New Info on Shark Attacks (Pacific Coast)

[AtlantisDreamer]

I decided to just post this as a new post... I looked up the stats on how common it is to get attacked by a shark in Northern California off the coast in the cold waters... I found the following from The Shark Research Committee,

http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/statistics.htm

Here's a copy and paste,

"



http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/images/srclogo.gif






About the Shark Research Committee (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/index.html)



Special (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/book.htm)




Book Offer (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/book.htm)






Guest Speaker (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/guest_speaker.htm)



and (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/guest_speaker.htm)



Media Consultant (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/guest_speaker.htm)


Pacific Coast
Shark News (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/pacific_coast_shark_news.htm)
Sharks of the Pacific Coast (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/indigenous.htm)
White Shark Biosketch (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/biosketch.htm)
Distribution and Diet of Pacific Coast White Sharks (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/dist.htm)
Predatory Behavior of Pacific Coast White Sharks (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/predation.htm)
Shark/Human Interactions Along the Pacific Coast (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/interactions.htm)

Pacific Coast
Shark Attack
Statistics (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/statistics.htm)

Fatal Pacific Coast Shark Attacks
1900 — Present (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/fatal_attacks.htm)Shark Attacks Along the Pacific Coast - 2000 — (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/2000.htm)Shark Attacks Along the Pacific Coast - 1990s (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/90s.htm)Case Histories of Unprovoked White Shark Attacks:
Divers (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/unprovoked_diver.htm)
Kayakers (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/unprovoked_kayaker.htm)
Surfers
(http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/unprovoked_surfer.htm) Swimmers (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/unprovoked_swimmer.htm)
White Shark Interactions with Inanimate Objects (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/inanimate.htm)
Publications (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/publications.htm)
Shark Encounters:
White Shark Encounters Along the Pacific Coast (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/encounters.htm)
Soupfin Shark Encounter (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/soupfin.htm)
Reporting Forms:
Shark Attack (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/formstart.htm)
Shark Encounter (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/formstart.htm)
Shark Predation (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/formstart.htm)
Shark Web Sites:
Recommended Links (http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/links.htm)







'Save the Sharks — Save the Oceans'

http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/images/50th_logo.png


Pacific Coast Shark Attack StatisticsThe total number (108) of authenticated cases of shark attack reported from the Pacific Coast of North America during the Twentieth Century is insufficient to determine the probability, or odds, of encountering a shark when entering these waters. During the first half of the Twentieth Century only one authenticated unprovoked shark attack was reported from the Pacific Coast, with the remaining 107 cases occurring during the last half of this 100-year period. The total number of reported shark attacks speaks volumes about the rarity of these events, when compared to the almost astronomical number of potential victims that entered the waters of the Pacific Coast during the Twentieth Century. Due to the extremely low number of attacks being analyzed in this study, the ramifications — if any — of the data presented here are considered with a healthy measure of caution and common sense.
Attack Documentation Sources
http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/images/data_sources.jpgIn his analysis of the ISAF, Baldridge noted, “It was sobering to find that 89.9% of the files on human shark attack held in the ISAF, accounts of what happened were based primarily upon information supplied by persons who were neither the objects of the attacks nor were they even there at the time to actually see what happened. To be completely realistic, therefore, it must be conceded that the ISAF is made up largely of hearsay evidence, mostly documented long after the event happened.”

In contrast to the ISAF analysis, primary data for 84 (78%) of the 108 cases included in this study were obtained from Shark Research Committee questionnaires that were completed either by the victim, rescuers, witnesses, or qualified field investigators. The remaining 24 (22%) cases derived their data from either ISAF case histories, published and unpublished accounts by research biologists, medical records, local or federal government agency reports, or newspaper and/or magazine articles.

Thus, unlike the ISAF data, the vast majority of information about shark attacks included in the present study was supplied by people who were actually there. Due to the sustained effort to collect this information, it is hoped that the resulting data are at least somewhat more accurate than the “largely hearsay” data reported by Baldridge.
Attacks Related to Age of Victimhttp://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/images/attacks_age_graph.jpgThe median age of Pacific Coast residents was not available for the present study. However, the average age for all victims included in this study is 29 years. Victim age was available for 91 (84%) of the 108 cases considered in this study. The average age (in years) of each victim group breaks down as follows: swimmers 18, surfers 27, divers 33, and kayakers 37. Note that the average age of victims in each group reflects the average age of participants in each group - there are plenty of teenagers who splash about at the beach but very few 50-year-old surfers, a fact that is reflected by the data.

Attacks Related To Victim Groupshttp://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/images/victim_group_chart.jpgBecause of the divergent activities required of surfing, diving, kayaking, and swimming, it was necessary to define the victim groups into which each of the 108 authenticated shark attacks reported in this study would be placed. Definitions of the water activities required for inclusion in the swimmer victim group were: swimming and body surfing (when the participant did not use a board). Those in the surfer victim group included: surfboarders, body boarders, boogie boarders, paddle boarders, and wind surfers. The diver victim group included: commercial (hookah), scuba, and free diving. There was no authenticated case of a shark attack against a hard-hat diver along the Pacific Coast during the entire Twentieth Century. The kayaker victim group is composed of those utilizing a kayak or similar oceangoing vessel. To this writing, Jet Skis had not been struck by, or encountered, a White Shark. However, a review of the above ocean sport activities would suggest that Jet Skis will most likely become the next victim group sometime, early on, in the Twenty-First Century. The distribution of the 108 authenticated unprovoked shark attacks from the Pacific Coast among these victim groups is: divers, 50 (46%); surfers, 41 (38%); swimmers, 12 (11%); and kayakers, 5 (5%).

Attacks Related To Monthhttp://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/images/attacks_related_to_month.jpgAlong the Pacific Coast of North America, shark attacks on humans occurred in every month of the year, with a dramatic peak during August, September and October. The fewest attacks reported for a month were three each for March and June. There were four shark attacks reported in February and five for April. January had six confirmed attacks, with May and December reporting seven cases each. There were nine cases authenticated for November, with 10 incidents occurring during July. These nine months accounted for 54 (50%) of the 108 confirmed shark attacks from the Pacific Coast. The remaining 54 (50%) shark-attack cases were: 16 reported in October, 17 in August, and 21 in September.
During these three "peak months," 19 divers and 26 surfers were attacked, representing 38% and 63% of the total number of attacks for their respective groups. Current data on diving usage along the Pacific Coast were not available, however, diving is most pleasant from midsummer until late fall, after which winter storms severely reduce underwater visibility due to plankton blooms and increased turbidity from river run-off. At such times, only the most ardent sport divers and commercial divers are found in the water. In the case of surfers they prefer those areas in and around river mouths because of their gently sloping, sandy bottoms, which generate the large, predictable waves that produce the longest and most satisfying rides. There appears to be a strong correlation between the time of year that anadromous fishes (such as Pacific salmon and Steelhead, of the family Salmonidae) congregate at river mouths in preparation for their annual spawning runs and the incidence of White Shark attacks on surfers, divers, kayakers, and swimmers at or near these locations.

