-
Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
- Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
- Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
- Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
- Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
- All this and much more...
You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!
Spearo fatality - Cape Town
- Thread starterbluecape
- Start date
Thread Status: Hello
, There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
zeN said:
Is the safety belt mandatory in the place you live? if you say yes, then forward this email to them and wupp the ass of your local police administration to try to save your ass of a car crash. You can never be so ^safety conscious ^ about human life. Im not saying that those brothers that were taken by sharks wouldn`t be attacked wearing it. But at least they would have a chance. Besides, I think this sport is not based upon testosterone or Macho attitude, but responsability and knowledge. Making a Device Mandatory by the authorities, would certainly decrease the prices to make them affordable, besides being spare is a dangerous thing in extreme situations. Do you think that a safety device is optional, well, dont preach your kids when they dont buckle up the safety belt...
Last edited:
By the way, the shark shield does not attract any predators, and that`s a fact with extreme factical evidence. And no, it`s no longer in experimental fase. Its a proven technology since 1995. There is a lot of people around with real life evidence about that. Nevertheless, nothing included condoms and other so called safety devices has a 100% guarantee of effectiveness...
No not yet. But I used to look for grey shadows in the lake when I first started diving. It also took me a while to relax in the north coast waters. Once I started looking behind me it was time to leave the water. I found that there was always a 'behind me' I could turn circles as fast as a dog chases its tail. I like entering the water as 'free' diver, not much gear not much expence and the joy comes when I do it without much fear. If my chances of getting bit are 1. in 10,000 and the shark shield reduces that to .5 in 10,000 it may be statistically significant yet at the price it may not be practically significant. If I was in waters that really crawl with preditors then I might reconsider the expence. Shark attacks in the 'red triangle' are still quite rare. Seaman, I can tell your responses have been quite heart felt. I have not intended to offend.
Richard
Richard
Except for a couple of leopards sharks, sharks have never introduced themselves to me. My diving experience spans the northern and southern California coast an a week of diving in Hawaii. ( I did make audio contact with whales that sent a shiver down the back of my wet suit). I have made a couple of two week diving trips to Baja and have seen no sharks. I even went looking for them. I heard that the Sea of Cortez used to be teaming with sharks before the fifties and the Japanese fished them out. Anyway, if you dive down there and use the shark shield. . . I may have just had a strange shark karma and the realities are different from what I have experienced. My concern is that my 12 year old daughter has been getting close to diving 30 meters at the lake this summer, and would like to join the next trip to Baja with my son and I. Doubling the number of children I bring to the food chain is an emotional strain as a dad. And yet I value providing challenging growth experiences for them. We usually dive north of Mulege in Dec. What is your assessment of the shark risk down there?
Thanks,
Richard
Thanks,
Richard
Hello bro, I have a 9 year freediving and spearo daughter my self. The shark risk around mulege is little to none. I mean we are blessed with lot of sharks around, but they are rather shy, that´s why you have never noticed their presence. It is true about the japanese shark fisheries, but you still can found a bunch at el Bajo and la Reina. My father is a senior Researcher in Marine Biology and i can tell you that in La Paz Area, it have been reported some tiger activity, but they have never munch a spearo yet!! Personally i am so freaked out by sharks, cause in the early ninties i have a nasty encounter with a shark that went right towards me in investigative mood, and 8 feet in front of me, it suddenly got a turn and headed to the opposite, both have scare the living days out of each other i guess. the water was murky and i was in the middle of a bait ball looking for some predator and heck that i found it!! Since then i have always that concern, just by the fact the big boy went directly after me ....ooopss
That is ridiculous to suggest shark shields are "proven," they are way too new to put that kind of blind faith in them, which is something that a lot of divers seem to unconsciously want to do, they do seem very promising, but as with all new gadgets they are released into the market and proven thru time and use, that goes for the cars you buy, the pharmaceuticals you use etc zeN
zeN said:
More than likely they give a very nice false sense of security for the person wearing it! I see them as a repellent (Just like mosquito spray!!), but not shark proof!!!!
Hey don't go try spraying mosi spray at sharks though!, likely to p**s them right off'!!
