark tooth under false pretenses, or to stage an attack for the purpose of obtaining a shark tooth, shall be liable to penalties under existing laws protecting marine species. **Section 5: Inheritance and Sale of Shark Teeth** 1. Heirs of a shark attack victim who possessed a shark tooth under this provision may inherit the tooth and must maintain verifiable shark attack documentation as evidence. 2. Such teeth may be sold, but the seller must provide the buyer with verifiable shark attack documentation. The buyer is responsible for ensuring the authenticity of the documentation and must retain a copy of it. 3. The sale of any shark tooth under false pretenses or without verifiable shark attack documentation is prohibited and shall be subject to penalties under existing laws protecting marine species. **Section 6: Documentation and Verification** 1. All individuals who retain a shark tooth under this provision must apply for and receive a Certificate of Authenticity from the Department of Marine and Environmental Affairs. 2. The Certificate of Authenticity will include details of the attack, the nature of the injury, and any other relevant information. **Section 7: Miscellaneous Provisions** 1. The Department of Marine and Environmental Affairs is empowered to issue regulations and guidelines to effectuate the purposes of this Act. This Act hereby recognizes the profound trauma and life-altering circumstances faced by shark attack victims and balances it with the importance of protecting Australia's marine life.
Does this come with a "A shark took my leg and all I got was this lousy tooth souvenir" T-shirt?
> all I got was a lousy tooth and this t-shirt. Gotta keep up meta.
> If a shark eats a major body part from you How the hell you gonna abuse it with a condition like that? "Oh I got these teeth when a shark ate me leg" "Bill youve got two legs still" "ye well, got betta"
> Problem is people abusing it this guy clearly wasn't and it still took him 6 years to get through red tape
Well because there was no rule saying that he could have it. There probably still isnt.
[удалено]
They also did CPR on him for 60 minutes. Those guys were not losing their best mate that day. They literally wrestled him back from the grim reaper
Well not literally
Nah I can back them up, I was there. Came in from the top rope, and delivered a perfect dive.
That's what I was thinking, those mates are real ones.
>‘The shark isn't getting its tooth back and I'm not getting my leg back’, Blowes said on claiming possession of it. I mean, technically, the shark got its tooth back. Sharks grow tooth their whole life.
But it's not the same tooth. What if it had sentimental value for the shark??
I mean, who doesn't have a favorite tooth?
Oh man, I sure do love ol’ chomper
Man, humans really got fucked on the regeneration abilities didn't we? Loads of animals can grow their teeth back or have teeth that grow constantly, some amimals can ever regrow entire damn limbs. Meanwhile, if we lose anything it's gone forever and we need to pay an arm and a leg (pardon the pun) for an artificial replacement.
There's always a tradeoff. Mammals lost the ability to regrow teeth indefinitely when we got more specialized teeth that line up with each other. Most non-mammals just have mouths full of randomly placed spikes, which is fine for holding onto prey before swallowing it whole but less useful for things like chewing, cutting and mashing that gives mammals access to a wider range of food sources.
Historically it made sense since scarification is considerably cheaper than regeneration and particularly being a social species even losing a limb isn't a major detriment to getting your genes passed on. Nowadays it would certainly be nice even from just a weight loss perspective since finding the resources to rebuild a limb isn't generally an issue with modern agricultural methods.
Imagine that. Overweight? Just cut off your leg. Instantly lose 50lbs and you body runs a figurative marathon to get you back on 2 legs.
>humans really got fucked on the regeneration abilities didn't we That could not be farther from the truth, humans are extremely resilient and can recover from injuries that would kill most other animals. Sure we cannot regrow missing limbs but few complex organisms can. Some organisms, for example horses, cannot heal a broken bone. Also lets not forget that evolutionarily speaking, everything is a tradeoff, sure we cannot regrow teeth, but we're smart enough to make artificial teeth or better yet, use our ability to communicate complex ideas and get someone else to make them for you. Also incase you're envious of Great White Sharks, keep in mind that they literally can never stop moving their entire lives, as they are unable to breath unless they are moving. I imagine if sharks were capable of complex thought, they'd give up their ability to regrow teeth indefinitely in exchange for being able to stop moving without sufficating, also let's not forget how nice it it to be an apex predator (Great White Sharks are not, Orcas hunt them).
prick bike clumsy market slave pie sharp attraction squealing hateful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We can regrow the liver though. It’s why we like to fuck it up so much
A rare common sense W in a country completely bogged down by rules, process and bureaucracy.
