How many fatal shark attacks to stop you diving

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

  • 1 per year

    Votes: 2 0.9%
  • 2 per year

    Votes: 12 5.7%
  • 6 per year. One every second month.

    Votes: 13 6.1%
  • 12 per year. One every month.

    Votes: 10 4.7%
  • 1 every week

    Votes: 25 11.8%
  • I don't care and believe that shark finning or culling is morally wrong.

    Votes: 89 42.0%
  • I find this poll disturbing and hopelessly flawed.

    Votes: 61 28.8%

  • Total voters
    212
  • Poll closed .

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Ahhh but he also said there were seven shark attack deaths in the previous week. . .

Ahhh...but have you read his previous posts in other threads? Hate to say it but check them out. Quite illuminating.

---------- Post added February 20th, 2014 at 08:39 PM ----------

This is worth watching. Is it on topic? You decide.

How Wolves Change Rivers - YouTube
 
It was a typo. I meant to refer to the 8 footers not being as likely to bite him or leave a bad mark. :)
Well, I guess you can think of it chichuahuas versus alaskan malamutes. The chihuahua wont do much damage (they bite much more often though), because theire smaller..
Of course with the sharks its either a bigass mark or a bloody huge mark tho :p
 
Ahhh...but have you read his previous posts in other threads? Hate to say it but check them out. Quite illuminating.

---------- Post added February 20th, 2014 at 08:39 PM ----------

This is worth watching. Is it on topic? You decide.

How Wolves Change Rivers - YouTube

Doesn't it piss you off just a bit to have the narrator talk about deer and the image is a Roosevelt Elk. . . . ?:banghead:
 
Doesn't it piss you off just a bit to have the narrator talk about deer and the image is a Roosevelt Elk. . . . ?:banghead:
Actually elk are cervidae, just like the rest of the deer though :wink:
 
Actually elk are cervidae, just like the rest of the deer though :wink:

Wonderful, let me know what happens when you're stopped by the game warden with deer tags on the elk you just bagged. . .
 
The question was raised for divers who indicated that they would dive regardless of the risk of a fatal shark attack, how many would jump into the water without protection and swim with white pointers outside a shark cage. If the tours were conducted regularly without protection you could expect fatalities at the high levels indicated in the poll and even higher.

So far no one has indicated they would dive in those conditions without adequate protection which is hardly surprising. At some point the risk of an a fatal attack becomes unacceptably high and entering the water without protect becomes suicidal.

This is the extreme end of the scale. At the other end of the scale the risk of a fatal shark attack is zero. The graduations on the scale given in the poll are the historical number of fatal shark attacks in an area in a year.

At the moment one of the most popular options is 'Don't care' about diving with even an extremely high risk. But when confronted with the reality of that level of risk, so far no one has confirmed they would stand by their claim. I believe it is safe to say the selection of the 'Don't care' option on the poll in all cases is false. The reality is that there are circumstances where the risk of a fatal attack is so high that rational divers aware of the risks stay out of the water.

In spite of that, I think the thread shows that in general divers are prepared to accept a much higher level of shark attack risk than the wider community. It also shows how peer pressure can be used to manipulate divers into accepting that higher tolerance to risk. For many both of these factors are driven by a desire to protect sharks even at the expense of people's safety.

As for my own personal experience, most of my non-diver friends and some former divers think that the level of risk I tolerate in this regard is too high. In general my level of tolerance is be similar to most others with whom I dive. My tolerance to risk has varied over the years and even within a day. I live in Perth, Western Australia. We had five fatal shark attacks in the space of about 12 months recently which was the highest in the world at the time so this is topical.

Oh and as stated before, the scenario I gave before about the government official was hypothetical. I am not a government official and have no professional role associated with this matter. I'm just another diver who has had to think through some of these issues because of the area in which I live.
 
At the moment one of the most popular options is 'Don't care' about diving with even an extremely high risk. But when confronted with the reality of that level of risk, so far no one has confirmed they would stand by their claim.

One difficulty I believe some of us have dealing with your poll is that some option conditions are hypothetical and hardly exist in the real world.