Attacks Related To Time of Dayhttp://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/images/attacks_related_to_time_of_.jpgPacific Coast shark attacks occurred during all daylight hours. They were relatively constant between 0900 and 1800 hours and did not occur between 2015 and 0719 hours. The hours during which no attacks were recorded correspond roughly to the period between sunset and daybreak, with the early morning and late evening extremes involving surfers. Most swimmers heed traditional advice and do not enter the ocean before dawn or after sunset. Unlike divers and kayakers, surfers can engage in their sport within minutes of arriving at the beach. Further, unlike divers, surfers are not dependent on ambient light levels to engage in their sport, relying on kinesthetic cues (the feel of their boards' reactions) rather than visual ones. Therefore, surfers can extend their use of the ocean both earlier and later than can swimmers or divers.

With only five cases involving kayakers, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions about the temporal patterns of ocean use by this victim group. However, due to the amount of water covered (frequently 20 kilometers or more), kayakers present themselves over a wider area than do surfers — who typically stay within the area chosen — or sport divers, whose range is limited by their air supply. Like surfers, kayakers are not greatly affected by ocean water temperature and thus can paddle for extended periods. With the increasing popularity of ocean kayaking clubs and the growing trend toward "moonlight" excursions — reminiscent of horseback riding under the stars — an attack by a White Shark against a kayak after sunset would seem to be only a matter of time.
In any case, temporal patterns of shark attacks along the Pacific Coast during the Twentieth Century probably reflect the strong diurnal bias of human activity rather than that of sharks.

Attacks Related to Water Depthhttp://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/images/attacks_related_to_water_de.jpgOf the 108 authenticated cases of shark attack occurring along the Pacific Coast during the Twentieth Century, data on water depth were available for 88 (82%) cases. Of these 88 cases, 30 (34%) were directed at surfers, while 48 (55%) were against divers. The predominance of depth data reported by divers reflects the fact that accurate depth gauges are a standard part of diving equipment. Of the 30 reported attacks against surfers, 23 (77%) occurred where the water depth was 1 to 3 fm. Of the 48 reported attacks on divers, 37 (77%) occurred where the water depth was between 4 and 10 fm, with 20 of the 37 (54%) occurring where the depth was 4 to 6 fm. Attacks against surfers occurred over relatively shallow, near-shore waters that are conducive to surf riding. Attacks against divers occurred in or over somewhat deeper water, but within the limits of diver safety and comfort. Therefore, once again, these data probably reflect the demands of the chosen ocean sport and/or human preferences for ocean usage, rather than the depth preferences of attacking sharks.



Attacks Related to Collecting of Marine Organismshttp://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/images/attacks_collecting_chart.jpgIn the ISAF analysis Baldridge determined that "of 103 free divers where judgement was possible, 80% were engaged in spearfishing. It was possible to conclude in 72 cases that 51% of the free-diver victims had captive fish in their possession at the times that they were attacked. SCUBA divers showed a lower incidence of spearfishing; 53% of 19 cases, with almost all of them (50% of 18 cases) possessing captured fish. These data appeared to severely indict spearfishing as a provocative act leading possibly to shark attack. Logic supports this conclusion. However, it cannot be statistically validated in the absence of corresponding data on diver non-victims."
Of the 108 cases included in the present study, 50 (47%) were hunting or collecting marine organisms. All 50 of them belong to the diver victim group, of which 24 (56%) were collecting abalone, 12 (29%) were spearfishing, four (10%) were commercial urchin divers, and two (5%) were hunting lobster. It is intriguing that no divers whose efforts were dedicated to underwater photography along the Pacific Coast were bitten by sharks during the entire Twentieth Century. This may be because underwater photographers are generally fine and observant marine naturalists, keenly aware of what is happening in the environment around them. In contrast, divers concentrating on hunting and capturing marine organisms often focus on their purpose to the exclusion of all else. This degree of concentration may render diving hunters vulnerable to attack by sharks.



Species of Attacking Sharkhttp://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/images/species_of_attacking_shark.jpgIn H. David Baldridge's 1973 published analysis of the International Shark Attack File, he determined the following: "At least some level of identification of the attacker was possible in 267 cases. As popular belief would have it, the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) was cited most often, with 32 [12%] known attacks to its discredit." This global ISAF result pales in comparison to that of this regional study of attacks from the Pacific Coast of North America.. Of the 108 authenticated cases of shark attack reported during the Twentieth Century, 12 (11%) were unidentified, one (1%) was attributable to the Blue Shark, and one (1%) to the Common Hammerhead. In the remaining 94 cases (87%) the White Shark was either positively identified or highly suspect as the species responsible for the attack. Distribution of these 94 cases among victim groups is as follows: six swimmers (7%), 45 divers (48%), 39 surfers (41%) and four kayakers (4%). Therefore, in the unlikely event that you are attacked by a shark off the Pacific Coast of North America, the odds are 9 to 1 that it will be a White Shark. With the close of the Twentieth Century, it is estimated that more than 60% of all recorded White Shark attacks worldwide had occurred off the Pacific Coast of North America.








The material contained on this Web site is shared as a public service and to further the scientific goals of the Shark Research Committee. All text and images on this Web site are the exclusive property of the Shark Research Committee. Information on this Web site may be used for private study, but may not otherwise be published, duplicated, or modified in any way without the prior written permission of Ralph S. Collier (SharkResearch@aol.com)."

[AtlantisDreamer]

Now the question is... Are we divers or swimmers? There's a pretty big difference in risk between the two...

[Mermaid Oshun]

I wonder if your interest in shark attacks is a precognitive warning

[Echidna]

Now the question is... Are we divers or swimmers? There's a pretty big difference in risk between the two...

We're usually between 1-3m depth with frequent surface stops.
I'd count that as something in between.

However, all those data don't change my opinion about what I've already said multiple times:
you will be safe and fine most of the time with all harmless species of shark.

I wouldn't risk staying in the water with one of the species that can be dangerous
(white, tiger, hammerhead...)
You'll have to decide that for yourself though.

[AtlantisDreamer]

I wonder if your interest in shark attacks is a precognitive warning

Actually I think it's more just PTSD from having had an encounter already while surfing... I sure would like to get over it though.

[sashiyoop]

This stuff is actually really cool. I've never been to California, but I'll keep this stuff in mind if I ever go.

[Mermaid Sparkle]

As a biological scientist, I would just like to point out that the way the data is organized is very faulty and misleading. Also, the data source is mostly witness reports, not scientific data. While the data may be truthful, it is not accurate.

Take the time of attacks as an example. Most attacks happen in mid-day, with a spike at 2 p.m. This information might lead you to think that sharks are more active at this time. This is false, as shark behaviorists have PROVEN that sharks are diurnal, and are most active at dawn and dusk. The reason for the spike at 2 p.m. is that this is the most common time for humans to be in the water, not sharks. The reason so many attacks happen at 2 p.m. is because there are so many people in the water at that time. If you were to create a graph that proportionally mapped shark attacks against the density of humans in the water, it would be a completely different picture (and next to 0).

