Shark Attack - your thoughts?

asim18 · 23 Oct 2011 at 22:37

AcidHell2 said:
It wouldn't, I would still be pointless arguing with someone who makes up stuff and reads it, like if typed it.

.
It was a side note anyway. You said babies don't have natural responses I was merely pointing out that we have a natural swimming reflex. But anyway that's under the bridge and a tiny sideline.

lol. I didn't say babies don't have natural reflexes.

YOU said they can swim around from birth like a fish.
YOU said the swimming reflex is actual controlled swimming.

I said babies cannot swim.
I said the reflex not the same as swimming.

You are wrong.

Glaucus · 23 Oct 2011 at 22:42

I didn't say they could swim around like fish. In the following post I said it was a reflex, when I clarified the post.

Johno please? · 23 Oct 2011 at 23:03

Anyone hear about that french surfer killed last month near where the british man was killed? I didn't see a single article or news report about it, very strange :confused:

Pretty pointless hunting it, its the risk you take in being in territories that are inhabited by apex predators, I don't believe in this "ooo its got a taste for human fleeeeesh!" crap.

[TW]Fox;20378822 said:
There have been 5 shark related deaths off the Florida Coast in the Gulf of Mexico since 1882.

Which pretty much supports what I was saying. Ordinarily, sharks do not attack humans.

Interesting stats, pretty different from Australia though -

"Mr Wainwright is the third person to be killed by a shark along Australia's west coast in recent weeks."

Obviously I havent looked into the long term stats, but it seems far more common, I might go take a look.

w3bbo · 24 Oct 2011 at 10:30

Humans are not sharks natural food. More often than not shark attacks are from mistaken identity. Great Whites are opportunists and will take a bite out of pretty much anything to see if it is edible. The so called 'investigative bite' can obviously have devastating effects, occassionally resulting in the death of the victim. Most sharks will take a bite, realise we are not there normal food and move on. This however is not always the case. A GWS prefers the soft fatty tissue of a seal to human flesh which is very boney in comparison. It has nothing to do with whether we taste good or not!

Shark attacks are most likely on the rise due to over fishing and mans ever growing intest in aqua sports which are bringing us closer together.

However, I find it deplorable that we see fit to go hunting an animal that is doing what it does naturally. The sea is not our domain, never has been. Sure it's our hunting ground but in this case the hunter became the hunted. The guy knew the perils of his actions, knew the dangers of spear fishing in known shark territory but still put himself in great danger despite this. Sadly he is reaping the consequences of his actions and while I sympathise, you can hardly blame the shark for doing what it does naturally. It sensed distress, it smelt the blood, it killed. Most victims of shark attacks who live to tell the tale will not blame the shark so why do the authorities see fit to go on a 'man-hunt', especially when in this case they would clearly have no idea which shark killed the diver?

By the same respect of some of the ridiculous arguements put forward in this thread: If a diver went swimming in the waters off Seal island during the seal birthing season (when GWS are regularly filmed jumping from the water) and the diver happened to be killed. Should we then go and slaughter all of the sharks in the vicinity? No we shouldn't and wouldn't, why? Because the diver was being irresponsible. I see little difference from this example to the fateful experience the spear fisherman has had.

A shark is no more of a risk than mans stupidity and ignorance.

samir_ansari · 24 Oct 2011 at 11:48

I haven't bothered to read the 11 pages of this thread but this is my opinion on the subject:

I think its disgusting that we feel we have the right to hunt and kill a (meat eating) wild animal that was acting instinctively in it's own habitat. It's very sad that 3 families lost their loved ones but the victims should have been more aware of exactly where they were and the risks of being there. Furthermore there is no evidence whatsoever that it was even the same shark that killed these 3 people.

krooton · 24 Oct 2011 at 12:23

AcidHell2 said:
Nor do we, early hunters used nothing but themselves.
You can catch plenty in the sea, as certain societies still do. Free diving for scallops and sea urchins.
Add a simple spear and you can catch plenty of fish. Nothing more than we used on land to hunt.
We evolved brains and a very generalised body. So we could adapt tools and our environment. Rather than having claws and a thick fur coat.

AH2 in having random and controversial viewpoint shocker!

Humans are in no way naturally adept at being in the water, the only way we can function in it is by way of adapting things. We create spears, fishing lines, nets, boats, spearguns and scuba gear. This are not natural, these are things that we create using the only thing we have going for us, our brains.