Last edited:
For your Information.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/organizations/ssg/sharknews/sn11/shark11news8.htm
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/organizations/ssg/sharknews/sn11/shark11news8.htm
Kind of interesting, most divers subscribe to the philosophy, 'if you are afraid of sharks, don't dive,' or 'the odds are better for getting struck by lightning than getting attacked by a shark,' etc., yet so much interest in the efficiency of shark shields, hmmmmm........ zeN
Stats can say whatever you want them to.
If you look at the incidence of shark attacks vs water activities then yes it is a low risk, add in bleeding fish the probability goes up.
Add in long hours in water risk goes up again.
Factor in the fact that there has been two fatal attacks in the same area and the fact that the shark was seen towing the float past the point where the old lady was eaten, then I would say that the risk of being eaten is pretty high.
Accordingly if I was diving in this area, I probably would add the cost of a shark shield to the cost of the airfare.
whats with the Hmmm anyway?
If you look at the incidence of shark attacks vs water activities then yes it is a low risk, add in bleeding fish the probability goes up.
Add in long hours in water risk goes up again.
Factor in the fact that there has been two fatal attacks in the same area and the fact that the shark was seen towing the float past the point where the old lady was eaten, then I would say that the risk of being eaten is pretty high.
Accordingly if I was diving in this area, I probably would add the cost of a shark shield to the cost of the airfare.
whats with the Hmmm anyway?
Another article of interest.
sorry for the length.
Biting back
Just because great white sharks are protected doesn't mean we should
be on their menu.
By Wade Graham
WADE GRAHAM has written on environmental issues for the New Yorker,
Harper's, Outside, Environmental History and the Los Angeles Times
Magazine.
August 21, 2005
GREAT WHITE SHARKS apparently are making a comeback along the Southern
California coast. That's excellent news for the protected great whites,
but unsettling for the millions of Californians who work and play in
the Pacific.
As an environmentalist and a surfer who believes in protecting wild
land and wild animals, including big predators that can harm humans,
I'm troubled by our approach to great whites. An extreme and, I
believe, confused notion of wilderness is in play here. In Southern
California, where our neighborhoods push deeper and deeper into the
wild geography of mountains and canyons, we are accustomed to coyotes,
bears and mountain lions coming into our streets and yards. But we
nevertheless police this boundary. We don't accept that mountain lions
or bears should come onto our lawn and attack one of us. Animals that
do so are moved, sometimes killed, without endangering the survival of
the species or the stability of the ecosystem.
That doesn't happen with great whites. In 2003, an angler on the
Hermosa Pier caught a juvenile white shark. Thinking it was a mako
shark (of which you are allowed to catch two per day), he kept it. But
he was fined and ordered to do community service. A similar case this
summer against a charter boat is pending. A great white that killed a
woman swimming off Avila Beach two years ago was seen several times in
the following weeks hunting seals just off the beach while the little
resort town watched the summer season it depends on evaporate, as
visitors stayed away in droves. As a protected species, the shark could
not be harmed.
Until recently, great whites found south of Point Conception were
considered strays from their primary hunting grounds, the seal colonies
of Northern California. An uptick in Southern California sightings
began in 2003, when surfers at San Onofre, on the border of Orange and
San Diego counties, saw three juvenile whites prowling the shoreline.
The fish, each 8 feet long, hung around all summer, circling and
occasionally bumping surfers, but biting no one. Locals named then
Sparky, Fluffy and Archie.
This year, sharks 6 feet long are turning up at beaches from Solana in
the south up through Laguna, Huntington, El Segundo, Zuma, and on to
Emma Wood in the north. Surfers encountered 10- to 13-foot white sharks
at Del Mar, Point Mugu and Ventura. A shark in that range bumped a
surfer at Topanga, and three bodyboarders experienced what seemed to
them a failed attack at Point Mugu. A surfer reported seeing a seal
flung through the air at Encinitas. On June 18, at Leo Carillo Beach in
Malibu, lifeguards saw a 13-footer and cleared the water. At Zuma Beach
in March, a lifeguard and several spectators reported a 15-foot shark
following an adult gray whale and her calf. All of these instances were
in shallow water, close to shore in the surf zone.
