Shark attack in Florida

[Rick Murchison]

Was Ono Island originally called "Goat Island"?

Ono was named by the Spanish circa 1520... so I don't think so.
There is a "goat island" in Lake Martin...
Rick

 

[Spectre]

Two questions - Rick - Had beer been invented when you were a kid?

There's been evidence of brewing techniques since the ancient egyptians.

But I'm pretty sure we hadn't started milking cows by the time Rick was a child. But it really didn't matter anyway, since wading through the surf was safe back then... sharks hadn't been invented yet.

 

[The Chairman]

There is a "goat island" in Lake Martin...

WOW!!! You had a whole island named after you???

 

[Lil' Irish Temper]

WOW!!! You had a whole island named after you???

No, that's not the case, it would be called "Old Goat" island if it was named after him :11:

 

[Rick Murchison]

No, that's not the case, it would be called "Old Goat" island if it was named after him :11:

Nah, that would be named after Smedley.
Rick

 

[Rick Murchison]

Hey Rick -That's why I didn't get your point on "killin em" earlier in this thread-maybe you were being sarcastic?

No, afraid I wasn't being sarcastic at all. The most common bite is the "bite & spit" - where a shark encounters a human either by running into them in poor visibility or while attacking bait, or in a case of mistaken identity, thinking the human is a seal or turtle. In the bite & spit "attack" the shark essentially takes a "test" bite, decides the human isn't food, and goes on about his business. But to us even a little nibble from a shark can mean life-threatening bleeding and an egregious wound that may kill or permanently cripple one of us.
In this case, however, the witness stated the shark continued to attack and to follow the vitim to shore; the autopsy (as reported in the papers - not reliable but it's all we have) concluded "multiple bites." This is not "normal" shark behavior for our local sharks, and a shark that behaves this way is liable to strike again, on purpose rather than by accident. For that reason this particular animal needs to be killed.
The hard part is figuring out which animal it is - and as I mentioned before, the unfortunate thing is that either it will take another attack by the same animal to ID it, and if the ID fails then any shark in the northern Gulf is going to be in imminent danger - 'cause folks would rather kill them all than take a chance on leaving a real man-eater alive.
Rick

 

[saildiver]

No, afraid I wasn't being sarcastic at all. The most common bite is the "bite & spit" - where a shark encounters a human either by running into them in poor visibility or while attacking bait, or in a case of mistaken identity, thinking the human is a seal or turtle. In the bite & spit "attack" the shark essentially takes a "test" bite, decides the human isn't food, and goes on about his business. But to us even a little nibble from a shark can mean life-threatening bleeding and an egregious wound that may kill or permanently cripple one of us.
In this case, however, the witness stated the shark continued to attack and to follow the vitim to shore; the autopsy (as reported in the papers - not reliable but it's all we have) concluded "multiple bites." This is not "normal" shark behavior for our local sharks, and a shark that behaves this way is liable to strike again, on purpose rather than by accident. For that reason this particular animal needs to be killed.
The hard part is figuring out which animal it is - and as I mentioned before, the unfortunate thing is that either it will take another attack by the same animal to ID it, and if the ID fails then any shark in the northern Gulf is going to be in imminent danger - 'cause folks would rather kill them all than take a chance on leaving a real man-eater alive.
Rick

I mostly agree with everything you say Rick-except the "normal" shark behavior. I'm not sure we know what "normal" is in the case of attacks all that well. We don't really know why one Bull shark will attack and the next one won't in the same circumstances in the wild-but it probably has to do with a lot of factors. 1)Level of hunger-a shark that is more hungry is more likely to attack-less likely to "bite and spit" and more likely to "bite and continue to eat"...this would be NORMAL for most all living creatures. 2)size of shark-the larger the shark,if it does bite,the more likely the wound will be more serious or fatal. 3)Also-on the whole larger Bulls,Great Whites,and Tigers ,for instance,are generally used to eating animals closer to our body size,they are less intimidated by us, they are curious about us and they show little fear as they have few if any dominate preators above them in the oceanic food chain to be afraid of. 4)Shark food preferences-many sharks have very specific diets-however others,esp. the Bulls and Tigers will try eat almost anything once-if not very hungry -they may just be sampling and"bite and spit"...but if they are very hungry...after sampling,they very well may continue to feed. 5) Where the sharks tend to spend much time in relationship to where the people are-obviously Great Whites hang out where a lot of surfing and spearfishing is done:Bull and Tigers frequently come into the shallows and as I said earlier-often look for an easy meal there of almost anything they can find-this is where a lot of swimmers, bathers,waders, fishermen,snorkelers, & surfers populate the waters- precisely where they are bitten by these sharks......But human charactoristics account for a great degree of why shark attacks occur.6) Other possible factors to consider are -what was the person doing to increase the risk of attack? We know that swimming and excessive splashing can attract sharks. We know spearfishing with the vibes injuresd fish give off, & the bleeding the fish do, can greatly raise the risk of shark attack. Being in the oceans at dusk till dawn poses higher risks since some sharks feed more actively then. Poor visability-you cant see the shark and the shark cant see you well causing misinterretations by the shark as to what he's even biting 1) If we didn't venture into the sharks habitat ,there would be no shark attacks(they won't get us on land)...the ever increasing expansion of the human population into the sharks biosphere leads to more encounters with sharks -although the actual number of shark attacks worldwide doesn't appear to be increasing dramatically(secondary to the reduction in the shark population over the same time?)-numbr of shark attacks averages about 70-72/year and only approimately 15% of attack victims die per year. 2) The activities we do in the water have a lot to do with risk of being attacked by a a shark-as mentioned above-different activities have different risks- Fortunately,scuba diving :10: appears to be the safest water sport we can induge in without much worry from shark attacks(See Global Shark File). Blood in the water is definately a chemical that is very likey to attract sharks to you. I also don't agree that the shark should be killed :06: because now he's going to 'kill again"-There is no proove of that...and as you rightly pointed out-it could be extremely difficult to find the shark that did this-alot of innocents might have to be scrificed & gutted before finding any human remains. All in all-I think that its our responsibility to keep our selves save ,educate our selves about the dangerous creatures of the oceans,and stay out if we dont know whats going on under the water...Peace...Saildiver. :dazzler1: