Shark bites liveaboard guest

[Nylorac]

That's a huge assumption. People looking into JASA are greeted by a pretty web page with a dolphin photo. When they click on animal encounters and look at descriptions of tiger and bull shark, they are painted as skittish. If you read the captain's own blog, the dangerous tiger sharks are given pet names. Even acts of aggression like losing a camera are spun into funny anecdotes (we named the reef after the camera!).

When they check the schedule for this operation, they see a regular routine diving schedule of dives with these animals which gives them a sense of normalcy.

And yes, people later sign waivers saying they understand all the risks.


JASA: Bahamas Shark Encounters

Does that seem like its trying to inform someone of the risks or gloss over them?

If you can prove to me that every someone who takes this kind of trip fully understands how dangerous it really is, I will gladly concede the point.

------------------

I said "If you decide to dive when someone is chumming known man killers without a cage you should have already investigated the risks." That means you should thoroughly investigate the risks - not just read the providers website. If I sign a waiver I make damn sure I understand it. That is actually the point - waivers provide disclosure about the risks. Then you weigh the pros and cons of engaging in the dangerous activity and make a conscious choice whether or not to participate. Do you sign waivers without reading them?

 

[mempilot]

Diver wants to experience sharks up and close.

Diver researches what operators will make this happen.

Diver signs waiver after reading and being told the danger/risk involved.

Operator does exactly what said diver paid him to do.

Diver sees sharks up and close.

Diver gets bit.

Diver dies.

The whole dive community gets in an uproar and throw opinion and enuendos out.

The non-dive population gets in an uproar.

Mind you, none of these people were involved in the contractual agreement between the operator and said diver.

Family of the diver sues operator and puts him out of business.

Sad thing is, diver got what he paid for. It just ended with the wrong roll of the dice.

Sad all around; for the diver, the operator, the family.

The community gets it's Frankenstein and moves on.

 

[cappyjon431]

So when did a feeding shark become unnatural?

I think it was pretty clear from the context of my post that I was comparing seeing sharks swim by without the need to chum the waters VERSUS seeing sharks which have been drawn in by man introducing food into the water. Sorry if I was not clear enough for you.

On the other hand, if you want to argue a syllogism that goes something to the effect of "Man is part of the natural world." And "Sharks are part of the natural world" So therefore, "Man feeding sharks is part of the natural world," then by all means do it. I think this thread could use an additional 25 pages.

 

[deco_martini]

Diver researches what operators will make this happen.

They probably research it by reading threads like these:
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ch...boards/201991-jim-abernathy-s-liveaboard.html

I agree that the tigers are impressive, but I've been to Tiger Beach with my wife and kids (ages 11 and 15 at the time) and did not feel threatened.

And of course, the ops web site where the danger of diving with tigers isn't accurately reflected.

Diver signs waiver after reading and being told the danger/risk involved.

Yes yes, after seeing how safe tiger dives are from all their research. they get the obligatory "you could die, sign the waiver" stuff in the mail and flip through it before signing it


I think the problem is the dive community turned a blind eye to this for too long and even started getting lulled into going on these dives and supporting this kind of reckless operation due to the thrill of getting cool photos or doing a dive very few other were doing. After all, we had all these cool pics on the forum and people even taking their kids! Now there's a lot of egg on faces and we have people arguing silly things like buyer beware and that diving with tigers is a "safe" operation.

 

[mempilot]

Anyone looking to dive with sharks without a cage either already understands the danger or they are an idiot. Sorry to be so matter of fact, but it's the truth. Walk up to 100 people on the street and ask them if they would get in the water with a large shark and they would say NO FREAKING WAY! So, you find the small percentage of the population that would say yes, and either they understand the risk, or they are stupid. I'm sure Jim's waiver has the words injury and death on it. Stop coddling people.

 

[deco_martini]

Walk up to 100 people on the street and ask them if they would get in the water with a large shark and they would say NO FREAKING WAY!

Which is part of the problem. However, if you show a diver a picture of tiger beach and tell them people go there all the time, some weird thing pops in their head and they start thinking "maybe its not so dangerous after all".

In the thread I linked, the guy had taken his teenage children on the dive.

