US Scuba Diver - Shark Attack

[Ayisha]

Regarding the feeding and chumming issue, since Deefstes brought it up shortly after my post: there were fish in the bucket. Once the sharks managed to get the bucket open, they stuck their head in and ate the fish. So yes, it was a shark feeding, although it was very little fish.

Chumming is not only done with fish oil. It is often done with fish blood and guts, fish heads and/or small amounts of fish.

Either way, it normally brings in and excites a large number of sharks and clearly changes the natural behaviour of sharks and their familiarity and proximity with humans.

I am going to upload and post some video from our shark dive and you can see whether you normally see sharks in this heightened state of arousal - in the presence of a bucket.

 

[Ayisha]

Here is some video that Jack, a diver from our group, took of our shark dive. Please note that when we all (16 of us) descended and gathered by the wall, there were NO sharks in the area that we could see at all. Once the bucket was on it's way down, the sharks started gathering and swimming around. Watch and see if this looks like normal shark behaviour that you have witnessed in dives without chumming or feeding.

Here is part 1 just before the sharks manage to open the bucket:

[video=youtube;yVKnYRimCtk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVKnYRimCtk[/video]

Here is part 2 where the sharks manage to open the bucket and get the fish:

[video=youtube;wqJqNgk5S4E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqJqNgk5S4E[/video]

 

[VooDooGasMan]

Those videos look completely harmless, there trained for the feeding, like wolfeel here in the puget, divers feed and they see a diver and wont leave you alone till fed sometimes.


Fjpatrum, that is philippe he was in charge of photography during the shark expediation.

Your also dead on, the sharks wont kill you most of the time, just a nibble to try.

 

[Ayisha]

Those videos look completely harmless, there trained for the feeding, like wolfeel here in the puget, divers feed and they see a diver and wont leave you alone till fed sometimes.

Exactly. Thank you for supporting our point. They're "trained", so it's not natural behaviour. If they "won't leave you alone till fed sometimes", then they're associating humans with food, getting close to humans, and expecting to be fed by humans, all unnatural shark behaviours and not normally observed in areas where there is no shark chumming or feeding.

 

[ajduplessis]

I couldn't have said it better. Despite what your logic might tell you, and despite what analogies with grizzly bears might lead you to deduce, until there is hard data available you simply can't make a claim with any authority that chumming increases the risk of shark attacks.

How much more 'hard data" do you want. The diver in question is in bad shape. I dont' know of any "attacks" on divers where no bait/chum was involved.

Some South Africa stats
Attacks during chumming on scuba divers = 1
Attacks on scuba diver without chumming (normal dives) = 0

Add that to your hard data and studies.

 

[Deefstes]

Some South Africa stats
Attacks during chumming on scuba divers = 1
Attacks on scuba diver without chumming (normal dives) = 0

Add that to your hard data and studies.

Sorry AJ, but those are NOT "some South Africa stats". Those are what we call two individual observations. Not only is the sample size so ridiculously small, making it completely useless, but it is also WRONG.

There have in fact been more than 0 shark attacks on scuba divers in South Africa where chumming was not involved. Indeed, this incident was the first reported shark attack during a baited dive. In 1979, Alan Edly Symons was killed by a shark while scuba diving at Mabibi. In 1990, Monique Price was killed by a shark while scuba diving at Mossel Bay. In 1991, Coen Marais was attacked by a shark while scuba diving at Gordon's Bay. None of these incidents happened during baited dives.

So here are some revised figures:
Attacks during chumming on scuba divers = 1
Attacks on scuba diver without chumming (normal dives) = 3

According to your statistical model, this means it is MUCH safer to do baited dives than normal dives. Of course, it doesn't because these numbers, while more correct than yours, still represent far too small a sample space.

 

[ajduplessis]

Firstly, Coen Marias was bumped by a great white with no and I mean zero injuries. I hardly call that an attack. Secondly Monique Price was fatally attached during a baited/chummed dive in Mossel Bay. I think you should conduct your research a bit better. Alan was know to spearfish and unless you can provide me with hard data you are falling short.

I appreciate your hard data and fedeback. Oh I also need to update my stats.

Attacks during chumming on scuba divers = 2
Attacks on scuba diver without chumming (normal dives) = 0

 

[Deefstes]

AJ, I don't think you understand the point I'm making.

For the moment I'll put the argument aside about whether or not Price was on a baited dive (because I understand she wasn't), whether or not Symons was spearfishing (because there is no record that he was) and whether or not a bump consitutes an attack (because according to the Global Shark Attack File it does).

The point I'm making is that there is no data available proving (or disproving) the hypothesis that chumming increases the likelihood that sharks will start attacking humans. The data that is available is so extremely limited (because it still is an extremely rare event) that no statistical conclusion can be drawn from it - even if your figures are correct.

Like I said early in the discussion, I'm not even particularly in favour of or opposed to baited diving. All I'm asking for is level headed arguments, not emotional sweeping statements. You might suspect that chumming increases the risk to humans but it still is just your suspicion. Even if you raise that opinion, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is posts like #17 in this thread, which is the one I originally responded to.

 

[ajduplessis]

There is also no hard a fast data around DCS either. You can do a “safe dive” within all the rules and parameters and still surface with DCS. It’s not an exact black and white line!! Adding parameters like dehydration, cold, obesity, fatigue, and bad health all possibly add to the likelihood of DCS.

Adding parameters like chumming, diving in low vis, surfing, spear-fishing all add to likelihood of possible attacks from sharks. The moment you “interfere” with their senses (smell, visuals, personal space etc) you increase the likelihood of mistaken identity followed by an “investigating touch” with their teeth as they don’t have hands. Unfortunately these “touches” tend to be fatal or result in one less limb. You don’t need any study to tell you that chumming and the other points I raised will increase the likelihood of “attacks”.

Lastly, these are my views and I DO understand where you are coming from. I also believe that if you look for something you are likely to find it. Chumming while diving is looking for trouble.

This is purely guesswork: I know why you have not forked out R1200 to do a baited dive. You are scared/cautious/tentative. I know I would be!!

Regards
ajduplessis

 

[fjpatrum]

... It is proven that feeding ANY TYPE OF WILDLIFE is WRONG. ...

Not to be a dick but it hasn't been proven WRONG. It has been proven to have an effect. Right or wrong is entirely debatable.

And which interest should be burdened with providing the evidence? ...

Evidence? In a moral argument? Seriously? Some people believe it's okay, others do not. Evidence of damage to an environment isn't what I said was debatable. Proving there is an effect is easy, as I stated. Proving that effect is a bad thing is entirely subjective to the listener/speaker in such an argument. I can argue both sides all day with anyone on either side and still not make any progress. ...

Moral argument? LOL

The debate has been about environmental impacts. It's been aknowledged that these dives change the habits of the animals ~ nature and the environment. Question was, is it ok or not? Please..demonstrate to me that it is positive or has no impact.

Above is the entire chain of comments about this particular aspect of the discussion. As I have said, twice now, and you seem disinclined to accept, is that I have no concern with the "environmental impact" aspect of this argument. I don't think there's any debate on that at all. Everyone recognizes there IS an impact. What I said was simply that environmental impact isn't "WRONG" to some people and it is "WRONG" to other people. Right and wrong are always debatable in a philosophical discussion such as this. Facts about the effect/impact of the practice have no bearing on right and wrong for some people.

I won't bother discussing the point any further because you either want to argue about two different things or are incapable of recognizing the difference, neither of which I'm prepared to waste any further time "fixing".