The same thing happened with the percentage of diver vs surfer vs other. "103 free divers where judgement was possible, 80% were engaged in spearfishing." Discounting the fact that the fragment isn't even a full sentence, it shows that most of the divers who were attacked were engaging in behavior that attracts sharks. If you're throwing blood in the water- OF COURSE you're going to attract hungry sharks. DUH! These two data sets of divers and surfers shouldn't be compared as they come from completely different settings.

Don't be so quick to believe what the internet says, not everything is true. This is not the best source for shark information. Just from a quick look through the website showed me that in 50 years, the site owner has only been published 9 times, a lot of them do not actually count as publications, and none of them are very reputable. The Shark Research Committee is a self-founded website (not organization) that is run by a single individual (Ralph S. Collier). A quick google search showed that the only thing he is tied to is this organization. Basically, this website is his resume, that is all. If he was to turn this in as his research paper in university freshman biology, it would fail.

[Seatan]

The same thing happened with the percentage of diver vs surfer vs other. "103 free divers where judgement was possible, 80% were engaged in spearfishing." Discounting the fact that the fragment isn't even a full sentence, it shows that most of the divers who were attacked were engaging in behavior that attracts sharks. If you're throwing blood in the water- OF COURSE you're going to attract hungry sharks. DUH! These two data sets of divers and surfers shouldn't be compared as they come from completely different settings.

I do agree with this. I am a SCUBA diver and have many, MANY friends who have dived thousands of times over twenty-five years or more (most people in SCUBA clubs are middle aged). Most of them have only seen "predator sharks" (the sort that could do you real harm) a few times, and none have ever had a close encounter--in fact, they describe themselves as "lucky" when they do get to see a shark! Those who saw them just stayed still and calm until it swam by or swam very slowly in the opposite direction. When a normal SCUBA diver does get attacked, it is usually because the shark a) felt threatened or b) wanted to know what they were so took a bite to find out (they do this to rocks and stuff, too) but that is rare.

On the other hand, I have heard MANY stories of shark sightings during spear fishing. It is the blood that draws them. You are actually at much greater risk of attack as a surfer paddling out from shore at morning or dusk since the sharks see your thrashing limbs and think they are fish, than you are by being your average joe SCUBA diver. It is VERY rare for someone who is simply doing SCUBA to be attacked by a shark. I can't say much else about shark attacks, because my knowledge is limited to the risks involved with SCUBA, but these diagrams made me raise my eyebrows and go 'really?', since diver attacks should NOT be listed as equal to surfer attacks in any sense... except when those divers are spearfishing, which I feel should be listed separately from regular diving since it is doing something to aggravate the attacks.

Sharks aren't interested in eating humans in general--we are not their natural prey--and they usually only attack when they confuse us with prey, be that by dangling limbs off a surfboard or by fish blood in the water. Personally, I would only spearfish in freshwater with no sharks.

[Echidna]

I'm not fond of statistics, because they seldom reflect the actual situation.
Wouldn't rely on them, no matter what.


When a normal SCUBA diver does get attacked, it is usually because the shark a) felt threatened or b) wanted to know what they were so took a bite to find out (they do this to rocks and stuff, too) but that is rare.

No one said that SCUBA divers are attacked often. They are quite safe compared to surfers and snorkellers.

However, for a tailswimmer, that info is pretty useless.
Even if all of us were world champions in freediving, we just can't be as unobtrusive as a normal diver, who can hide, lie on a rock and wait for the sharks to disappear.

Then there's the tail.
Seen from below, a tailswimmer would look like a really big fish (because we're too slow and cumbersome for a dolphin or small whale).
Together with the frequent surface stops, I'd say a tailswimmer has about the same risk to be seen as prey as a surfer/bodysurfer.

I can of course understand AtlantisDreamer's desire to swim in the ocean, but I couldn't recommend it with a good clear conscience when I know it's full of seals and big whites there (as she said in a previous thread).
It's really up to her, but the peeps who whole-heartedly advise to just jump in probably only have harmless smaller sharks in their waters. :p

[AtlantisDreamer]

As a biological scientist, I would just like to point out that the way the data is organized is very faulty and misleading. Also, the data source is mostly witness reports, not scientific data. While the data may be truthful, it is not accurate.

Take the time of attacks as an example. Most attacks happen in mid-day, with a spike at 2 p.m. This information might lead you to think that sharks are more active at this time. This is false, as shark behaviorists have PROVEN that sharks are diurnal, and are most active at dawn and dusk. The reason for the spike at 2 p.m. is that this is the most common time for humans to be in the water, not sharks. The reason so many attacks happen at 2 p.m. is because there are so many people in the water at that time. If you were to create a graph that proportionally mapped shark attacks against the density of humans in the water, it would be a completely different picture (and next to 0).

The same thing happened with the percentage of diver vs surfer vs other. "103 free divers where judgement was possible, 80% were engaged in spearfishing." Discounting the fact that the fragment isn't even a full sentence, it shows that most of the divers who were attacked were engaging in behavior that attracts sharks. If you're throwing blood in the water- OF COURSE you're going to attract hungry sharks. DUH! These two data sets of divers and surfers shouldn't be compared as they come from completely different settings.

Don't be so quick to believe what the internet says, not everything is true. This is not the best source for shark information. Just from a quick look through the website showed me that in 50 years, the site owner has only been published 9 times, a lot of them do not actually count as publications, and none of them are very reputable. The Shark Research Committee is a self-founded website (not organization) that is run by a single individual (Ralph S. Collier). A quick google search showed that the only thing he is tied to is this organization. Basically, this website is his resume, that is all. If he was to turn this in as his research paper in university freshman biology, it would fail.

I'm doing a BS in Physical Anthropology and noticed those same things... Especially with my dad being into pro saltwater fishing and stuff, the thing about time of day stuck out to me as well, because the best times for fishing are dawn and dusk and we usually see lots of sharks when they chum at those hours and not so many or none during daytime/afternoon hours.

[AtlantisDreamer]

I do agree with this. I am a SCUBA diver and have many, MANY friends who have dived thousands of times over twenty-five years or more (most people in SCUBA clubs are middle aged). Most of them have only seen "predator sharks" (the sort that could do you real harm) a few times, and none have ever had a close encounter--in fact, they describe themselves as "lucky" when they do get to see a shark! Those who saw them just stayed still and calm until it swam by or swam very slowly in the opposite direction. When a normal SCUBA diver does get attacked, it is usually because the shark a) felt threatened or b) wanted to know what they were so took a bite to find out (they do this to rocks and stuff, too) but that is rare.