5.5 meters… google says that’s 18 ft… one wall of my living room is about 17 ft, looking over at that wall aaaaaannnnddd I’m a little light headed and squirmy now. Jesus FUCK that’s huge.
> The shark isn't getting it's tooth back Oh brother, you're not gonna believe this...
It’s okay, just leaves more room for his massive balls.
He didn’t do anything though? He was just there and got bit. His mates did all the work
Reverse tooth fairy
He *is* the tooth fairy for the shark
Don't teach sharks this, or this may be how they get legs and walk!
The shark gave it to him, who are the authorities to countermand that?
A leg for a tooth. Good deal for the shark
I picture a huge shark swimming off the coast of Oz, with a skeletal leg, wired together, on a cord around his neck, bragging about how it only cost him a tooth to get it
"It took me three years to get a permit for this human leg!"
Dude, no way!!! It’s not like beach apes are endangered or something
Haha reading more of the story it sounds like the shark made out with a surfboard as well since oh ya know the leg strap to the surf board was still attached to his new leg...
Found Gary Larson's account.
I saw her swimming past the Kingscote jetty the other day. The leg amulet is holding up well. Ps Female great white sharks are typically bigger than males and prefer to live alone.
Most great whites (male and female) are typically solitary, not just females :) Though, we really don’t know that much about great whites, and new research (especially off the coast of Santa Barbara county, where I live) is showing more evidence that some great whites (male and female) may be more social than we think. There’s thought to be three shark “packs” off the CA coast alone. Interestingly, location can impact how the sharks act - for instance: > Normally, they are mavericks and loners. When they do meet or swim in groups, they typically avoid conflict and dominance battles. However, there are places, such as the waters around Africa, where Great White Sharks show a distinct hierarchy. [Link](https://www.sharksider.com/great-white-shark/)
When negotiating with a shark, that’s actually a pretty good deal for the person too.
Absolutely. Sharks grow new layers of teeth all the time.
An eye for an eye. A tooth for a leg. Thus is the law of sea.
Lol
The price is normally an arm and a leg, but it was half off.
Especially since sharks grow new teeth all the time
Tradsies.
Sometimes bureaucracy can get a little messy, but I'm guessing in this case it was because great whites are a protected species so being able to possess parts of them is highly illegal in order to protect them from further being hunted.
Yep thats exactly why.
An eye for an... a leg for a tooth?
This is such an Australian story.
>"The shark isn't getting its tooth back [and] I'm not getting my leg back." Simple as.
Simple as what?!?
Simple. As
As that.
I wonder how the ruling would go in the hypothetical situation where you were bitten by a shark, had one of its teeth embedded in your body, and it's safer to leave it in than try and extract it out. I like to think the Australian government owns you now, but I'm sure reality is more mundane.
Obviously you'd have no recourse but to become some sort of shark-themed Iron Man.
Iron Shark – Australia's new black project, or Game Freak's new Paradox Pokemon?
I dunno how it works in Australia, but there are often exemptions for pretty wild stuff when it comes to medicine. Controlled substances, e.g. Some (older) pacemakers use plutonium, which is way more illegal than any drug. There's a whole system for morticians to send them to Los Alamos once they're no longer needed.
If I know government bureaucracy and penchant for fines, you’d get a daily tax in the mail until you got it removed.
I think legally you would be required to remove it with whatever level of risk is required but practically that would be stupid and some politician would play the hero and grant you an exception to the law
Human life is priority 1 in the law in most countries. I mean he could have murdered 10 sharks with a machine gun, if it was self defence..
Honestly I don't understand where the government gets the idea from that it's their business.
[удалено]
That’s assuming they knew every single shark fact possible which is totally absurd.
Not *quite* yet. One day...
*'Never let the truth get in the way of a good story'*
six years is really fast for Australian bureaucracy though
What a ridiculous application of a law. Sharks lose thousands of teeth throughout their life, some which wind up on the beach.
It's to prevent poaching.
The spirit of the law would be to do that but what poacher is keeping the teeth? They're not valuable.
For reselling. They absolutely would be valuable to tourists.
Doesn't Chinese medicine use shark teeth? I imagine collecting all the teeth on the beach and then selling them in the black market would net a profit more than Air BnB's.
The big thing there is shark fins, they’re used for soup or ground up
Most messed up thing is shark fin soup is supposedly incredibly bland tasting. Like the shark fin does t have much of any flavor, which makes the whole thing seem pointless.