I would not go body boarding near Sea Island, of South Africa. I would likewise not choose to enter the water if I knew a large great white (say, over 5 or 6 feet?) was in the immediate vicinity, at least alone. If I were with a group, such as Abernathy leads for tiger shark diving, and it had been established to have a good track record of safety, then I might. We have that with some tiger shark encounters. I don't want to dive cage-less with great whites chummed in, either.

In a real world example, someone posted a video of a truly massive great white feeding on a whale carcass; they'd heard about it, headed out, the diver thought about going in, got there, saw the thing and decided 'not.'

On the other hand, awhile back someone posted a video of a pair of divers descending the mooring line of the wreck of the Duane off Key Largo, Fl. A good-sized great white shows up, it's obvious what it is, it hangs there looking for a bit, then seems to swim off. But viz., which good, is limited underwater and there's always they chance it'll hang around, circle back, etc... But the divers go on about their dive. When it's present, watch it and see what it does. Once it heads off, go about your business.

So, don't dive in on top of one, but don't live in fear of the water because one might wander by.

In spite of that, I think the thread shows that in general divers are prepared to accept a much higher level of shark attack risk than the wider community.

I rather think that in general divers have a better grasp of how low that risk is, and even when you stack the deck a bit by asking about danger levels that for the most part don't exist in the real world as hypothetical risk, many react to actual risk, not artificially posed numbers like an attack a week.

For many both of these factors are driven by a desire to protect sharks even at the expense of people's safety.

Just like with lions, tigers and bears, as long as we don't drive sharks into extinction, it's going to cost a few human lives. With sympathy to the tragedy of that price, we generally choose to pay it. It's not an absolute question of which is more important, sharks or humans. On a 1 to 1 basis, most of us will pick the human. But what about 1,000 to 1, if the 1,000 may compromise the integrity of a species, and killing much less is useless slaughter for public grandstanding and probably saves no one?

As for my own personal experience, most of my non-diver friends and some former divers think that the level of risk I tolerate in this regard is too high.

Plenty of people think that about scuba diving. My mother wasn't enthused about me diving off Key Largo around reef sharks maybe 4 or 5 feet long that were scared of me instead of the other way around.

We had five fatal shark attacks in the space of about 12 months recently which was the highest in the world at the time so this is topical.

Concerns about shark attack risk are topical at some point to most anybody who dives in the ocean, as horror movies, coupled with wildlife documentary programs showing the massive size, horrific appearance and grisly injuries associated with great whites and their bites, and I think most of us mull it over because it's frightening and unnerving. But with time and education the intellect gains ground on ill-founded prejudice and we cultivate an appreciation for the animals.

Your 5 in 12 months figure ironically shows how low the risk is. Humans in the water are slow, awkward, defenseless 'sitting ducks,' entering the water in vast numbers, showing up at practically any depth a shark might prefer to feed at - whizzing across the surface, swimming partly submerged at the surface, diving down to over 100 feet deep, near shore, out hundreds of yards, way out on reefs, and many of the humans splash around like injured fish, make so much noise they can't be missed, and in the case of spear fishermen cause wounded fish struggles and blood in the water. All in your area. Over a year. With great whites and tiger sharks out there.

And you tell me 5 fatalities. Tragedies, and a terrible way to die, yes, but 5. While we ignore all the people who got mangled in car wrecks on trips or vacations to go enjoy the ocean or return home. Or drowned in the water.

I'm just another diver who has had to think through some of these issues because of the area in which I live.

I respect that. Some time after the Duane video, I was down diving in Key Largo last September, and headed down the mooring line, I was looking around. Viz. was worse than in their video. I thought about that video, but I still did my dive. I think that's how it is for a lot of divers.

Richard.
 
Oh and as stated before, the scenario I gave before about the government official was hypothetical. I am not a government official and have no professional role associated with this matter.

So you were lying and now you're telling us truth??

Yeah, right. . .

I hearby proclaim you . . . . FauxFish
 
Last edited:
One difficulty I believe some of us have dealing with your poll is that some option conditions are hypothetical and hardly exist in the real world.

I would not go body boarding near Sea Island, of South Africa. I would likewise not choose to enter the water if I knew a large great white (say, over 5 or 6 feet?) was in the immediate vicinity, at least alone. If I were with a group, such as Abernathy leads for tiger shark diving, and it had been established to have a good track record of safety, then I might. We have that with some tiger shark encounters. I don't want to dive cage-less with great whites chummed in, either.