On the other hand, I have heard MANY stories of shark sightings during spear fishing. It is the blood that draws them. You are actually at much greater risk of attack as a surfer paddling out from shore at morning or dusk since the sharks see your thrashing limbs and think they are fish, than you are by being your average joe SCUBA diver. It is VERY rare for someone who is simply doing SCUBA to be attacked by a shark. I can't say much else about shark attacks, because my knowledge is limited to the risks involved with SCUBA, but these diagrams made me raise my eyebrows and go 'really?', since diver attacks should NOT be listed as equal to surfer attacks in any sense... except when those divers are spearfishing, which I feel should be listed separately from regular diving since it is doing something to aggravate the attacks.

Sharks aren't interested in eating humans in general--we are not their natural prey--and they usually only attack when they confuse us with prey, be that by dangling limbs off a surfboard or by fish blood in the water. Personally, I would only spearfish in freshwater with no sharks.

The shark in my encounter was more interested in nosing my surfboard than me.

[AtlantisDreamer]

Then there's the tail.
Seen from below, a tailswimmer would look like a really big fish (because we're too slow and cumbersome for a dolphin or small whale).
Together with the frequent surface stops, I'd say a tailswimmer has about the same risk to be seen as prey as a surfer/bodysurfer.

I agree with you here.

[AtlantisDreamer]

I think it's more the thought of it that's such an issue. When I get in the water, the deeper it gets I get more and more panicky and I have never even dared try to touch the bottom because I don't want to know how deep it is. Then I start remembering things like, "they can hear a rapidly beating heart," and then my heart starts pounding and I start trying to relax but then I realize I'm treading water and scenes from JAWS appear in my mind. Eventually I end up swimming back in as fast as humanely possible. I usually take a surfboard with me on a very long leash, even just to swim, and push it far away from me as a "decoy" should something come'uh'lurking. I never had this ridiculous fear of sharks until the event with the great white nosing my surfboard that I mentioned previously. My therapist has said I need immersion therapy and I've tried but I can't stay out there much longer than ten minutes anymore. It's a bummer, too, because I really don't feel well if I'm not frequently connected to the ocean, physically.

[Echidna]

How about carrying a weapon?
Just to feel more secure.
And to have something except your bare hands to hold in front of you or below you as protection.

My favourite would be a trident.
Long enough to give me some distance.
Must be sturdier stuff though, not a flimsy costume item :p

[Mizuko]

This is really interesting. We lost another surfer last week on the West Coast to a great white- its always this time of year there are attacks as the sharks move south following the fish. The percentage of attacks here in South Australia are usually surfers or abalone divers- which is interesting because neither are releasing blood/thrashing around (unless the surfer is paddling, but if you've ever been on a board you know its 90% not thrashing, haha!), and both are in different areas of the water: surfers on the surface, ab divers are anywhere from 5 metres to 30 metres. Its hard to get an understanding, I suppose. I grew up with a generic fear of great whites (not other sharks, surprisingly) thanks to the area I live in; and I hear both sides of the 'shark' story from both biologists and witnesses.

[AtlantisDreamer]

Lol, that's funny (the trident). I have thought of just this myself, actually. I was thinking about either getting a diving knife, or a spear gun. Or maybe both, I guess... Everyone has told me I'm being ridiculous but they don't understand the place I swim in. The Monterey Bay, about five years ago, was overtaken by a foreign seaweed that accidentally traveled in with a Japanese tanker. The clams and invertebrates are unable to eat this stuff and it's growing like a weed. Since the shellfish are dying, the otters are hungry. The otters are practically extinct in the area now, and because of the ecological unrest, a massive amount of overpopulation is now occurring with the sea lions and seals. It's believed that they were eating the otters because their fish sources were altering. At this point, you can't even get a clam chowder bread bowl on the wharf anymore because they don't want people throwing the bread down to the sea lions. The sea lions have drawn in the hugest number of whites ever recorded in the area. So, it's not entirely that I'm phobic, it's also a thought that's fueled by what's going on. They are thinking about reinstating the ability for fishermen to shoot sea lions and seals within this specific bay to bring the population down, a law that was made to protect them in all of California many years ago. It speaks volumes about how bad the problem is...

[AtlantisDreamer]

I'm also not the only person who'd only been surfing a couple months before encountering their first white. Statistically that would be very unusual...

[AtlantisDreamer]

Oh yeah, recently I went out with my dad on a skiff for Lingcod (a type of Rockfish). We were chumming the water pretty heavily in this tiny boat and at first, sea lions were popping up everywhere. We'd take off at approximately 45 miles per hour for a good mile or two and then stop and wait. The heads would be bobbing back up out of the water, laughing and barking within only a minute or two. We decided to ignore them although my dad was yelling at them like you would a dog, "Go on! Git, you filthy dog! GO!" Lol... They are water dogs, afterall. All of sudden we saw several fins circling our boat... This is very unusual for the bay and only being out at the one mile buoy. I have seen them swarm the boats on charters when we're chumming out in the deep, but never in a skiff in the sea kelp area. It was extremely unnerving and we wrapped up for the day...

[AtlantisDreamer]

Do you ladies think this to be truth or not? This is a belief held strong in the surfing community: "Stay in the kelp beds as much as possible when you're just floating or resting. The whites get tangled in the kelp and won't go in there. You're always safe in the kelp... Especially if you wrap up in it and push your surfboard away as a decoy." I've heard this or something similar by many old dudes that have surfed for years... I haven't looked up the marine biology on it though so I don't know if it's true. Most surfers and fishermen have a lot of superstitions, so it can be difficult to sort out the *beliefs* from the truth. Personally though, I don't see why a shark wouldn't be able to swim into a kelp forest... I do think it probably helps, but I don't think it guarantees safety, the way the theory is so frequently told.

[AtlantisDreamer]

I'm looking at either making or buying my next tail and I want to do Neoprene under Silicone so that I can wear it in the bay without getting cold. I have been researching which fish whites will not eat - apparently the rockfish/rockcod, lingcod, halibut and other fish with extremely razor sharp spines as their fins do damage to the inside of the shark's body. Of course, they'll eat anything if they feel like it (Greenland sharks have been found with boots, rubber car tires and even old wooden boxes of nails in their stomachs), but I may have actual razor sharp spikes put on the tail. I had one other idea... Supposedly anything that's brightly colored is usually poisonous (bright pink sea slugs, certain types of parrot fish, pufferfish, etc.)... So maybe I'll make the tail bright purples and pinks with wicked sharp spines... I found a maker that will do it for only $2500 on Etsy, including the Neoprene on the inside. I'm toying with trying to make it myself first though.

[Seatan]

I'm not fond of statistics, because they seldom reflect the actual situation.
Wouldn't rely on them, no matter what.


No one said that SCUBA divers are attacked often. They are quite safe compared to surfers and snorkellers



The chart did, though. That was my point. When you just make a giant lump called 'Divers', most people will assume you are talking about SCUBA divers--freediving is not well known--which makes that chart not the best respresentation.




Seen from below, a tailswimmer would look like a really big fish (because we're too slow and cumbersome for a dolphin or small whale).
Together with the frequent surface stops, I'd say a tailswimmer has about the same risk to be seen as prey as a surfer/bodysurfer.