The swelling number of sightings could be sampling error: More people
go into the water every year, stoked by surf-themed movies like "Blue
Crush" and "Step into Liquid." Scientists urge caution in jumping to
conclusions, saying the reported surge in sightings doesn't prove
conclusively that white shark numbers are rising. Yet they acknowledge
that mysteries remain about these animals, including where they breed,
give birth and feed when the seals leave their colonies for the sea.
Scientists believe that female white sharks come to Southern California
in early spring to give birth to litters of "pups." The 4-foot-long
babies are left to fend for themselves, eating halibut, cabezon and
other fish, while the adult females go out to the islands or elsewhere
to find larger prey. It's not uncommon for area fishermen to catch
juveniles, usually inadvertently.
Young sharks probably pose little danger to people. Their teeth are
needle-like and close-set, adapted to hold fish, not tear into large
animals. But as the sharks grow past 10 feet, they develop bigger,
wider teeth, set farther apart, to allow them to eat seals, small
whales and other mammals. These developing sharks are the most agile
and aggressive — and may be more dangerous than larger adults.
Worldwide, just 27% of white sharks that bite people are longer than 15
feet, while 50% are between 10 and 15 feet. It is extremely cold
comfort to know that if bitten by a smaller shark, your likelihood of
dying is 22%, versus 45% if your assailant is a large adult.
No one knows whether the young great whites now in Southern California
will stay once mature. Fully grown great whites are incredibly rare.
Perhaps no more than 100 live off California, and they tend to stick
around a few elephant seal colonies at the Farallons, Ano Nuevo, San
Simeon, San Miguel Island and Guadalupe Island off Mexico. In those
locations, encounters with humans are uncommon. As Professor Peter
Klimly, a shark expert at UC Davis, says, "If all the bad guys are all
in one place, far away from people, you don't have a problem."
But Klimly acknowledges that there is "an ambience" of sharks
continually moving along the coast between seal colonies, and those
sharks can come into contact with people. And although white shark
advocates insist that the animals don't eat people, they certainly do
bite and kill them. California has recorded 11 fatal attacks and 83
nonfatal attacks since the early 1950s. In Southern California, the
fatal attacks have been off La Jolla in 1959, off Malibu in 1989 and
the woman swimming near the Avila Beach pier in San Luis Obispo County
in 2003.
Clearly, sharks and people need to be carefully managed. But only the
sharks have protection, under a California law that took effect in
1994. That law made sense at the time. The 1975 movie "Jaws" and a
dozen years of sequels sent more sportfishing boats after big sharks
for thrills. Today, as seals, the sharks' primary food, thrive along
the coast as a protected species, no one knows if the great whites are
indeed endangered. The 1994 law called for a study to determine the
great white population along the coast, but no money was allocated to
pay for it.
In light of the research vacuum, scientists have no idea what the
historical numbers are, or whether the sharks have been declining or
thriving. Worldwide, they show no signs of disappearing. They inhabit
nearly all parts of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans, plus the
Mediterranean and Adriatic seas.
Among defenders of the sharks, it's fashionable to say that we "enter
the shark's house" when we go in the ocean and must accept the risk of
attack. There's an undercurrent of guilt in this bravado, as though by
"entering the food chain" we can somehow expiate our forefathers' sins
in exterminating other species, such as the grizzly bear featured on
the California flag but hunted out of the state a century ago. The
woman who loved to swim at Avila Beach is routinely talked of as though
she deserved her death. She looked like a seal in her fins and wetsuit
and was swimming near seals, thus she brought it on herself; the shark
is blameless. Her death was an unfortunate cost, we are told, of
keeping an important endangered species alive.
This may be true, but it seems gruesome and an easy moralization for
people who do not go into the ocean.
The urban beaches of Southern California are not the same as an oceanic
"wilderness" like the Farallon Islands. They are our backyard. We
should not have to forfeit our right to security the minute we step off
dry sand — especially because the scientific case for the great white
shark's immediate endangerment becomes less convincing with each new
sighting.
