Shark Badly Bites Swimmer in Cancun Today
- Thread starter stevep4444
- Start date
Please register or login
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
jerryseinfeld
Registered
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
To be clear, when I said "cull" I meant keep the population in check, and certainly seek out and destroy and animal that attacked a human - just as the naturalists must do (sadly) with bears who attack humans in Banff, Glacier, Jasper national parks in Alberta and BC.
The more I read about this story, the more it becomes clear this was not a "birthing" animal disturbed by overzealous tourists (the predictable Mexican spin on the story), but an animal cruising the shoreline for extended lengths - as the anecdotes point to the fact that lifeguards some distance down the beach had already cleared their waters due to the shark being sighted, this just minutes before Ms. Moore was attacked, again some distance from the initial sighting.
Don't mistake me for some ridiculous tourist creeping up behind a grizzley on the yellowhead in Jasper; the fact is that many people who have good intentions as their first instinct is to "protect" any wild species of animal - and I am certain those on this site who advocate unchecked protection of this predator, or who believe the ocean is the sharks home which we are invading, have good intentions. But they are misplaced intentions.
Environmentalists also thought they were doing a wise thing by forcing the fuel supply to be delivered by biofuel. But this "eco-strategy" turned out to be shortsighted; it caused the price of corn to skyrocket and real people to starve in third world countries, and food riots worldwide, all so that spoiled westerners could feel good about driving an "eco-vehicle".
I see a similar parallel here. Our first instinct - indoctrinated into us by a guilt-ridden media - is to "conserve" at all costs. But at the cost of common sense?
What I'm suggesting is that, next time a fisherman takes a few man-killing sharks from the sea, we examine the actual impact instead of just reverting to our knee jerk impulse. Perhaps the shark population has been too protected, is swelling, and needs to be kept in check for the protection - and common sense - of all involved. Does this mean "slaughtering" (an emotion-inducing word used o divert from logic, I might add) all sharks? No. It means responsible environmental balance and dive shops who have a conscience think before chumming.
The more I read about this story, the more it becomes clear this was not a "birthing" animal disturbed by overzealous tourists (the predictable Mexican spin on the story), but an animal cruising the shoreline for extended lengths - as the anecdotes point to the fact that lifeguards some distance down the beach had already cleared their waters due to the shark being sighted, this just minutes before Ms. Moore was attacked, again some distance from the initial sighting.
Don't mistake me for some ridiculous tourist creeping up behind a grizzley on the yellowhead in Jasper; the fact is that many people who have good intentions as their first instinct is to "protect" any wild species of animal - and I am certain those on this site who advocate unchecked protection of this predator, or who believe the ocean is the sharks home which we are invading, have good intentions. But they are misplaced intentions.
Environmentalists also thought they were doing a wise thing by forcing the fuel supply to be delivered by biofuel. But this "eco-strategy" turned out to be shortsighted; it caused the price of corn to skyrocket and real people to starve in third world countries, and food riots worldwide, all so that spoiled westerners could feel good about driving an "eco-vehicle".
I see a similar parallel here. Our first instinct - indoctrinated into us by a guilt-ridden media - is to "conserve" at all costs. But at the cost of common sense?
What I'm suggesting is that, next time a fisherman takes a few man-killing sharks from the sea, we examine the actual impact instead of just reverting to our knee jerk impulse. Perhaps the shark population has been too protected, is swelling, and needs to be kept in check for the protection - and common sense - of all involved. Does this mean "slaughtering" (an emotion-inducing word used o divert from logic, I might add) all sharks? No. It means responsible environmental balance and dive shops who have a conscience think before chumming.
markmantei
Contributor
I like the alberta references!
I am certainly not advocating "conserve" at all costs, just that a "cull" is an extreme over-reaction to an exceptional incident. Take a look at the following threads:
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/mexico/366384-playa-del-carmen-sharks-wiped-out.html and
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/mexico/359631-playa-del-carmen-sharks-killed.html
The fisherman are not taking "a few man-killing sharks from the sea." By the way "man-killing" is intended to invoke a emotional reaction as well, there was not even a fatality in this case, and I do not know if there has ever been a bull shark fatality in the area. In regards to the fishing, there is no control, no quota, it is being done unchecked for pure profit. There is no indication that any of those sharks taken in the late 2010 incidents were of any threat to a human population. I do not think that the taking of so many sharks can be described as anything less than a slaughter. The irony here is that if there could be a sustainable commercial shark fishery, I would have no issues with that, just as I have no issues with a sustainable lobster fishery (yum) or a sustainable cod fishery. The problem is that in practice, generally shark fishing has not been done sustainably, and often is done in a cruel and wasteful fashion (finning).
I do not know any specifics about this encounter, and yes, if the animal was "seeking out" humans for food, or using the shallow waters for hunting ground (do they even do this???), it should be destroyed, just as the bears in banff and jasper are when they attack humans. The issue with the bears is that the park rangers try to "train" bears to fear humans through non-leathal means, but sometimes they fail resulting in bad interactions and the neccessary destruction of the offending animal (history has shown that these animals will tend to repeat their behaviour). In these cases a single animal is destroyed in order to reduce the likelyhood of a future incident, while maintaining the bulk of the population.