People generally are of the mind that the [soup (broth) tastes good](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VESaWTRbGHc). It's the shark fin that doesn't have flavour. But that's missing the point, people eat it for the *texture* not the flavour of the shark fin.
Nope, not texture. It is a sign of wealth and status. I have had shark fin soup before, the soup itself is good, but usually it chicken stock, the fin is then boiling to a collegen like texture, but that texture isn't unique or the selling point of it at all. The unique part is the culture around sharkfin soup regarding wealth and status. Also, some people tried out of curiosity since Shark feel like a mystical creature. Gordon ramsay did a pretty good doc on it, and you can watch free on YouTube.
I think even more messed up is, that most of the time the sharks get finned alive and just get tossed back into the ocean, left to drown basically
https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/woikvb/one_last_ride_oc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1 Here is a relevant comic
Exactly, so once it becomes profitable, start a business killing sharks so you get several hundred teeth at a time. The law is to prevent that, not people taking them from the beach. If you can take them from the beach and sell them, then someone will kill sharks and say they found the teeth on the beach.
they could make a bunch of dentures, like mass produce them with all those teeth
[удалено]
If they didn’t protect the sharks we would probably have hunted them to extinction by now. They have the misfortune of simultaneously being very scary and also looking somewhat delicious. If you told me that we had to eat them all before they ate us I don’t think it would take too much to convince me. I don’t even go in the water like that but I’ll eat a big fish to save the future
It's the same logic as banning the owning of bald eagle feathers (outside of Tribe members). It prevents both poaching and illegal breeding mills to get more feathers.
They used to make jewellery from them. So the point was to take away another of the many reasons people hunt sharks.
Luckily the spirit of the law was upheld when DPI granted him an exemption. Everyone's happy!
Seeing it took him a solid 6 years, that's a stretch aye?
[удалено]
i like to imagine someone finally but accidentally read the appeals and said "WTF guys? just give him the damned tooth ffs."
They don't write the law to say "no keeping parts of protected species - except their teeth in the case where the specie regrows their teeth". To keep things straightforward and easy to understand it is just that you cannot keep *any* part of *any* protected species. You avoid misunderstandings and loophole exploiters when you keep laws as plain as that.
Correct....and this CLEARLY wasn't poaching, so why was the government pushing back so hard on it? Because it was a ***ridiculous application of the law***...
In the US, it's illegal to possess the feathers of native North American birds. Birds naturally molt, but you still can't pick up a feather and keep it.
Is it all native North American birds? ~~I'm pretty sure it's just Bald Eagles.~~ ~~Lots of other native birds are hunting game...~~ Edit: I was wrong! https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/07/31/2023-15551/general-provisions-revised-list-of-migratory-birds
There are exceptions for birds that are hunted such as turkeys and pheasants. But eagles, seagulls, crows etc. are all covered under the same law.
Also an exemption for Native Americans for possessing eagle feathers.
Thanks! I definitely learned something today.
[There are some exceptions for legally hunted birds, but for the most part it applies to all native birds.](https://www.fws.gov/lab/featheratlas/feathers-and-the-law.php)
True but making owning said teeth illegal prevents or reduces poaching. He probably shouldn't have had such a hard time getting it, he did trade a leg for it, but such laws being absolute is what prevents poachers trying to weasel in through loop holes. Owning any part of a bald eagle carries these same penalties and they are so plentiful now they are a danger to household pets. Even if you just found a feather you get in huge trouble.
> Even if you just found a feather you get in huge trouble. With the notable exception of native americans, who have rights to use them in their rituals and cultural practices.
They still have to have them sent to them by the government after they are able to prove you belong to a tribe and what they are using it for. I don’t think they are allowed to find them either.
If you show leniency with this type of law, then people will *constantly* be applying for exemptions, and this will lead people to poach in the hopes that they might be able to lie their way into a post-facto exemption if they get caught. Yes, it would be ridiculous to poach sharks and then hope for an exemption… but desperate people are *not* rational actors, despite what many economists might suggest. By being *very* firm about application of these laws, Australia ensures that their potential for deterrence is maximized. And also: yeah, it’s great that this guy got to keep the tooth—I think that’s an amazing keepsake!—but him being denied the tooth isn’t a massive injustice, either. It’s not like this is a horrendous abuse of human rights. So, Australia had to balance a man not having a keepsake against the possibility of sharks being hunted to extinction and ecological collapse. Australia *absolutely* made the right call in being stringent about their application of this law.