There is a difference between coddling people and a dive op doing its due diligence to keep its people safe.

 

[scu_ba_doo]

Always bad to get the ambulance chasers involved. Like the old joke: "what's the difference between an attorney and a catfish? One's a scum sucking bottom dweller and the other's a fish."

I have read all the news, I have now read all of this blog, I feel bad for the family of this man, my prayers go out to them. As a diver and a adventure, I feel if I deside to go out and do something that might be Dangerous, after reading and signing releases, and die (which I pay insurance to protect me from Frivolous law suits) knowingly that sharks may bite or get injured from. Then I and my family need not ask for, crooked no account lawyers for help.

We enter a sport, knowingly and understand that you may have lose of life. Anyone that sees the word SHARK with normal common sence, should know that you may or may not get out of the water alive or with all body parts. And if all goes to plan, you will go home with memorys that national geographic cant capture. No not all sharks bite, No not all sharks kill, No not all shark swim around in the ocean looking for a human to eat. But for thous of us that understand that, we shouldnt have to have and attorney explain that to us, dont do it but if you do, your family will get tons of money after I get my 33 and 1/3 percent.

I read a quote once. " Shakespeare: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers'."

IMO we all have the right to deside what we love to do, golf, bowling, skydiving, mountian climbing, racing, crossing the street without cross walks, ect. Accidents happen, and humans do make mistakes, not even attorney are perfect. Quote: I thought we had a good case. Sorry but we dont give refunds, so sue me! (got this from my attorney when I spent 5k and lost.)

Let us divers band together and stop letting land lock, scarded of the boogie man, control us the diving community from educating the world of what we love to do!

Again my heart goes out the the family of this gentleman, diver, adventurer.

 

[deco_martini]

Well, lets see what Jim has to say in his own words:
Baiting/feeding sharks: the controversy - Wetpixel :: Underwater Photography Forums

If what you are saying is actually true about someone getting killed at an organized shark dive, please tell me the name of the victim (your friend), the name of the dive operation that ran the organized shark dive and the year it happened, so I can look into it. This is the first I have heard of anything like this and I will be happy to share my results (good or bad) with everyone, after you give me this information and I look into it. I agree with you that people have died feeding sharks, in fact the global shark attack files is on record saying that "90% of all shark attacks are directly or indirectly attributed to fishing which is one form of feeding." According to this organization (GSAF), directly means they were holding the fishing pole or spear gun themselves when they were bit and indirectly means their friend got bit, while they were hold the fishing equipment. In fact, all of the fatality's in the US were indirectly attributed to fishing. Presently according to both the Global Shark Attack File and the International Shark Attack File, their has NEVER been a fatality at any organized shark dive worldwide.

So he knew that most shark fatalities had a food stimulus factor yet he still operated dives using food stimuli. It is worth pointing out that when he made this statement in 2003, most shark feedings were feeding sharks who eat dead and dieing fish like the carribean reef shark.

Jim pioneered cageless dangerous shark diving and championed the safety of unrelated reef shark feeds to back it up.

I only mention this because its ironic. DEMA has issued a statement:
Source: DEMA addresses Shark Bite in the Bahamas

Shark diving has been practiced safely and successfully for the last 25 years without major incident.

Someone tell them this should read "until now".

Guidelines were formalized in 2001 by the Global Interactive Marine Experiences Council in the "Florida Guidelines and Management Programs for Interactive Marine Experiences" which are available industry-wide.

Available industry-wide, which is why google can't find them. How is a consumer supposed to know if a dive op is following these guidelines if they hide them? Moreover, Jim Abernathy is on the council that wrote these rules.

All I can say is shame on DEMA. Letting Jim Abernathy write shark dive guidelines is like letting Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan write a sobriety guide for young women. Diving cageless with chummed tiger sharks is fundamentally unsafe even if theres a "no hand feeding" rule.

 

[Scuba Laura]

My condolences to the family.

Feeding any wild creature above or underwater is wrong, it's really that simple. Feed your cats, dogs, birds and any other pet. Leave nature alone.

 

[BKP]

Diving cageless with chummed tiger sharks is fundamentally unsafe even if theres a "no hand feeding" rule.

Then don't do it.

Allow others to make *their* own choices as well...