I am no environmentalists (see I'm from Alberta, I drive a big gas guzzling pickup truck, I support our oilsands, and vote Conservative, gasp!) but I do believe in balancing our impact on our environment. I don't think we should all go live in trees and become vegetarians, but I do think we have a duty to protect the areas we use for our recreation so it can be enjoyed by future generations. Lets use the resources that exist around us to make our lives better and more comfortable, just do it in a way that is generally sustainable. The point is not to conserve at all costs, but to try and maintain a population of an apex predator and thus to help to maintain the reef systems so I can selfishly keep going back to this wonderful scuba playground.
As I have previously said, and many other threads on this board mirror, the irresponsible dive ops that are doing feeding dives are at best damaging the sharks by conditioning them and changing their behavior and at worst endangering the divers that are their customers and the public as a whole. In a perfect world it would be those dive ops who would bear the brunt of the blame in these issues.
I truly feel for the swimmer, but I still believe this to be an isolated incident.
I am certainly not advocating "conserve" at all costs, just that a "cull" is an extreme over-reaction to an exceptional incident. Take a look at the following threads:
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/mexico/366384-playa-del-carmen-sharks-wiped-out.html and
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/mexico/359631-playa-del-carmen-sharks-killed.html
The fisherman are not taking "a few man-killing sharks from the sea." By the way "man-killing" is intended to invoke a emotional reaction as well, there was not even a fatality in this case, and I do not know if there has ever been a bull shark fatality in the area. In regards to the fishing, there is no control, no quota, it is being done unchecked for pure profit. There is no indication that any of those sharks taken in the late 2010 incidents were of any threat to a human population. I do not think that the taking of so many sharks can be described as anything less than a slaughter. The irony here is that if there could be a sustainable commercial shark fishery, I would have no issues with that, just as I have no issues with a sustainable lobster fishery (yum) or a sustainable cod fishery. The problem is that in practice, generally shark fishing has not been done sustainably, and often is done in a cruel and wasteful fashion (finning).
I do not know any specifics about this encounter, and yes, if the animal was "seeking out" humans for food, or using the shallow waters for hunting ground (do they even do this???), it should be destroyed, just as the bears in banff and jasper are when they attack humans. The issue with the bears is that the park rangers try to "train" bears to fear humans through non-leathal means, but sometimes they fail resulting in bad interactions and the neccessary destruction of the offending animal (history has shown that these animals will tend to repeat their behaviour). In these cases a single animal is destroyed in order to reduce the likelyhood of a future incident, while maintaining the bulk of the population.
I am no environmentalists (see I'm from Alberta, I drive a big gas guzzling pickup truck, I support our oilsands, and vote Conservative, gasp!) but I do believe in balancing our impact on our environment. I don't think we should all go live in trees and become vegetarians, but I do think we have a duty to protect the areas we use for our recreation so it can be enjoyed by future generations. Lets use the resources that exist around us to make our lives better and more comfortable, just do it in a way that is generally sustainable. The point is not to conserve at all costs, but to try and maintain a population of an apex predator and thus to help to maintain the reef systems so I can selfishly keep going back to this wonderful scuba playground.
As I have previously said, and many other threads on this board mirror, the irresponsible dive ops that are doing feeding dives are at best damaging the sharks by conditioning them and changing their behavior and at worst endangering the divers that are their customers and the public as a whole. In a perfect world it would be those dive ops who would bear the brunt of the blame in these issues.
I truly feel for the swimmer, but I still believe this to be an isolated incident.
- Messages
- 54,123
- Reaction score
- 8,270
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
Yeah, like I said, millions swim there every year and one poor lady got hurt.
I don't guess we have enough in common to talk further. Sorry & best wishes...
Ok, so this is how you walk away...! I like it, I hope I can do it as well cause this type of mind set is killing me....!!! There is enough mindless killing going on...
I should be thinking more about my son over in Afghanistan than continually get spent up over this...! Thanks again Don for showing me how its done...
lee
markmantei
Contributor
Ok, so this is how you walk away...! I like it, I hope I can do it as well cause this type of mind set is killing me....!!! There is enough mindless killing going on...
I should be thinking more about my son over in Afghanistan than continually get spent up over this...! Thanks again Don for showing me how its done...
lee
Lee, this may be off topic, but you can certainly let your son know that at least some of us still support their important work in Afghanistan and appreciate what they have given up to serve their country, and us as citizens of that country. Without those willing to put themselves in harms way, we back home would not be able to engage in such unimportant things as diving, or bickering on this board.
Bogtrotter
Contributor
The number of annual shark attacks is tiny relative to the millions of people that bathe, swim and dive the oceans annually. If anything it is the sharks that need greater protection considering the hundreds of thousands that are killed by humans every year. Certainly I feel badly for the victim, who as it turns out is going to be fine, but these accidents will happen from time to time wherever man meets nature- and the ocean is nature at it's rawest.
