Introduction & Thesis Statement We have seen according to the International Shark Attack File “the number of unprovoked shark attacks has grown steadily since 1900, despite an overall decline in shark populations”. (Amin, 2012, p. 189) We walk through our negotiations to make it legal to hunt sharks and eliminate a threat to humans. A threat that is increasing as our world population’s increase. Shark attacks have affected, business, tourism, our safety, and could impact our health. Allowing us to fish for sharks, can eliminate a threat, we have lived with for hundreds of years.
Body
Today we meet to introduce Bill No. 6-142 into the senate. This will be recorded as our Fourth Regular Session. This bill has been created as an amendment to “Title 27 of the Palau National Code to prohibit foreign fishing vessels from fishing within a 50 nautical mile radius to the east of the reef entrance to Malakal Harbor; to prohibit foreign fishing vessels from taking reef fish, turtles, rays, sharks,” (Techera, 2012, p. 6) If this bill is passed we will be putting unnecessary lives at the risk. We have discussed the arguments we need to punish “any person who is found by the Supreme Court in a civil proceeding to have committed an act prohibited by section 181 of this title shall be liable to the national government for a civil penalty which shall not exceed $500,000 for each violation.” (Techera, 2012, p. 6) These fishermen would be protecting the lives of numerous individuals and boosting the economies of those affected by shark attacks. The problem seems to be that those in favor of the banning on shark fishing, with not take into account the facts presented. In order to move forward with our negotiations and find a common ground, I believe we have to address each side’s issues again. We understand that certain fish help to balance the ecosystem as you have stated. We believe we can eliminate the threat and still maintain balance, but until your side acknowledges our concerns, we will remain at an impasse. This can possibly close our ability to amend this bill, prevent further discussion, unless we come to some common ground. Now that each side has now begun to review all the evidence again and we can now agree that both sides have brought great points and research to the table. As pointed out by Neff in his case study “spanning a period of 80 years, these incidents present a unique opportunity for greater understanding in policymaking following human–marine life conflicts.” (Neff, 2012, p. 92)
That in 2001 “shark attacks [were] at a 42 year high” (Marshall, 2001, p. 1)
It is stated that the first shark attack was on a hotel tourist. This has impacted the tourism industry and will continue to do so. This is something that cannot be allowed in this weak world economy, to add the safety and increasing threat. Your side not being table to move towards a solution and meet us halfway, though we both have discussed our concerns seems to have left us at a stalemate. What we have found is that there has been a breakdown in communication on both sides. During an earlier session we also discussed the benefits that harvesting and the use of shark cartilage and it’s health benefits. This has been knowledge that has circulated through Asia for decades. “Shark cartilage amplified anti-tumor responses in patients with gastric cancer by increase in γ-IFN (TH1 immunity) and decrease in IL-4 (TH2 immunity).” (Zarei, 2013, p. 1)
Further research could possibly lead us to a cure for cancer. This cannot be done however, if you choose to ignore the evidence, and ignore us during these talks. We have now moved to personal attacks and name-calling. We are overlooking the bigger issues both sides have presented. For this reason I motion we cancel this request to amend this bill, as we have had a breakdown in communication. Evidence is being thrown aside and each side is no longer talking, we are officially at a deadlock.
Conclusion
I believe in negotiations on such topics as shark fishing which can lead to possible, degradation of tourism and the local economies, the boosting or short comings of the fishing industries, and the balance of the ecosystem, safety of humans and advances in cancer research, cannot be done if both sides are not willing to cordially talk. In order to move forward communication and minds have to be open. If not most will find themselves slowly closing the line of talks. This will transition from an impasse, to stalemate to a deadlock; ultimately resolving nothing and creating a lose/ lose negotiation.

References
Amin, R., Ritter, E., & Kennedy, P. (2012). A geospatial analysis of shark attack rates for the east coast of Florida: 1994–2009. Marine & Freshwater Behaviour & Physiology, 45(3), 185-198. doi:10.1080/10236244.2012.715742
Marshall, A. (2001). 'Summer of the Shark' creates open season on guests' fears. Hotel & Motel Management, 216(16), 10.
Neff, C. (2012). Australian Beach Safety and the Politics of Shark Attacks. Coastal Management, 40(1), 88-106. doi:10.1080/08920753.2011.639867
Techera, E. J. (2012). Fishing, Finning and Tourism: Trends in Pacific Shark Conservation and Management. International Journal Of Marine & Coastal Law, 27(4), 597-621. doi:10.1163/15718085-12645688
Zarei, R., Hasan Sarraf, M., Ajami, A., Moslemi, D., & Moslemizadeh, A. (2013). Effects of Shark Cartilage Oral Treatment on T Regulatory Cells Frequency and Activity in Patients with Gastric Cancer. (English). Journal Of Mazandaran University Of Medical Sciences (JMUMS), 23(99), 33-43.