• Welcome to ScubaBoard

  1. Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

    Benefits of registering include

    • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
    • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
    • You can make this box go away

    Joining is quick and easy. Login or Register now by clicking on the button

How many fatal shark attacks to stop you diving

Discussion in 'Basic Scuba' started by Foxfish, Feb 18, 2014.

How many fatal attacks in an area to deter you from diving

Poll closed Mar 20, 2014.
  1. 1 per year

    2 vote(s)
  2. 2 per year

    12 vote(s)
  3. 6 per year. One every second month.

    13 vote(s)
  4. 12 per year. One every month.

    10 vote(s)
  5. 1 every week

    25 vote(s)
  6. I don't care and believe that shark finning or culling is morally wrong.

    89 vote(s)
  7. I find this poll disturbing and hopelessly flawed.

    61 vote(s)
  1. BCSGratefulDiver

    BCSGratefulDiver Mental toss flycoon ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 2,500 - 4,999
    Location: On the Fun Side of Trump's Wall
    I've dived off San Miguel a few times ... never was lucky enough to see a shark there, though. Beautiful place.

    My last shark encounter was nearly a year and a half ago. As you can see, it was a frightening experience ... :wink: (long'ish video, you can get the idea after the first 30 seconds or so) ...


    ... Bob (Grateful Diver)
  2. Hawkwood

    Hawkwood MSDT ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: None - Not Certified
    Location: NA
    Or bear or cougar attacks, such as we do have here occasionally. There have been approximately 15 fatalities from cougar attacks in Canada and the U.S. since 1970.
  3. Tigerman

    Tigerman Solo Diver

    # of Dives: I just don't log dives
    Location: Norway

    Scary ****! It almost acknowledge the fact that youre there!
    chillyinCanada likes this.
  4. chillyinCanada

    chillyinCanada ScubaBoard Supporter Staff Member ScubaBoard Supporter

    Ooooooh veddy scarrryy . . .. rofl3:

    Beautiful beautiful creature.. great video. . I'm jealous
  5. drbill

    drbill The Lorax for the Kelp Forest Scuba Legend

    # of Dives: 2,500 - 4,999
    Location: Santa Catalina Island, CA
    When I was down off Guadalupe Island (Baja California, Mexico) back in 2005 with a scientific expedition, we had a couple of Mexican abalone divers come up to our boat in a small skiff. In the middle of the skiff was a rather large pile of abalone. They wanted to trade abs for some alcohol... but didn't recognize the names of the premium brands the boat owner stocked and rejected them.

    Since we were down there to film great whites (Dr. Guy Harvey filmed in one cage and I filmed in the other), we asked them about any great white encounters they'd experienced while diving for abs there. They said yes, they had experienced some and lost a few divers in the process. However, they seemed to view it as simply one of the occupation hazards. Interesting perspective. Too bad many urban dwellers are not prepared for the reality of entering the water realm. I hate to see anyone attacked, especially fatally, but there are certain realities in life one must face. As a SCUBA diver, I think my risk is far less than a swimmer, bather or surfer. I hope I'm correct in that. Statistics in my region seem to indicate I'm right.

    In my travels around the globe, the only time a shark has "attacked" me was when I tried to reposition a harmless 18" horn shark to get a better camera angle. It was not interested in becoming a star in my cable TV show. It swam up to my chest and started "gumming" my wetsuit. I laughed so hard that the reg fell out of my mouth. Now, I'll admit, I wouldn't want to irritate a large great white... but I also wouldn't try repositioning one for a better camera angle!
    boulderjohn likes this.
  6. KevWind

    KevWind Regular of the Pub

    # of Dives: I just don't log dives
    Yes try this "data point" everyone agrees when someone VOLUNTARILY engages in higher risk behaviors they VOLUNTARILY PLACE THEMSELVES and anyone who attempts to help them at a higher risk. You call it a data point most call it simple common sense.
    Yes indeed when someone ignores warnings and suffers the consequences THEY HAVE IN FACT FOR TOTALLY VOLUNTARILY and SELFISH REASONS unnecessarily placed others at risk and unnecessarily created sadness within their family.
    Certainly they alone are responsible for any ensuing " tragedy" certainly not shark.

    Yes they clearly posted the warning signs and since they were blithely ignored . The community is now considering upping the ante to "banning swimming". Perhaps if people are to stupid or selfish enough to not regulate themselves they risk encouraging the government to do it for them . This is however is not NEWS ,it happens all the time. The question is what kind of regulation

    So are you suggesting Banning Swimming Surfing and Diving ? That would in fact be more "effective" .

    I'll wager not I'd speculate even though you don't want to admit it, your trying to back door, justifying culling. Interesting in light of fact that you attempted to expunge "culling" as the primary portion for the most popular poll reply. Oh hell why not have both ways hey?

    No but they are VOLUNTARILY in the water which of course the sharks aren't .

    Back to dubious ad hominem yet again .....

    Ya us land lubbers must be totally clueless about attacks on humans by wild animals ! It's not like people other than in WA get attacked by wild animals when they VOLUNTARILY go into or decide to live in areas inhabited by Bears, Bison, Moose, Mt Lions etc..

    One has to wonder WHAT IS THE POINT OF YOUR ENTIRE POST ? Yes people get attacked Yes the risker their VOLUNTARY behavior the more the risk BUT of course that is not being debated nor is that REALLY your point, is it. The most logical speculation is that you are still attempting to justify calling for " RANDOM CULLING" thus "steps are ineffective. " if not your entire post is pointless. Of course you attempt to avoid actually stating your implied because you have already also stated in another thread that "culling a few sharks" will do nothing to actually significantly reduce the number of sharks there by also rendering it "ineffective. But why bother with logic or consistency at this point.

    None of the above changes the fact that when something voluntarily "INVADES THE Home" of something else, even if just to share in enjoyment of the resources, and suffers consequences. That calling for "random culling" of the "invaded" is dubious and specious

    Follow that line of reason to logical conclusion A burglar invades a home to share in the enjoyment of the resources, and the home owner attacks the burglar. Lets randomly "cull" some home owners. That will help ?

    Sounds ridiculous to you hey? because you seem to fail to understand not everybody ( in fact most do not ) agree with , your apparent belief that, selfish invasive recreational interests of humans should take president over the lives of the native species. That is what is what is really driving you to relentless promulgating inane statements and conclusions.

    But all in all you are keeping the thread alive and entertaining.
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2014
    scoobydrew likes this.
  7. scubastingray

    scubastingray Solo Diver

    # of Dives: 100 - 199
    Location: Cleveland/Jacksonville

    I'd add to that the issue of visibility. Shark attacks often occur where there is zero visibility and swimmers are mistaken for prey. I don't know about you, but I like my dives to have at least some visibility. ​
  8. Tigerman

    Tigerman Solo Diver

    # of Dives: I just don't log dives
    Location: Norway
    Which is 100% irrelevant as where you live and where you dive is not an exclusive relationship.
    You also obviously dont know this but on of the most popular destinations for norwegian divers is the red sea, a 4 hour flight away and somewhere 5 people where attacked within a week just a few years ago - i went there just a few weeks after ig happened knowing ALL the victims where reefwalkers...
    Im yet to go there for a week without encountering some kind of sharks :D

    Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
  9. Foxfish

    Foxfish Solo Diver

    # of Dives: 200 - 499
    Location: Perth, Australia
    Your team evidently decided the risk of diving with white pointers was so high they needed to dive within the protection of a cage. I've been saying pretty much the same thing from the start of the thread. The poll indicates most people disagree.

    Which clearly contradicts what you indicated in the previous paragraph. Your actions in this case speak louder than your words. We may disagree where we draw the line but in principle we agree that when the risk of a fatal attack gets excessively high sensible people and communities take steps to mitigate the risk.

    Approaching this from a different perspective, I've reviewed a few threads where divers have explained scenarios that have occurred while diving overseas with local guides that have resulted in serious injury and even death. Clearly the benchmark for safety set by these locals is often much lower than our own. Using your line of reasoning, overall the number of incidents are relatively small so why bother?

    The reality is that diving in the vicinity of man-eating sharks poses a significant threat to divers. That was why you and your film making friend chose to dive in a cage. So again your actions speak louder than your words.

    Let me turn attention back to the original intention of the thread and the OP. It asks how many fatal shark attacks in your area would need to occur before it would deter you from diving the area.

    You've indicated that at some level the risk of an attack is too high and you wouldn't dive without protection. How many fatal attacks would need to occur in the area you dive before you decided that you were approaching the level of risk where you would not dive without a cage?

    It's worth highlighting again here the huge discrepancy in responses to the the risks confronting divers. In the areas I dive there are literally thousands of caves/caverns/swim throughs. Most divers who enter these have no backup torch, guideline or cave diving qualification. I've never seen anyone lay a guideline. To the best of my knowledge no one has ever died. Mention that on this board and many divers get apoplexia. Threads promoting this kind of activity get shut down. In the same area there have been two fatal attacks on scuba divers in recent years. The overwhelming response is don't worry about it. It's just one of those things.

    ---------- Post added March 2nd, 2014 at 07:27 PM ----------

    Which may serve to highlight your lack of judgement in this regard.

    ---------- Post added March 2nd, 2014 at 08:31 PM ----------

    We agreed then. Yet many divers have indicated on this thread that regardless of how high the risk of a fatal attack was they'd continue to dive. You call that selfish and stupid. Rodney Fox calls it mad. I'd agree with both and don't consider this a valid option on a diving board that promotes sensible and safe diving.

    The point of the thread was to investigate what divers consider to be an unacceptably high level of risk based on the number of fatalities that have occurred in an area, not to discuss ways to mitigate the risk of an attack. The OP simply assumes that at some point a diver will consider the risk to be unacceptably high and be deterred from diving.
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2014
  10. gcarter

    gcarter Contributor

    # of Dives: 200 - 499
    Location: Ottawa, Canada
    Because stupid people do stupid things in spite of the fact they are warned not to do the stupid things because it can result in their death is no legitimate reason to cull sharks. They reaped a predictable consequence to their own actions and conscious choices. They fault lies solely with them, no one else. Any impact on their families or the wider community is the fault of them, no one and nothing else.

Share This Page