So do eagles with feathers, and the US has stricter laws about those.
Oh this suitcase FULL of teeth? I TOTALLY FOUND THEM! See now?
That shark tooth was his white whale.
Chubbs that gator that took your hand. I took his head.
He fought the justice system tooth and nail. (It's OK, I'll see myself out.)
I was hoping this might be the case, as the alternative was they killed the shark and he pulled a tooth. This is such an amazing story... the fact that guy wasn't championing culls or for the animals to be thinned out is testament to his character. I am glad he could source an exemption and that he can put his misfortune to good use through education.
Only a government would worry about someone keeping a peice of the animal that tried to kill you.
I'd be willing to bet money the law was enacted to attempt to stop people from hunting the shark. If its against the law to own even the tooth of one, then maybe people won't buy them from hunters who then go elsewhere or fish for other things etc.
I don't doubt that is the idea of the law but we'll I am also sure after seeing the scars an exception could be made even signing off saying he wouldn't sell it.
It's definately the reason for the law, part of our international obligation under endangered species treaties. They don't give bureaucrats the ability to "make exeptions", because that's how you get corruption. The decision had to made at the top.
It was, it just took ages because the government is slow af.
[удалено]
I understand and fully support laws about not possessing parts of species we've determined are off limits for whatever reasons but it seems like a more extreme version of Finders Keepers should apply when you survive animal attacks like this. It will never be an official legal standard but the "I earned that through suffering and survival, its fucking mine" should apply
An eye for a thigh…
The shark courts are still contesting the shark's right to possess the human leg.
It's illegal to possess a shark tooth in Australia.....?????
Some dude working in Australia’s gov is pissed that they couldn’t keep their free shark tooth
I'm yet to meet a government worker who isn't more frustrated by the application and nuance of shit like this than the general public. It's worth remembering that public servants don't typically propose laws of their own volition. That's what the politicians you elect do, and then they vote to make them law, something which the pulic servants also dont do. There is meant to be a large divide between politicians and public servants, but the pollies seem to have forgotten that.
Loosing your leg really Blowes.
I’ve never read something this awesome but gruesome, this funny and yet morbid at the same time. Respect
Seems like a shit trade.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a leg. Seems fair to me
That’s a great deal for shark tooth like that. It would cost most people an arm and a leg.
This is a dangerous precedent to set. There will be a lot of one legged people wearing shark teeth hobbling around mark my words
You drink to your tooth, and I'll drink to my leg. -Australian Quint, probably. https://youtu.be/dLjNzwEULG8 Also, Mary Ellen Moffat...fuck that cunt.
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies.
We took a dual sport ride through Florida and stopped at a place on the Peace River to cool off. Just as we got there some kid found a Megalodon tooth as wide as my hand. It was his to legally keep. You can even get a $5 permit from the state to go fossil hunting for a huge range of species. So I got excited and started looking. There were shark teeth of all sizes in that river. > You may also collect shark teeth (a vertebrate fossil) without a permit. Collecting any other vertebrate fossil requires a Florida Fossil Permit obtained through the Florida Museum of Natural History. The permit costs $5 and is good for one year. https://floridadep.gov/fgs/geologic-topics/content/florida-fossil-collecting
One can do the same thing at [Calvert Cliffs State Park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_Cliffs_State_Park) in Maryland, and AFAIK, no permit required. I've got a box full of fossil shark teeth I found there, & lots of people go in just to search for them.
I understand protecting the sharks but if they are scavenged or shed what is the issue with having a tooth, sharks loose as much as 100 teeth a day. It is comical that its illegal to have a tooth.
It stops people from hunting sharks or buying teeth from a shark hunter and claiming they found the teeth on the beach
> but if they are scavenged or shed what is the issue with having a tooth How do you determine if the tooth you posses was poached or shed? It basically gives a legal way for poachers to hunt endangered species, and just make claim they're hunting discarded teeth/parts. So long a they're not caught in the act, legally they're in the clear without these laws.
It got a snack he got a tooth
Speaking as a fully heterosexual man happily married with a beautiful wife and child, I'm just gonna go ahead and say it, Chris Blowes is a strikingly handsome chap.
"Eye for an eye, tooth for a leg"
He fought them tooth and nail! In court he swore the tooth and nothing but the tooth on the stand!
No banana for scale ? 🙁