Shark attack off Queensland

[scubaozy]

This latest attack is not far away and while it normally has cleaner water, it is so close to Cid Harbour as to be a place not to swim or snorkel.

As far as I know, they were on a swimming/snorkeling excursion boat. So how can a common holiday maker know all this?

 

[UFOrb]

As far as I know, they were on a swimming/snorkeling excursion boat. So how can a common holiday maker know all this?

I wonder whether any warnings about potential shark attacks are given on these trips. Seems irresponsible to allow a load of tourists to be swimming/ snorkelling in an area known for recent shark attacks.
Possibly another case of our greed culture - profit before safety?

I don't see a reactionary shark cull to be any kind of solution. We just have to accept that these waters are the sharks territory, and have been long before we turned up for a fun time, and adjust our behaviour accordingly. If that means finding somewhere else to swim, snorkel, surf...whatever, then so be it.

 

[chris kippax]

Every Tourist to Australia should enquire/research the potential threats in the areas they are travelling too. It is your life and what others may know from a young age you will be blissfully ignorant of. There is a reason they built this man made swimming lagoon at Airlie neach , the gateway to the Whitsundays islands.

 

[drrich2]

I wonder whether any warnings about potential shark attacks are given on these trips. Seems irresponsible to allow a load of tourists to be swimming/ snorkelling in an area known for recent shark attacks.

If the danger level in an area is sufficient to warrant a specific warning, is it prudent to take tourists to swim/snorkel in that area?

As Chris has stated, there have been quite a few attacks on the western side of Whitsunday Island (Cid Harbour) over the past year or so. These are all in dirty water where lots of yachts/cruisers anchor overnight. This latest attack is not far away and while it normally has cleaner water, it is so close to Cid Harbour as to be a place not to swim or snorkel.

Interesting info.! Help me understand it better...do you think the water where the recent victims swam was likely murky, or was it likely pretty clear but just happened to be close to an area that'd have murky water (I get that conditions can vary so we don't know for sure what it looked like when they were in it)?

I ask because historically I got the impression being in low viz. water was more dangerous than clear due to risk of mistaken identity (from sharks and barracuda). Is being in water with good viz. near an area with low viz. a concern, or is it just that the particulates may've moved in and cut the viz. here, too, raising risk? Or are low viz. waters thought to attract potentially dangerous sharks, as opposed to just making them more prone to errors in prey selection?

Richard.

 

[chris kippax]

The viz around these inner continental islands is usually very poor. 0-1M at best inshore and 10M on the outer islands would be considered good viz. There is large tidal flows and a tonne or nutrients in the water.
We hired a yacht and sailed around here October 2017 prior to these attacks occurring.When I snorkelled around in Butterfly bay Hook island the water was milky with around 7M viz.
Something has occurred on the Whitsundays to make this area a shark attack hotspot. Whether it is food competition related or something else I am unsure.The sharks in this area seem quite keen to have a bite.
I for one will not be swimming in this area. I am happy to dive on the outer reef but I will pass on the continental island diving with maybe the exception of butterfly bay on Hook island if the viz was excellent.

 

[Altamira]

I wonder whether any warnings about potential shark attacks are given on these trips. Seems irresponsible to allow a load of tourists to be swimming/ snorkelling in an area known for recent shark attacks.
Possibly another case of our greed culture - profit before safety?...

I dive a lot more frequently than I snorkel, but having snorkeled at many locations throughout the world, I have never heard a warning about potential shark attacks on any snorkel tour boat. As as diver, I know the potential is always there, and the risk is higher snorkeling/swimming, but most snorkelers are clueless. I suspect the first time the snorkel operators mentioned "possible shark attacks", their business would evaporate.

 

[UFOrb]

As as diver, I know the potential is always there, and the risk is higher snorkeling/swimming, but most snorkelers are clueless. I suspect the first time the snorkel operators mentioned "possible shark attacks", their business would evaporate.

Yeah agreed.

 

[clownfishsydney]

If the danger level in an area is sufficient to warrant a specific warning, is it prudent to take tourists to swim/snorkel in that area?

Interesting info.! Help me understand it better...do you think the water where the recent victims swam was likely murky, or was it likely pretty clear but just happened to be close to an area that'd have murky water (I get that conditions can vary so we don't know for sure what it looked like when they were in it)?

I ask because historically I got the impression being in low viz. water was more dangerous than clear due to risk of mistaken identity (from sharks and barracuda). Is being in water with good viz. near an area with low viz. a concern, or is it just that the particulates may've moved in and cut the viz. here, too, raising risk? Or are low viz. waters thought to attract potentially dangerous sharks, as opposed to just making them more prone to errors in prey selection?

Richard.

There have been so many attacks in this general area, the tourist operators would be (in my opinion), very lax in letting people swim/snorkel in this area and the yacht charter operators should be warning all hirers about the number of attacks.

As to the water, it is generally cleaner in the area where this later attack occurred (without knowing the exact spot - it may have been in the southern end of the pass where it would be dirtier), but it is close enough to the Cid Harbour spot where the last three attacks happened that common sense says you should not be in the water there.

The only times I went in the water at Cid Harbour were to jump off my yacht and immediately get back on board, spending less than a minute in the water.

Yes, historically, most attacks in Australia are in dirty water (rivers, harbours, bays) or at sunset or sunrise when not much daylight or when there are a lot of baitfish around. The thought is that these attacks are bull sharks which really will bite anything at all.

 

[HKGuns]

But if a couple of guys can't wrestle and have some fun in the water least a nearby deadly shark respond by tearing into them, what does that say?

It says you're on the menu.

...........but don't tell that to the radical animal rights activists.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

I dive a lot more frequently than I snorkel, but having snorkeled at many locations throughout the world, I have never heard a warning about potential shark attacks on any snorkel tour boat. As as diver, I know the potential is always there, and the risk is higher snorkeling/swimming, but most snorkelers are clueless. I suspect the first time the snorkel operators mentioned "possible shark attacks", their business would evaporate.

Last month a woman on a tour boat in Moorea lost her hands to an oceanic whitetip while snorkeling. According to some media reports she was heard asking "Why did you take me there if it was not safe?" when the paramedics picked her up at the dock.

I was in Moorea a month previously, and my tour guide specifically brought up oceanic whitetip interactions the day before we first went out; she and her partner also have an education program to try and get the other tour operators up to speed on dealing with OWs during whale tours. It's not like it was an unforeseen risk in that area and it should have been part of the briefing.