Beqa Shark Attack

[Dan]

Are you sure this is the same incident? The guys pushing the tiger off don't have poles and on my tiny screen, I don't see the tiger put a head in its mouth.

Not the same. I should have said: "here is another one". Post is corrected. Thanks for catching the error.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

If you have read "NIght of the Grizzlies", about the attacks in Glacier park in 1967, this sounds very similar.

Haven't read it, but how is it similar? The brief synopsis I found on Wikipedia had the following, which I don't think applies here: "However future events would show grizzly attacks to become more common, as Olson explains, because of increased human presence in wilderness areas and decreased habitat for bears to live in, reaching a critical tipping point in the summer of 1967."

This just looks more like what happens when a dive operation and their customers get complacent. I've had some "Oh, crap" moments on baited dives with tigers, but those are two "nope, uh-uh, *******************************!" close calls and they happened about two weeks apart according to the video captions. In the one clip, the customers aren't watching the tiger and the handlers redirect the shark right into their backs.

 

[BDinSH]

Wowzers!

I do hope that @BDinSH still uploads since the perspective would be from the other side and much closer/clearer.

I will upload the full clip later. I was told the diver bitten is an instructor and he was actually pretty cool throughout - he just tucked his head, hold on to his regulator and kept his calm. His hood and mask was pulled off and he got a "glazing" shallow bite with a 8cm cut on his head, otherwise nothing series

 

[BDinSH]

Sihui Liu

here is the clip

 

[Dan]

...there was a '0.8 centimeter long and 0.5 centimeter deep wound.'

According to @Aviyes "She said the victim was sent to a local clinic immediately with an eight centimetre long and 0.5 centimetre deep wound on his head according to medical report." in post #5, page 1, that would be ~3.1" long and 0.2" deep, about the thickness of the scalp right to the skull.

His hood slipping off his head during the bite might have saved him from crushed skull like those unfortunate turtles. So, wearing a thick hood during these kind of shark diving adventure is a good thing, like wearing a helmet, so to speak.

 

[chillyinCanada]

I still wonder what it was that had her go for him like that.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

According to @Aviyes "She said the victim was sent to a local clinic immediately with an eight centimetre long and 0.5 centimetre deep wound on his head according to medical report." in post #5, page 1, that would be ~3.1" long and 0.2" deep, about the thickness of the scalp right to the skull.

His hood slipping off his head during the bite might have saved him from crushed skull like those unfortunate turtles. So, wearing a thick hood during these kind of shark diving adventure is a good thing, like wearing a helmet, so to speak.

Generally speaking the hood is more useful so that you don't have drifting hair or, in my case, a big piece of pale meat hanging out to get attention.

I still wonder what it was that had her go for him like that.

As Johnoly has said and a shark expert I know opined, tiger sharks are nibblers. They tend to mouth things; the last time I did Tiger Beach we had a big female that just decided it was interested in the backup tank and BC our freediving guide kept on the bottom. She mouthed it at least three times; on the last occasion she actually grabbed it while he was taking a hit from the reg and tried to run off with it. While impressively enough she didn't do any damage to it in the process, those teeth are really sharp and you do not want them close to anything delicate like say, your head.

The point of a "redirect" (the "in the biz" term for pushing a shark away) is to avoid getting the bitey bits uncomfortably close. The problem here was when that diver in back first redirected the tiger, she got turned towards the rank of oblivious customers rather than away and there wasn't anyone directly blocking her. The DM on the left-hand side of the screen tries putting the prod in her face, but she goes to bite that and then comes right up behind the customers. Generally speaking if you let a tiger get its nose right up against you without offering any kind of resistance or eye contact, at the very least you are in for quite an adrenaline rush when you notice it there and possibly washing out the nether regions of your wetsuit afterwards.

The guide I went to Tiger Beach with has since quit the business (although he still dives with sharks and does documentaries); largely this was because of a two-legged predator but it was also the stress. You have to watch both the divers and the sharks at all times, and the briefing about watching the sharks and your personal space doesn't always sink in with the former. From what I've heard, that was how an another acquaintance of mine almost lost his hand - a couple divers weren't following instructions, and while he was trying to signal them a tiger started mouthing the bait crate he was holding on to.

 

[Gdog]

Haven't read it, but how is it similar? The brief synopsis I found on Wikipedia had the following, which I don't think applies here: "However future events would show grizzly attacks to become more common, as Olson explains, because of increased human presence in wilderness areas and decreased habitat for bears to live in, reaching a critical tipping point in the summer of 1967."

This just looks more like what happens when a dive operation and their customers get complacent. I've had some "Oh, crap" moments on baited dives with tigers, but those are two "nope, uh-uh, *******************************!" close calls and they happened about two weeks apart according to the video captions. In the one clip, the customers aren't watching the tiger and the handlers redirect the shark right into their backs.

In Glacier Park in Montana, there a couple Chalets that you can hike into and stay. Incredible country, fantastic vistas. In the 60's, it was common practice to discard food and scraps in the draw behind this particular chalet. Over time people would gather around the draw to watch the grizzlies feed and fight over the food. Then people started camping closer to the draw. On that night, a grizzly attacked and killed a girl who was camping by the draw. The same night, another girl was killed at a campsite on Trout lake a few air miles and a drainage away from the chalet by a different bear.
My point being, both this and that incident happened when food is put out as bait for us to watch these apex predators feed. And the more commonplace it becomes, the old saying becomes to life "familiarity breeds comtempt". We get used to nothing happening when we intrude on their habitat, and so its easy to forget what they can and occasionally will do. Im not saying anything for or against the practice, Ive done some of these dives myself. I just couldnt help notice the similarities of cause and results

 

[HalcyonDaze]

I do agree that some people forget what these animals are capable of. We had a poster who used to chime in on these sorts of threads who seemed to think tiger sharks would never, ever attack a diver without bait stimulus and when one of our local feeders (whom he had a standing grudge against) got bit he claimed it was the first and only time a tiger shark had ever bitten a feeder in the entire world. Which is, of course, a load of crap. They can hurt or even kill you; it's unlikely to be out of malice or hunger but simply because you're in proximity to a half-ton animal with teeth that can saw through bone and accidents happen - particularly when the animal in question will occasionally use its mouth to investigate something. Anyone who forgets that is in for a rude awakening.

That said, there are a number of important differences between sharks and grizzly bears. For one, I'm not going down to the bottom and curling up in a sleeping bag for the night; I'm down there for an hour and then I beam back up to the mothership. For another, I will take dealing with a predatory fish over a predatory mammal any day. A predatory fish has a pretty limited number of reasons to attack something; generally it's either hungry or curious and averse to tangling with something that can fight back. A predatory mammal on the other hand has a longer list of potential reasons to attack something, and if it's really hacked off you're in for it. A grizzly that's feeling territorial or heaven forbid, defending its cubs might knock you down the side of a mountain and then come down to finish the job on whatever's left.

 

[Gdog]

I do agree that some people forget what these animals are capable of. We had a poster who used to chime in on these sorts of threads who seemed to think tiger sharks would never, ever attack a diver without bait stimulus and when one of our local feeders (whom he had a standing grudge against) got bit he claimed it was the first and only time a tiger shark had ever bitten a feeder in the entire world. Which is, of course, a load of crap. They can hurt or even kill you; it's unlikely to be out of malice or hunger but simply because you're in proximity to a half-ton animal with teeth that can saw through bone and accidents happen - particularly when the animal in question will occasionally use its mouth to investigate something. Anyone who forgets that is in for a rude awakening.

That said, there are a number of important differences between sharks and grizzly bears. For one, I'm not going down to the bottom and curling up in a sleeping bag for the night; I'm down there for an hour and then I beam back up to the mothership. For another, I will take dealing with a predatory fish over a predatory mammal any day. A predatory fish has a pretty limited number of reasons to attack something; generally it's either hungry or curious and averse to tangling with something that can fight back. A predatory mammal on the other hand has a longer list of potential reasons to attack something, and if it's really hacked off you're in for it. A grizzly that's feeling territorial or heaven forbid, defending its cubs might knock you down the side of a mountain and then come down to finish the job on whatever's left.

I appreciate your view of this. Its interesting, that, with my upbringing and background in a family that spent their life in the woods and back country with these animals, I feel quite the opposite. I would rather deal with a predatory mammal way more than a 1200 lb shark that wants to taste me. More than likely, it is due to exposure and input over a lifetime of being in the environment of these creatures. Probably the same reason why you feel the way you do as well. To me, the similarity with both situations involve humans in the creatures habitat, baiting with food to bring them in, and watching while they feed. That mixture leaves the door open for injury to us, the weaker species, regardless of which creature it is that we are intruding on.