I am no marine biologist, but I wouldn't think that sharks would confuse a tail swimmer with a fish. Mermaids don't exist, and just because we're wearing something that WE think makes us look like a fish does NOT mean that the shark's brain is going to calculate it that way. I would bet the shark wouldn't know what we are (and might bite if interested) but I doubt they think fish. It is my understanding from friends who surf that the dangling limbs, because they are small and moving together, seem like fish moving in unison.

I dunno, I guess I'm just not afraid of sharks. There are SO many more dangerous things about the ocean than sharks. Drowning is so, SO much more likely, as currents can easily pull you way out to the point that you need to be a very strong swimmer to get back to shore. Jellyfish stings and poisonous fish and getting tangled in kelp and dehydration... They're not as dramatic as sharks, so I guess they're less scary to people, but I would never let a fear of sharks keep me out of the ocean anymore than I would let fear of wolves or bears or wild cats keep me from the forest. Now, the kind of BUGS they have in the rain forest is another thing entirely! Oh, and I am TOTALLY not interested in swimming in muddy waters full of pirahna! As much as I want to protect it, I do NOT want to visit the rainforest, LOL!

[Mermaid Sparkle]

Do you ladies think this to be truth or not? This is a belief held strong in the surfing community: "Stay in the kelp beds as much as possible when you're just floating or resting. The whites get tangled in the kelp and won't go in there. You're always safe in the kelp... Especially if you wrap up in it and push your surfboard away as a decoy." I've heard this or something similar by many old dudes that have surfed for years... I haven't looked up the marine biology on it though so I don't know if it's true. Most surfers and fishermen have a lot of superstitions, so it can be difficult to sort out the *beliefs* from the truth. Personally though, I don't see why a shark wouldn't be able to swim into a kelp forest... I do think it probably helps, but I don't think it guarantees safety, the way the theory is so frequently told.

I feel like it would be more dangerous to stay in the kelp beds as sit is lower visibility and can make it easier for a shark to confuse you with prey.
Also, kelp beds are where a lot of animals that sharks like to eat hang out, so I feel as if sharks would view kelp beds as an all you can eat buffet.

[Seatan]

I feel like it would be more dangerous to stay in the kelp beds as sit is lower visibility and can make it easier for a shark to confuse you with prey.
Also, kelp beds are where a lot of animals that sharks like to eat hang out, so I feel as if sharks would view kelp beds as an all you can eat buffet.

Yeah, I agree. Plus I am wary of kelp beds as it is so easy for YOU to get tangled, and if you don't have a knife, that can really suck.

[Mizuko]

Without sounding like doom-and-gloom, but sharks KNOW we aren't seals/fish.
They have better sight/smell/electronic senses than any of us. Water is murky? They can tell what is around them. They wouldn't have lived for millions of years otherwise.
They just dont care what we are! lol! We are in the water, we are slow. If they are hungry/curious they'll attack. They aren't dumb, mindless creatures, but they are so high in the food chain that they'll eat ANYTHING that looks organic (and sometimes bite on buoys/boats just out of curiosity). They can tell that we aren't fish or seals or dolphins, but why would they care when they can just go 'nom'. haha!

[AtlantisDreamer]

That's a really interesting take on things... I guess we're afraid of the opposite. I've been caught in rip tides where I had to ride them out several miles as to where you couldn't see the shore anymore before you would even get a icecube's chance in hell to start swimming parallel to get back to the shore. I wasn't afraid of being lost at sea, but I couldn't stop thinking about what might've been lurking below :p
On another occasion, it took me many hours to get back in from being just outside the breakers because the waves were at least 12 feet and I got smashed against the bottom over and over again - it was hard to keep my head above water. And then on a third occasion, my father and I took the skiff out past the 1 mile buoy but didn't realize it and nearly got lost at sea. It was dark, too. But you're right, those are much more dangerous situations and far more common than sharks. I still have not gone out in the ocean in my tail yet because I'm nervous about being in those conditions with my feet stuck together. Has anyone ever had to peel their tail off and ditch it in order to get back in? I can't imagine how you could battle against certain conditions without all four limbs...


The chart did, though. That was my point. When you just make a giant lump called 'Divers', most people will assume you are talking about SCUBA divers--freediving is not well known--which makes that chart not the best respresentation.



I am no marine biologist, but I wouldn't think that sharks would confuse a tail swimmer with a fish. Mermaids don't exist, and just because we're wearing something that WE think makes us look like a fish does NOT mean that the shark's brain is going to calculate it that way. I would bet the shark wouldn't know what we are (and might bite if interested) but I doubt they think fish. It is my understanding from friends who surf that the dangling limbs, because they are small and moving together, seem like fish moving in unison.

I dunno, I guess I'm just not afraid of sharks. There are SO many more dangerous things about the ocean than sharks. Drowning is so, SO much more likely, as currents can easily pull you way out to the point that you need to be a very strong swimmer to get back to shore. Jellyfish stings and poisonous fish and getting tangled in kelp and dehydration... They're not as dramatic as sharks, so I guess they're less scary to people, but I would never let a fear of sharks keep me out of the ocean anymore than I would let fear of wolves or bears or wild cats keep me from the forest. Now, the kind of BUGS they have in the rain forest is another thing entirely! Oh, and I am TOTALLY not interested in swimming in muddy waters full of pirahna! As much as I want to protect it, I do NOT want to visit the rainforest, LOL!

[Seatan]

Without sounding like doom-and-gloom, but sharks KNOW we aren't seals/fish.
They have better sight/smell/electronic senses than any of us. Water is murky? They can tell what is around them. They wouldn't have lived for millions of years otherwise.
They just dont care what we are! lol! We are in the water, we are slow. If they are hungry/curious they'll attack. They aren't dumb, mindless creatures, but they are so high in the food chain that they'll eat ANYTHING that looks organic (and sometimes bite on buoys/boats just out of curiosity). They can tell that we aren't fish or seals or dolphins, but why would they care when they can just go 'nom'. haha!

Strangely, sharks really do attack us because they think we're fish. I know it sounds crazy, but that's why you're supposed to be still when a shark comes near while you're diving. Splashing around near the shore, dangling limbs, and even the shape of a surfboard can confuse them. They don't attack humans for food--that's why most shark attacks are 'bite and leave'. They don't nom nom us 'cause we aren't tasty. The things that they need to support them, we don't have. Sharks aren't dumb, but humans aren't what they normally see, either. They're just mistaking our behavior for the things we see every day, kind of like if we saw a small comet and mistook it for a satellite, since we are used to seeing satellites move across the sky, but not comets. They're not being dumb, they're just not expecting humans where they usually see fish. Sharks are not the kind of animals that attack for some kind of motivation (like many forms of mammals, who will get angry and attack). They only bite things they are afraid might be a threat or that they want to eat, so if you're not threatening them and they realize you're not food, you are in no danger. Unfortunately, they often mistake us for food until they bite in! Then they go 'yuckie!' and swim off while we bleed into the water, LOL.