Getting food from the ocean without any sort of tool is gathering, not hunting. Humans are poor swimmers without the aid of flippers or something to float on. Swimming in the sea expends a crapload of energy, you could walk around for many, many, MANY hours more than you could tread water, and treading water is more like standing than actually going anywhere.

Glaucus · 24 Oct 2011 at 12:33

Shocker? Usually I get accused of being a sheep and following goveent.

We've already been through tools and learning. Which are totally natural thing.
Also we aren't bad swimmers. Far more sea life are worse than us.

MrRoper · 24 Oct 2011 at 12:38

We are better walkers though! and that whole having to come up for air gets in the way a bit

krooton · 24 Oct 2011 at 12:41

MrRoper said:
We are better walkers though! and that whole having to come up for air gets in the way a bit

We're also terrible at going deep without a rope or weights of some kind, stupid lungs full of air and buoyancy!

Anywhere that requires extensive use of tools to get to or stay in is not our natural territory, such the oceans and atop the likes of Everest.

Glaucus · 24 Oct 2011 at 12:44

krooton said:
We're also terrible at going deep without a rope or weights of some kind, stupid lungs full of air and buoyancy!

Anywhere that requires extensive use of tools to get to or stay in is not our natural territory, such the oceans and atop the likes of Everest.

By that logic, sea birds natural hunting ground isn't the sea. They can't breath, can't survive long or go deep.

But I'm pretty sure if already gone through all this.
Do why is it their natural hunting ground and not ours?

MrRoper · 24 Oct 2011 at 12:51

Because they are "Sea" birds

and also well adapted to hunt at sea

I dont think the sea is a "natural" hunting ground for humans, but it is certainly an adapted one, to be fair to acid hell im not sure the distinction between them is too important.

Do we use the sea to gather food - Yes
Did our ancestors eat fish - Yes
Are we well adapted to catch sea creatures - not really, it is our intelligence that allows us to do this

krooton · 24 Oct 2011 at 12:54

AcidHell2 said:
By that logic, sea birds natural hunting ground isn't the sea. They can't breath, can't survive long or go deep.

But I'm pretty sure if already gone through all this.
Do why is it their natural hunting ground and not ours?

A seabird has natural means to survive being out at sea.

Drop one 20 miles off the coast. Hollow bones and natural buoyancy means it floats unaided. Webbed feet means it can pedal about using energy very efficiently. Oh wait, and it can also fly back to the coast if it needs to. It does all these things naturally, so if dropped there unprepared it will be fine.

Drop a human unprepared 20 miles off the coast, they will die.

It is not our natural territory, we just have means to adapt to allow us to spend time there.

LiE · 24 Oct 2011 at 12:55

A completely naked human would have a tough time catching food in the sea.

Glaucus · 24 Oct 2011 at 12:55

Sea is a name.

We have adapted in a general way to survive in many environments and hunt/gather in many environments. We are perfectly able to swim in the sea with No tools.

So are birds nests not natural, there a built tool? And are essential for survival.

Glaucus · 24 Oct 2011 at 12:57

LiE said:
A completely naked human would have a tough time catching food in the sea.

It's pretty easy many people still do it . Or have you never seen free diving for sea food. Lots of sea species move extremely slowly in the sea and use disguise/hideouts instead.

MrRoper · 24 Oct 2011 at 12:57

Not all birds build nests

Glaucus · 24 Oct 2011 at 12:59

krooton said:
Drop a human unprepared 20 miles off the coast, they will die.

It is not our natural territory, we just have means to adapt to allow us to spend time there.

who said anything about 20miles?

What adaption or tools do we need to swim out from a beach, dive and catch a lobster or a host of other crustaceans.

Glaucus · 24 Oct 2011 at 13:00

MrRoper said:
Not all birds build nests

How does that make any difference?

Bird species that require nests in your logic are not natural. It's a made tool. Vital for survival.

MrRoper · 24 Oct 2011 at 13:00

AcidHell2 said:
who said anything about 20miles?

What adaption or tools do we need to swim out from a beach, dive and catch a lobster or a host of other crustaceans.

In other words, costal areas and shallow water is our natural hunting ground rather than "The Sea"

Again to be fair you are right, its just people being pedantic on the wording

Glaucus · 24 Oct 2011 at 13:02

MrRoper said:
In other words, costal areas and shallow water is our natural hunting ground rather than "The Sea"

Again to be fair you are right, its just people being pedantic on the wording

Is Coastal areas not the sea.
It's like saying crocodiles natural ground isn't water. As they can't survive at deep see. But I bet not one of you would say that.