Last edited:
jerryseinfeld
Registered
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
Well said Mark Mantei I agree with the lions share of your post.
As for another comment by someone on here telling me to turn on the nightly news to see how man is ruining the planet, no thanks. Most of the media has bought into the enviro-concept hook line and sinker without much thought for balance (look no further the CBC's documentary on the oilsands, "Tipping Point" for evidence, not to mention the daily nagging by local news to take the bus etc.).
The news media is responsible for sensationalism, not rational thought. Heck, just look at sme of the coverage of this attack for an example!
As another example, by watching the news, you'd think violent crime rates have been going up for years, which is hardly the case. Violent crime in most major North American cities has subsided and gone down for decades.
Now look at your example, the environment. Look at how great things are! Our waters, lakes and air are cleaner than they were 30 years ago. There is more forest cover in Canada than 30 years ago, we are recycling so much more than we were 30 years ago. Cars are 80% more fuel efficient than they were 30 years ago. Life is GOOD!
Certainly human beings take resources (necessarily) from the earth and sometimes make a mess, but the land reclamation of these projects is unprecedented. Heck, I remember golfing once and one of my foursome telling me, as we were standing on the 12th green, then we're on top of a former landfill!
And besides, as much as peoplee want to "save the planet" (wow, what a lofty goal!), I don't think many would be willing to give up the superbly efficient transportation, heating, roadways, medical care, communication and general standard of living in so doing.
So relax, enjoy the diving!
As for another comment by someone on here telling me to turn on the nightly news to see how man is ruining the planet, no thanks. Most of the media has bought into the enviro-concept hook line and sinker without much thought for balance (look no further the CBC's documentary on the oilsands, "Tipping Point" for evidence, not to mention the daily nagging by local news to take the bus etc.).
The news media is responsible for sensationalism, not rational thought. Heck, just look at sme of the coverage of this attack for an example!
As another example, by watching the news, you'd think violent crime rates have been going up for years, which is hardly the case. Violent crime in most major North American cities has subsided and gone down for decades.
Now look at your example, the environment. Look at how great things are! Our waters, lakes and air are cleaner than they were 30 years ago. There is more forest cover in Canada than 30 years ago, we are recycling so much more than we were 30 years ago. Cars are 80% more fuel efficient than they were 30 years ago. Life is GOOD!
Certainly human beings take resources (necessarily) from the earth and sometimes make a mess, but the land reclamation of these projects is unprecedented. Heck, I remember golfing once and one of my foursome telling me, as we were standing on the 12th green, then we're on top of a former landfill!
And besides, as much as peoplee want to "save the planet" (wow, what a lofty goal!), I don't think many would be willing to give up the superbly efficient transportation, heating, roadways, medical care, communication and general standard of living in so doing.
So relax, enjoy the diving!
robbcayman
Contributor
Jerry, you seem intelligent, but misguided. The idea of culling sharks for public safety is a joke. How many shark attacks have happened in Cancun? It's not like this happens every day. A tourist got too close and got bit. I think you're overthinking this.
I disagree with your premise. If we as humans "culled" every animal that could harm humans there wouldn't be many animals left. I do, however, agree that sharks don't own the ocean. Humans are welcome to swim there, but there are risks. The same can be said for wandering around Yellowstone. There are grizzly bears out there and they present a risk, but rarely attack. We aren't going to start culling bears, because they might attack. Just take the necessary precautions and understand the risk of going into a different environment.
I disagree with your premise. If we as humans "culled" every animal that could harm humans there wouldn't be many animals left. I do, however, agree that sharks don't own the ocean. Humans are welcome to swim there, but there are risks. The same can be said for wandering around Yellowstone. There are grizzly bears out there and they present a risk, but rarely attack. We aren't going to start culling bears, because they might attack. Just take the necessary precautions and understand the risk of going into a different environment.
jerryseinfeld
Registered
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
Robb cayman reasonabel point. But if this (watch video):
Caribbean Iguana Riviera Maya, Mexico
is what's going on, then something needs to be done. feeding, encouraging, breeding deadly animals near populated areas is a recipe for disaster.
My contention is that if this is what's happening off the coast of playa del carmen/cancun (and it obviously is), it's not just a radom occurence. It's only logical that if you feed/chum/encourage predators like this (predators known for their aggressiveness in shallow waters) near major tourist/simming destinations, then the risks go up, the results of which we saw last week.
Respectfully
jerryseinfeld
Caribbean Iguana Riviera Maya, Mexico
is what's going on, then something needs to be done. feeding, encouraging, breeding deadly animals near populated areas is a recipe for disaster.
My contention is that if this is what's happening off the coast of playa del carmen/cancun (and it obviously is), it's not just a radom occurence. It's only logical that if you feed/chum/encourage predators like this (predators known for their aggressiveness in shallow waters) near major tourist/simming destinations, then the risks go up, the results of which we saw last week.
Respectfully
jerryseinfeld
Similar threads