[Mizuko]

Strangely, sharks really do attack us because they think we're fish. I know it sounds crazy, but that's why you're supposed to be still when a shark comes near while you're diving. Splashing around near the shore, dangling limbs, and even the shape of a surfboard can confuse them. They don't attack humans for food--that's why most shark attacks are 'bite and leave'. They don't nom nom us 'cause we aren't tasty. The things that they need to support them, we don't have. Sharks aren't dumb, but humans aren't what they normally see, either. They're just mistaking our behavior for the things we see every day, kind of like if we saw a small comet and mistook it for a satellite, since we are used to seeing satellites move across the sky, but not comets. They're not being dumb, they're just not expecting humans where they usually see fish. Sharks are not the kind of animals that attack for some kind of motivation (like many forms of mammals, who will get angry and attack). They only bite things they are afraid might be a threat or that they want to eat, so if you're not threatening them and they realize you're not food, you are in no danger. Unfortunately, they often mistake us for food until they bite in! Then they go 'yuckie!' and swim off while we bleed into the water, LOL.

hrm, see, this is where the evidence and my own experience with sharks makes me disagree. They sure know we are not fish! haha! The 'bite and leave' is a curiosity 'feel' to see what we are, just like they do with boats and buoys. They know we aren't the usual prey. I've spoken to enough great white researchers to know this is the case. Of course, I cannot talk for ALL dangerous sharks, as I only know about Great Whites as they are the only immediate threat in my region. One attack was when a shark had been stalking two men who were walking on the rocks, following them in the water, waiting for them to get in. The shark was smart enough to know that human+water= easy meal. And I wont say all great whites do this, cos this was just one case, but because the attacks are so rare it has to be used as evidence.
Sharks see humans every day. We have helicopters searching the water all summer to guarantee no sharks are near swimmers but its estimated they only see 13% of the sharks that are actually there: the rest go unseen. Which means every single day we are coming in contact with sharks, but the sharks dont harm us and we dont see them. So we know that they are very used to people (the ones that follow the coastlines, anyways) and that its very rare for an attack. I'd actually believe if sharks DID think we were fish, we'd get attacked far more often.
Scuba diving is very different to surfing/freediving. It is recommended to not move when approached by any shark when scuba diving, yes, because they can see you as a threat and even a little 'go away' bite can harm us. But I've known a few abalone divers who have been attacked/killed by great whites and it was a case of: they could do nothing. They are sitting on the bottom, unmoving, but they still get attacked. Seals would swim away in an instant, as would dolphins, fish, etc.
I guess what I'm saying is that I will never believe the saying 'sharks get confused' when people are attacked. Unless the person is swimming in a fish-feeding-frenzy (and honestly, why would you do that?! haha!) and the water is so baited up the shark is blinded by smell, in most cases the sharks acute senses know exactly what is around them and what is edible.
Again, I am only speaking from experience and only talking about great whites. XD

[Mizuko]

ah, I would also like to add that this is from events that happen with Great Whites along the coast of Australia XD I cant speak for the Californian ones.
Great Whites at the bottom of South America are very different, which is awesomely curious. They are bigger, but are far less 'aggressive' (not the right word, but you know what I mean XD) and are more likely to do feeler bites on boats/buoys, etc. Scientists think its because they feed on the big, slow elephant seals, so they are less hungry which means they've got more time to grow/explore their environment.

[AtlantisDreamer]

Interesting. The one's here are rather vicious and currently underfed in the bay. How do you guys deal with Bulls and Tigers though...? That must be a scare.


ah, I would also like to add that this is from events that happen with Great Whites along the coast of Australia XD I cant speak for the Californian ones.
Great Whites at the bottom of South America are very different, which is awesomely curious. They are bigger, but are far less 'aggressive' (not the right word, but you know what I mean XD) and are more likely to do feeler bites on boats/buoys, etc. Scientists think its because they feed on the big, slow elephant seals, so they are less hungry which means they've got more time to grow/explore their environment.

[Anahita]

There are SO many more dangerous things about the ocean than sharks. Drowning is so, SO much more likely, as currents can easily pull you way out to the point that you need to be a very strong swimmer to get back to shore. Jellyfish stings and poisonous fish and getting tangled in kelp and dehydration... They're not as dramatic as sharks, so I guess they're less scary to people, but I would never let a fear of sharks keep me out of the ocean anymore than I would let fear of wolves or bears or wild cats keep me from the forest. Now, the kind of BUGS they have in the rain forest is another thing entirely! Oh, and I am TOTALLY not interested in swimming in muddy waters full of pirahna! As much as I want to protect it, I do NOT want to visit the rainforest, LOL!

My views exactly. I don't think an excessive phobia should be allowed to take over in these situations; regardless of whether it's in NorCal or SoCal the shark scenario is much less likely than something like drowning. Healthy fear of things is ok, as it encourages us to use caution and judge a situation and make an appropriate call. But letting a fear become an irrational phobia that completely rules your life and may in fact, cause you to create the very things that may make you a target for an attack (such as panicking and then splashing all the way to shore and thus drawing more attention) can't be good for your well-being.

Also, if you're afraid of being bitten by a shark in California, you should probably also be afraid of getting into a car - because you're statistically more likely to get into a serious car accident (and suffer a fatality from it) than you are to get bitten by a shark.... So, that's something. Maybe not comforting about the car, but it should be more comforting in terms of the shark.

[Mizuko]

Interesting. The one's here are rather vicious and currently underfed in the bay. How do you guys deal with Bulls and Tigers though...? That must be a scare.

I'd also like to know! :) as far as I'm aware people are more likely to be attacked by a bull shark than any other. Here in the southern coast of Australia bull sharks dont seem to be a problem, but up north they are everywhere! In water ways and creeks and marinas. The events which sparked the movie Jaws was actually based on bull shark attacks, not great whites. :)

Also, I'd like to add that I'm sorry if all this talk is scary XD
It really is SO much more likely to be hit by a car or something everyday/mundane than actually getting attacked by ANY species of shark! Shark attacks are so rare!

[Echidna]

Without sounding like doom-and-gloom, but sharks KNOW we aren't seals/fish.
They have better sight/smell/electronic senses than any of us. Water is murky? They can tell what is around them. They wouldn't have lived for millions of years otherwise.
They just dont care what we are! lol! We are in the water, we are slow. If they are hungry/curious they'll attack. They aren't dumb, mindless creatures, but they are so high in the food chain that they'll eat ANYTHING that looks organic (and sometimes bite on buoys/boats just out of curiosity). They can tell that we aren't fish or seals or dolphins, but why would they care when they can just go 'nom'. haha!

I agree (although surfboard incidents are certainly mistaken for seals).
Sharks are big predatory fish.
And predatory fish usually have the motto "if it fits in my mouth and there is space in my belly, it's food".
Thankfully for us, humans really don't look tasty to sharks (and most humans are not out in the deeper waters and hunting grounds, but in the shallows), and thus, accidents are few and far between.