In a real world example, someone posted a video of a truly massive great white feeding on a whale carcass; they'd heard about it, headed out, the diver thought about going in, got there, saw the thing and decided 'not.'

On the other hand, awhile back someone posted a video of a pair of divers descending the mooring line of the wreck of the Duane off Key Largo, Fl. A good-sized great white shows up, it's obvious what it is, it hangs there looking for a bit, then seems to swim off. But viz., which good, is limited underwater and there's always they chance it'll hang around, circle back, etc... But the divers go on about their dive. When it's present, watch it and see what it does. Once it heads off, go about your business.

So, don't dive in on top of one, but don't live in fear of the water because one might wander by.

and

Concerns about shark attack risk are topical at some point to most anybody who dives in the ocean, as horror movies, coupled with wildlife documentary programs showing the massive size, horrific appearance and grisly injuries associated with great whites and their bites, and I think most of us mull it over because it's frightening and unnerving. But with time and education the intellect gains ground on ill-founded prejudice and we cultivate an appreciation for the animals.

Your 5 in 12 months figure ironically shows how low the risk is. Humans in the water are slow, awkward, defenseless 'sitting ducks,' entering the water in vast numbers, showing up at practically any depth a shark might prefer to feed at - whizzing across the surface, swimming partly submerged at the surface, diving down to over 100 feet deep, near shore, out hundreds of yards, way out on reefs, and many of the humans splash around like injured fish, make so much noise they can't be missed, and in the case of spear fishermen cause wounded fish struggles and blood in the water. All in your area. Over a year. With great whites and tiger sharks out there.

And you tell me 5 fatalities. Tragedies, and a terrible way to die, yes, but 5. While we ignore all the people who got mangled in car wrecks on trips or vacations to go enjoy the ocean or return home. Or drowned in the water.

One fatality a week is hypothetical in the sense that it doesn't occur anywhere in the world. Not because it is not possible, but because people in general are sensible enough to avoid putting themselves at risk.

Suppose next year instead of 5 fatalities we had 12. If you were over here would you still dive? What if we had 26? At what point would you draw the line? How would you go about deciding a sensible limit.

I'd suggest that the global data on fatal shark attacks in an area provides a reasonable guide on where people and communities normally set that limit. Once that is exceeded they take steps to mitigate the risk.

I rather think that in general divers have a better grasp of how low that risk is, and even when you stack the deck a bit by asking about danger levels that for the most part don't exist in the real world as hypothetical risk, many react to actual risk, not artificially posed numbers like an attack a week.

In some cases I'd agree. I wouldn't say that to be the case in general. Certainly not from what I'm seeing here.

Just like with lions, tigers and bears, as long as we don't drive sharks into extinction, it's going to cost a few human lives. With sympathy to the tragedy of that price, we generally choose to pay it. It's not an absolute question of which is more important, sharks or humans. On a 1 to 1 basis, most of us will pick the human. But what about 1,000 to 1, if the 1,000 may compromise the integrity of a species, and killing much less is useless slaughter for public grandstanding and probably saves no one?

We've had some lengthy discussions on other aspects of this topic elsewhere. I'm trying to avoid influencing the poll by saying what I think an acceptable risk should be. The intent here is use an objective criteria to gauge what divers consider to be an acceptable level of exposure to the risk of shark attack.

---------- Post added February 21st, 2014 at 12:59 AM ----------

So you were lying and now you're telling us truth??

Yeah, right. . .

I hearby proclaim you . . . . FauxFish

I reiterated this for those who failed to pick up that post #49 was hypothetical and then obviously didn't understand my clarification in #59. I can tolerate people calling me a liar. Thinking I'm a government official is another matter... :D
 
Suppose next year instead of 5 fatalities we had 12. If you were over here would you still dive? What if we had 26? At what point would you draw the line? How would you go about deciding a sensible limit.

If 10's of thousands of people were going into the water in that time frame, and most of the attacks weren't on scuba divers, yes, I'd probably keep diving, even if it were 26. I don't have a set number threshold; I don't think most people do.

Shark-related fatalities don't come anywhere near a rational threshold compared to other dangers in the real world in the overwhelming majority of cases, so most of us don't have much real world experience trying to establish a threshold and are left with some pretty wild guessing.

Richard.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom