22' Great White in 10' deep lake....

[Rick Inman]

bumm-bumm......

bumm-bumm.....

bumm-bumm-bumm-bumm-bumm-bumm-bumm-bumm-bumm-bumm-.....


Sometimes I tell a little story to new divers when they do their first dive in our local lake.

"You see, our lake feeds the Spokane River, which feeds the Columbia and ends out to sea on the Or. coast. There are many dams between our lake and the ocean. But there used to be a good salmon run all the way up into our lake (true!) which is why we still have a good population of landlocked salmon (also true).

"As we all know, the Bull Shark can live in salt water, but has ventured up into fresh water and learned to adapt and live. The PNW Six Gill shark is closely related to the Bull Shark, and has this same salt/freshwater adaptability. Before the dams, the Six Gill shark would move up into our local lake, just like the salmon. When they built the dams, the some sharks were landlocked, and a small population still survives to this day in the lake. If you do a google search, you'll see that, over the years, there have been a few people in the lake bit by the sharks - mostly swimmers (you can find the articles in old copies of the Spoksman Review local newspaper). Only one diver has ever been attacked, but there is still one missing diver (from 1998) who has never been located, and his buddy says they saw a shark during the dive.

Okay, let's hit the water!"

You'd be amazed how many people actually believe this yarn... until the other divers in the group bust out laughing.

 

[SCUBAJENNIFER]

You're mean...

 

[SCUBAJENNIFER]

That would make sense. Bull sharks frequently travel up into rivers & lakes. They can adapt to freshwater. The "Lake Nicaragua sharks" are actually bull sharks.

Yep, and so are the sharks in the Ganges in India...

The show I watched actually went out and caught juvie bulls in those rivers.

 

[deco_martini]

But didn't they prove a few years ago that those attacks were actually Bull sharks? Not whites...I think I saw it on either Discovery or Animal Planet.

Just to be a stickler, this isn't a confirmed great white either. There are no pictures or evidence other than the testimony of a fisherman who claims it was bigger than his boat.

With those standards for reporting, I could probably find a 22 foot great white in my bathtub.

 

[SCUBAJENNIFER]

Just to be a stickler, this isn't a confirmed great white either. There are no pictures or evidence other than the testimony of a fisherman who claims it was bigger than his boat.

With those standards for reporting, I could probably find a 22 foot great white in my bathtub.

W T F? You're crazy...a fisherman would NEVER tell a story!!

 

[Lead_carrier]

W T F? You're crazy...a fisherman would NEVER tell a story!!

Ok, let's look at this logically. Fisherman, his version of 12 inches :giveusahu X 22 is probably more like 15 ft.

Throw in the MAN part, our version of 12 inches :icoeek: X 22 X fishersmens version. Well, it was probably a decent sized bass. :bubble_fi

 

[SCUBAJENNIFER]

Hmmm...wait a minute..I was always told that 9" was like this

<--------------------------------------------->

:huh:

 

[goldenbear01]

But didn't they prove a few years ago that those attacks were actually Bull sharks? Not whites...I think I saw it on either Discovery or Animal Planet.

i think i saw a similar show or the same one. soon thereafter, i saw another show that came up with a contradictory conclusion. then i read a book that suggested the attacks were done by several different sharks. i followed this up with another book saying that the attacks were done by just a single shark, a great white. this was followed by another book, which said it was a bull shark. and so the cycle continues...

in short, what i learned from all this is that no one knows exactly how many sharks were involved in the matawan bay attacks, nor does anyone know exactly which types of sharks were involved. at this point, everything is a "best guess" based on all of the evidence that was gathered immediately after the attacks, which isn't to say that none of the theories could not be right, only that there is no definitive answer at this time; it's likely to stay this way since the attacks took place almost a century ago, which makes finding new and material evidence somewhat difficult if not downright impossible.

incidentally, i've also heard that peter benchley's jaws was based on the matawan bay attacks. of course, some dramatic license was taken in his book, as well as with the movie.

 

[Hoomi]

I'm guessing that estimates of shark size are very similar to estimates of snake size. Anyone remember the reports of the nearly 40' long Reticulated Python a few years ago, that turned out to be considerably smaller? Despite having the snake in captivity in a zoo, and the size estimated by herpetologists, they still managed to way overestimate it.

How about this popular internet photo of a large Great White following a sea kayak? The estimate is that the shark is 4 meters (roughly about 13 feet or so), but what would most of us estimate the shark at based on that photo? I don't think I would have estimated as low as 13'.

I think the closer they get, the bigger they look.

 

[SkipperJohn]

I've read that most reported shark attacks on NJ beaches are actually bluefish attacks.
In most cases marine biologists come in and study the wounds made by the teeth. It is through the teeth markings the fish is identified. Usually this is long after the "shark attack" has been reported. I personally have been bitten twice serisouly by bluefish. If it were not for my bones I'd be missing body parts!