But they do happen, and it's not always because you "did something wrong", or speared fish (seriously, those guys had it coming).
Your info on abalone divers is a good example.
My swimstyle fits that of an abalone diver pretty much (perhaps with less depth),
so I'll keep that in mind if I visit Australia :p

[Seatan]

I see where you are coming from, but sharks are not people and the whole "they are high on the food chain and will eat anything" is simply not true. Period. WE are high on the food chain and take whatever we like, but sharks only take what is beneficial to their health because they don't have consciousness at the level that we do. They are not "eating" when they bite boats or bouys--they do not have hands and this is what sharks do to "feel" something and decide what it is. This whole thought pattern of sharks being the ultimate killers has really cast this scary light on them when, really, they're like any predator: Out to get their particular prey and wary of anything that might harm them. But they are not the end all, be all of the food chain and they DO care not to just go 'nom' because they don't want to waste precious hunting time on things that are not nutritious. Many animals have senses much better than our, but that doesn't put them higher on the food chain than us and out to eat us. My pet snake is faster and can smell much better than I can, which can lead to him mistakingly biting me if my hand smells like rat, but he immediately lets goes when he realizes it is not something he can eat, and that's that. If it's not gonna hurt him and it's not something he wants to eat, then he is not interested one way or the other. Same with sharks.

Personally I just like to make it as clear to people as possible that sharks are not some kind of enemy, nor are they something to earnestly fear. They are just one more predator on a planet full of predators and are no more likely to kill you than a wolf pack. So, like in wolf territory, you just need to take precautions and not fear them simply because people have "humanized" them by making it seem as if they are out to get humans *insert Jaws music*. It gives sharks a much worse name than they should have, especially when the hippopotamus, one of the world's most dangerous animals, comes off all cute and fuzzy. I do understand, however, that sharks are a fear that has been ingrained into us since childhood, and that some people are really afraid, and that's okay. I just wish that people would look at sharks more like they do black bears or lions or wolves or hyenas--a predator, sure, but a beautiful part of nature that you can be in harmony with as long as you take certain precautions--instead of the demonized "Jaws" view we tend to have.

[Mizuko]

Maybe I'm coming off as "sharks are all evil" and I'm sorry if Iam >.< Because that is not my intention at all!
I think sharks are fascinating. That's why I'm so adamant that they are intelligent, clever animals, who are the top of the food chain and have been for millions of years: and that is awesome! Yes, shark attacks are scary, yes I do know people who have witnessed them/died because of them, but I will never hate sharks.They are, after all, just trying to survive.
When I say that sharks know we are not seals/dolphins/etc I'm not saying they attack us because they know we are humans and are easy to nom. For the most part they avoid us humans like the plague. Jaws made it seem like sharks were 'out to get humans' when a person was attacked, and that isn't the case. I agree with you when you say we need to stop demonizing sharks; but I think its also about accepting that people will be scared of them no matter what (like spiders! haha! I hate spiders-__- )
I have to admit- I never said sharks were ultimate killers :) In fact,I even said we only see 13% of them when searching, and the rest go unseen which means they obviously are there and aren't attacking us.I also said they do 'feeler' bites on things, not intentionally trying to eat everything, as a way of working out what it was.Humans, unfortunately, get bitten during these feeler bites- but they are feeler bites:the shark knows we aren't fish/dolphin/etc but it wants to know what we are. Usually it goes "ew, thats a lot of bones" and spits us out. Most great white teeth are found in buoys- because they are like "what the heck is this?" bite it, lose some teeth,and swim away. It doesn't mean they were trying to eat the buoy or thought it was a fish! Lol!
You mentioned they are like any other predatory animal: if a lion is hungry it will attack whatever is easiest (and this has been people)and I believe sharks are the same. Even snakes will attack people.And in the big picture: humans do the same. It does not make any of us evil, it just makes us predators. But I will always believe sharks are intelligent. People believe most predatory animals only know howto live, eat, mate, etc. But lions can count so they can work out the odds when fighting another pride; I wouldn't doubt sharks have similar abilities when hunting to work out which animal is slower/easier to eat out of a bunch of seals or pod of dolphins.
I'm in no way saying sharks are bad or evil. I am just saying the things I have learnt over the years from biologists/fishermen/surfers/abalone divers/etc. Just because they know we aren't fish, doesn't make sharks evil. Just like it doesn't make wolves evil for hunting elk. And like I said earlier, the percentage of sharks we dont see but still encounter outweigh attack numbers in the hundreds of thousands. Sharks know we aren't fish- and 99.5% of sharks will not attack a person. If sharks couldn't tell the difference between us and seals/fish, how on earth do people freedive with great whites and not get attacked? Like Hannah Mermaid or Kiwi Werner? The reason they do this is to prove to all humans that sharks know what we are, they can swim beside us without trying to eat us;they aren't killing machines who eat everything in sight.
Sorry about the long-winded answer XD I do agree with you when it comes to the craziness that Jaws created; but I also think people need to understand the risks and make judgments for themselves. Its ok to be scared of being attacked by a shark: I am! But knowing that its so so so so unlikely, and the behaviors of most sharks, really does help.

[malinghi]

To protect against shark attacks, what I do is... nothing. Shark attacks are rare.

Either I'm being reckless or everyone who's scared of sharks is being paranoid.

[Seatan]

Mizuko, I think we are saying the same thing and its coming out differently, or so i felt when I reread this thread. You are saying sharks are smart enough to know humans from fish and therefore just bite them for curiosity but, like any predator, they would attack us if it was really hungry enough, while I am saying that sharks are smart enough to tell humans from fish and the majority of the time they attack humans is because there is a good reason for them to logically think (from the movement in water/blood surrounding them/etc) that the human is actually the prey they are used to and they just get confused ( just as we humans sometimes mistake things for stuff they are not). So in a way we are saying the same thing, just a little differently.

I have no problem with people being afraid of sharks. I, myself, am afraid of the unknown beneath the water and would never go in muddy "black" water where predatory fish lurk--it's less a fear of, say, piranhas and more a fear of not being able to see what's coming! I have pet snakes and I love spiders and lots of other creatures that people are afraid of, so it's hard for me to understand fear of most animals, but I get that it is pretty ingrained in people. I am just sad we raise people to be afraid of awesome creatures (though its an evolutionary sound idea!). I definitely didn't mean to imply that you personally thought sharks were evil, it's just general sadness that so many people do. It's kind of like rattlesnakes. I LOVE rattlesnakes and am not afraid of them at all as they are a docile species that would rather hide than bite (the reason for their rattle!). But here in Texas they collect thousands and thousands every year for "Rattlesnake Roundups" where they chop off their heads (a horrifically brutal way to kill snakes who do not die right away) and cook them. This exposes children to salmonella, depletes the rat killing resources if the area, and (guess what?) accounts for most rattlesnake bites! So there is definitely a difference between people who are frightened of admittedly dangerous creatures and people who exploit a social disgust for a creature in order to kill it, which is obviously not you and I apologize if I came off sounding like that was what I was saying. I just love me some sharks and can talk about them (and rattlesnakes) until everyone is rolling their eyes, LOL

[AtlantisDreamer]

Me too, Seavanna... It's the murky unknown below that freaks me out. I don't like to even try to see how deep it is cause I don't wanna know what weird monsters might be lurking down there! And unfortunately, the ocean I live by is entirely dark water with no visibility and a plethora of great whites - and irritating sea lions, too, I might add. They will slink by you in the water and you'll freak not knowing what exactly just touched you or what current you felt. Then they bob their heads up around you within just a few feet of distance and, well, they're shark food, so it's freaky. I once got to touch one though...

