Swimmer killed by shark off New Zealand North Island

[drrich2]

Supergaijin's linked article was a good one; I've wondered that myself, whether we should 'kill the animal which killed one of us,' even in such circumstances. And considering that a number of GWS attacks (if that's what this was) are thought to be mistakes, not habitual human-seeking.

Richard.

 

[AfterDark]

Supergaijin's linked article was a good one; I've wondered that myself, whether we should 'kill the animal which killed one of us,' even in such circumstances. And considering that a number of GWS attacks (if that's what this was) are thought to be mistakes, not habitual human-seeking.

Richard.

Seems a little primitive to me. Kill it to what end? Teach the others a lesson? Maybe if it was possible to save a human life but once the human is dead what's the purpose?

 

[jewelofnile69]

Seems a little primitive to me. Kill it to what end? Teach the others a lesson? Maybe if it was possible to save a human life but once the human is dead what's the purpose?

I definitely agree. I can only see killing it to possibly retrieve the body/save the life. It'd be like killing a dog to teach other dogs a lesson. Since Jaws is so far-fetched and the majority of GWS attacks that have been researched have shown that the shark probably was mistaking the human for a seal or other easy "food" killing it is going to do nothing for us. Just my $0.02.

 

[supergaijin]

Perhaps I'm playing devil's advocate and I'm in no way in favour of killing sharks... but not all shark attacks on humans are 'mistaken identity'.

Big GW's, bulls, tigers etc are massive and powerful predators of the ocean. Sharks sometimes take a lunging bite and then do not return to finish the job. This can be called mistaken identity.... or perhaps the shark is waiting for the animal to bleed out and then have an easier meal.

Sometimes they make frenzied attacks- this guy basically got eaten. One large shark made the initial strike and then a few other large sharks got in on the act. It was a mess.

Never forget that humans are entering a food chain when we play in the sea. Most of the time we are left alone- sometimes not.

Perhaps the Matawan Creek attack in 1916 is one of those rare situations where I beleive they were right to seek and destroy the animal. Such a shark in such a small area- odds are good it would have taken someone else out before too long.

But killing sharks in the ocean? Daft.

 

[jewelofnile69]

Perhaps I'm playing devil's advocate and I'm in no way in favour of killing sharks... but not all shark attacks on humans are 'mistaken identity'.

Big GW's, bulls, tigers etc are massive and powerful predators of the ocean. Sharks sometimes take a lunging bite and then do not return to finish the job. This can be called mistaken identity.... or perhaps the shark is waiting for the animal to bleed out and then have an easier meal.

Sometimes they make frenzied attacks- this guy basically got eaten. One large shark made the initial strike and then a few other large sharks got in on the act. It was a mess.

Never forget that humans are entering a food chain when we play in the sea. Most of the time we are left alone- sometimes not.

Perhaps the Matawan Creek attack in 1916 is one of those rare situations where I beleive they were right to seek and destroy the animal. Such a shark in such a small area- odds are good it would have taken someone else out before too long.

But killing sharks in the ocean? Daft.

I guess what I was trying to say is they are born and live there and we just go there. Killing the sharks, either way, won't teach the other sharks a lesson.

 

[sydney-diver]

I saw an episode of mythbusters where they were firing rounds into a swimming pool to see how far a bullet can travel in water and still cause damage. Here is a copy and paste of their results:

In their first experiment, the experimenters shot the 9mm pistol straight down into the water. At a range of up to seven feet, the 9mm round was effective in completely penetrating the ballistics gel – meaning a person at the same range would be killed. At eight feet, the bullet entered but did not exit the gel, indicating a possible non-fatal wound. Past eight feet, the gel was undisturbed.

The shotgun, loaded with a 3” deer slug instead of buckshot, not only "killed" the ballistic gel target at six feet, it destroyed the acrylic water tank, ending that method of testing.

The team then switched to a swimming pool to continue the experiments – and to make the test more realistic, switched from shooting straight down to an angle of twenty to thirty degrees off the vertical, approximating a shooter standing on the edge of the water and shooting out into it.

The first candidate for this test was the Civil War rifle. At a range of 15 feet, the ballistics gel was completely unharmed; likewise at five feet. Only when the range was reduced to three feet did the bullet finally penetrate the gel, suggesting that diving under water was probably a pretty effective way of dodging slugs during the Civil War.

The experimenters moved on to the hunting rifle, which was loaded with a full-metal jacket .223 round that emerged at roughly 2,500 feet per second. At ten feet, the bullet disintegrated and the gel was untouched. At three feet, the bullet again broke up, with its tip coming to rest on the gel – not nearly enough power to damage flesh.​

A bullet from the M1 Garand, with a muzzle speed of 2,800 ft/sec, also disintegrated at the ten-foot range. At two feet, the slug penetrated about four inches into the gel, suggesting a non-fatal wound. The armor-piercing .50 caliber round didn’t do any better – it, too, came apart at distances greater than five feet and lost most of its punch by three feet.

​

In other words, people shooting their guns aiming at an underwater object likely do little more than make noise.

Incidentally, is this particular "incident" directly relevant to scuba?

My understanding was they did hit and kill at least 1 shark. It was reported that there was several circling. NZ police don't carry side arms so they wouldn't have been using a pistol.

 

[manni-yunk]

I definitely agree. I can only see killing it to possibly retrieve the body/save the life. It'd be like killing a dog to teach other dogs a lesson. Since Jaws is so far-fetched and the majority of GWS attacks that have been researched have shown that the shark probably was mistaking the human for a seal or other easy "food" killing it is going to do nothing for us. Just my $0.02.

You do realize that if a Dog, as you used in your analogy, kills a person....that dog gets put down ? Right? Not to teach the other dogs a lesson, but to make sure that the specific dog in question - never does it again. Killing a shark that was already proven to be a maneater (not the species, but the specific shark) would have NOTHING to do with a lesson to other sharks, but stopping what that particular shark has already shown a tendancy towards.

Im not advocating it - just pointing out the flaw in your analogy.

 

[vincent54]

He was just in the wrong place wrong time. Revenge killing the shark won't help. Sad for the family.

 

[drrich2]

Dogs aren't usually recognized as prone to kill humans, generally occur in environments with humans, and so eliminating one that killed a human unprovoked (as opposed to a burglar) makes some sense.

On the other hand, there are animals, such as large Nile crocodiles, that may well be prone to kill people if the opportunity conveniently presents itself. If you go to Africa and wade around in water near a bunch, well, you're likely going to die... Where such an animal in its native habitat is concerned, it makes little sense to kill one if you're not going to kill them all, whether it killed a person or not.

In a gray area, you have grizzly bears - mobile, in habitat where human encounters are likely (e.g.: hikers, campers, and the animal is on land & very fast), and while most aren't prone to attack humans, a given individual may become so and pose an abnormal risk. So killing that one bear while leaving others may make sense.

So, the question becomes, do we speculate that a shark that killed a human is sufficiently likely to be abnormally prone to do so, and at sufficient risk to re-offend, to make killing it worthwhile.

Plus, what are your odds of finding the 'culprit?' How many are you willing to kill to, say, be 75% sure you killed the culprit?

Richard.

 

[manni-yunk]

Dogs aren't usually recognized as prone to kill humans, generally occur in environments with humans, and so eliminating one that killed a human unprovoked (as opposed to a burglar) makes some sense.

Plus, what are your odds of finding the 'culprit?' How many are you willing to kill to, say, be 75% sure you killed the culprit?

Richard.

You could literally replace the word dogs, with sharks....and you first sentance still works just as well.

Im not saying that it is easy to ID the shark that commited the crime, however in most of the OLD school, now frowned upon shark hunts - the sharks slayed were matched up with bite marks and close to 100% accuracy.

My point is simply if you could positively ID the shark - why not practice the same thing we do with other animals?


Im not condoning, Im simply saying that if the logic is acceptable for dogs or bears - Why disregard it for Sharks??? Simply because divers have an affinity for wanting to see and support sharks?

Any way you cut it, its the same exact logic.

---------- Post added March 2nd, 2013 at 12:15 PM ----------

So, the question becomes, do we speculate that a shark that killed a human is sufficiently likely to be abnormally prone to do so, and at sufficient risk to re-offend, to make killing it worthwhile.

Richard.

And, once again - you can replace the word Shark, with DOG or bear. There are numerous examples of dogs that are put down when there is no evidence to suggest a problem - just a dog acting as dogs are expected to do.....but that isnt considered.

Same logic.