[Mizuko]

That snake killing thing sounds horrible :( Similarly, the authorities go on 'shark hunts' after someone is killed by a shark (like a few weeks ago) to try and find/kill the 'man-eater'. Its pretty stupid. They dont kill ALL sharks, they just hunt for the culprit, but I dont really understand why they need to kill it. And the chances of actually finding the culprit is so slim- its a waste of the authorities time. It feels so ancient and silly.
I believe we are both on the same point! haha! We differ in some thoughts, but all in all its the same message :)
Also, I like snakes. Lol! Dont know why! They feel lovely to hold! XD

[AtlantisDreamer]

Oh yeah, the rattlesnake roundups... They're actually not for the purpose of making them extinct, it's actually this giant redneck hick gathering they sometimes call rattlesnake rodeos... They swing the snakes around by their tails, whipping them through the air and anti-venom is available in abundance. People gather in boxing rings with thousands of rattlesnakes and stomp them, fling them, swing them, snap their spines, etc. Then they barbeque them and make all sort of weird snake food - rattlesnake ice cream, rattlesnake steak, snake on a stick, etc. It's really horrific... And I don't like snakes, but the idea of treating any living thing like that disgusts me. It's a popular once a year thing near Abilene in Texas.

[Aziara]

Also, I like snakes. Lol! Dont know why! They feel lovely to hold! XD
Absolutely! Their scales feel so silky, yet you can feel the muscle power beneath. Really, the only critters I can't stand are those with 6 legs. *shivers*

[Jeblily]

Now, the kind of BUGS they have in the rain forest is another thing entirely! Oh, and I am TOTALLY not interested in swimming in muddy waters full of pirahna! As much as I want to protect it, I do NOT want to visit the rainforest, LOL!
Lol that is so funny!!!!!!!!!!! See I was a volunteer at the Georgia Aquarium and I saw them clean the piranha tank... Totally lost my fear of piranhas, a guy just would hop in the tank with his cleaning supplies and the fish would press themselves on the glass pane farthest from him!
Also last summer I spent two weeks in the rainforests of Costa Rica... One of our assignments was to catch different families of bugs! At one point I had like handfuls of these bugs I was trying to get into cages!!! The guides told us not to wear bug-spray because we would scare away the bugs. The coolest part were the machaca fish, they are like piranhas but only eat meat as juveniles. We would throw fruit off the bridge and they would jump out of the water and catch it!!!
Unfortunately camp rules were we couldn't swim because of the caiman though!!!
So I guess we all have our fears due to our experiences, like I love snakes, sharks,"bugs", rays, etc. but I have a horrible fear of driving.

[Jeblily]

Oh and quick note on the rattlesnake roundups, that is so sad, but it can be important. My mother grew up where they had a grainery and livestock farm down the road. One of the storage containers of feed became infested with rattlesnakes and allot of the livestock were dying from snake bites. They had to burn the storage bin to get rid of the snakes because there were hundreds. It is really sad that the snakes lost there lives but it had become too big of a danger for all the people and the animals.

[Echidna]

Similarly, the authorities go on 'shark hunts' after someone is killed by a shark (like a few weeks ago) to try and find/kill the 'man-eater'. Its pretty stupid. They dont kill ALL sharks, they just hunt for the culprit, but I dont really understand why they need to kill it.

It's probably because biologists say a one-time killer will become a serial.
It seems to be the case with bears/large cats.
While it's rare for a predator to attack a human, once they find out how easy prey we are- slow, incapable of climbing fast, jumping high, using camouflage, etc-, especially predators who already have a hard time finding prey due to overhunting often "specialize" in hunting humans afterward.

I'm not sure whether this is true, but it makes sense.

However, I have no idea how they could possibly find the animal in question.
Do they catch each, x-ray its stomach, and kill the one where human remains are found in, or what?

[Mizuko]

However, I have no idea how they could possibly find the animal in question.
Do they catch each, x-ray its stomach, and kill the one where human remains are found in, or what?

Unfortunately, they just go by the 'evidence' from the attack- how big the teeth marks are/witnesses, to work out the size of the shark and from there they just search around for a shark that fits that description :P

[Aziara]

I think they try to find one with a jaw size that matches the victims wounds... But I'm not sure

Edit: lol, me and Mizuko posted at the same time.

[Jeblily]

Based off of this article they will kills sharks near swimmers within the area that the attack occurred...... http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/27/14125550-kill-sharks-before-they-attack-humans-australian-state-will-do-just-that
and according to this article they are identifying specie and targeting likely sharks http://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/20092558/shark-attack-death-family-friends-gather-to-remember-victim-zac-young/

[AtlantisDreamer]

Unfortunately, they just go by the 'evidence' from the attack- how big the teeth marks are/witnesses, to work out the size of the shark and from there they just search around for a shark that fits that description :P

The major thing they look for are remnants of the body inside the shark and/or DNA evidence (oftentimes the person's body gets entirely digested but undigestable pieces of wetsuit and scuba gear or a piece of a surfboard or chunk of kayak that belonged to the victim are what's found). Their second major thing they consider is, as you said, the teeth marks and jaw size and create a replica of the exact marks and measurements down to the millimeter. Then they go do the dirty work and chum the water where the attack happened and try to find the shark that was aggressive. If they determine there was indeed a person in it's stomach, they gaff it, shoot it and then hang it in a public place so that people can see that it's gone - this is more of an east coast tradition, i.e. since Cape Cod got overrun with seals and now great whites are overpopulated as of this last summer. So, it's actually done with some scientific method and professionals do it, not groups of dumb redneck hicks. The science they use is reminiscent of what I studied as a physical anthropology major so I think it's kind of cool how they can identify them. It's just too bad the shark's put themselves in the position to get killed, or rather, if people would quit feeding the seals and sea lions, the overpopulation would go away and then we'd have less great whites, so maybe the problem is a problem because of humans, I don't know.

[AtlantisDreamer]

Based off of this article they will kills sharks near swimmers within the area that the attack occurred...... http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/27/14125550-kill-sharks-before-they-attack-humans-australian-state-will-do-just-that
and according to this article they are identifying specie and targeting likely sharks http://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/20092558/shark-attack-death-family-friends-gather-to-remember-victim-zac-young/

Wow. That's like... I don't know what to think. It seems like it would be extremely expensive in taxes, possibly detrimental to the environment there, and probably not very effective.