Knowing more about the shark is vital. We should demand funding for the
science required to make the right decisions. And we should end the
blanket protection offered these animals when they venture near our
beaches. Sharks that menace or attack people should be managed in the
same way as problem bears and mountain lions: captured and relocated if
possible, or killed if necessary.
sorry for the length.
Biting back
Just because great white sharks are protected doesn't mean we should
be on their menu.
By Wade Graham
WADE GRAHAM has written on environmental issues for the New Yorker,
Harper's, Outside, Environmental History and the Los Angeles Times
Magazine.
August 21, 2005
GREAT WHITE SHARKS apparently are making a comeback along the Southern
California coast. That's excellent news for the protected great whites,
but unsettling for the millions of Californians who work and play in
the Pacific.
As an environmentalist and a surfer who believes in protecting wild
land and wild animals, including big predators that can harm humans,
I'm troubled by our approach to great whites. An extreme and, I
believe, confused notion of wilderness is in play here. In Southern
California, where our neighborhoods push deeper and deeper into the
wild geography of mountains and canyons, we are accustomed to coyotes,
bears and mountain lions coming into our streets and yards. But we
nevertheless police this boundary. We don't accept that mountain lions
or bears should come onto our lawn and attack one of us. Animals that
do so are moved, sometimes killed, without endangering the survival of
the species or the stability of the ecosystem.
That doesn't happen with great whites. In 2003, an angler on the
Hermosa Pier caught a juvenile white shark. Thinking it was a mako
shark (of which you are allowed to catch two per day), he kept it. But
he was fined and ordered to do community service. A similar case this
summer against a charter boat is pending. A great white that killed a
woman swimming off Avila Beach two years ago was seen several times in
the following weeks hunting seals just off the beach while the little
resort town watched the summer season it depends on evaporate, as
visitors stayed away in droves. As a protected species, the shark could
not be harmed.
Until recently, great whites found south of Point Conception were
considered strays from their primary hunting grounds, the seal colonies
of Northern California. An uptick in Southern California sightings
began in 2003, when surfers at San Onofre, on the border of Orange and
San Diego counties, saw three juvenile whites prowling the shoreline.
The fish, each 8 feet long, hung around all summer, circling and
occasionally bumping surfers, but biting no one. Locals named then
Sparky, Fluffy and Archie.
This year, sharks 6 feet long are turning up at beaches from Solana in
the south up through Laguna, Huntington, El Segundo, Zuma, and on to
Emma Wood in the north. Surfers encountered 10- to 13-foot white sharks
at Del Mar, Point Mugu and Ventura. A shark in that range bumped a
surfer at Topanga, and three bodyboarders experienced what seemed to
them a failed attack at Point Mugu. A surfer reported seeing a seal
flung through the air at Encinitas. On June 18, at Leo Carillo Beach in
Malibu, lifeguards saw a 13-footer and cleared the water. At Zuma Beach
in March, a lifeguard and several spectators reported a 15-foot shark
following an adult gray whale and her calf. All of these instances were
in shallow water, close to shore in the surf zone.
The swelling number of sightings could be sampling error: More people
go into the water every year, stoked by surf-themed movies like "Blue
Crush" and "Step into Liquid." Scientists urge caution in jumping to
conclusions, saying the reported surge in sightings doesn't prove
conclusively that white shark numbers are rising. Yet they acknowledge
that mysteries remain about these animals, including where they breed,
give birth and feed when the seals leave their colonies for the sea.
Scientists believe that female white sharks come to Southern California
in early spring to give birth to litters of "pups." The 4-foot-long
babies are left to fend for themselves, eating halibut, cabezon and
other fish, while the adult females go out to the islands or elsewhere
to find larger prey. It's not uncommon for area fishermen to catch
juveniles, usually inadvertently.
Young sharks probably pose little danger to people. Their teeth are
needle-like and close-set, adapted to hold fish, not tear into large
animals. But as the sharks grow past 10 feet, they develop bigger,
wider teeth, set farther apart, to allow them to eat seals, small
whales and other mammals. These developing sharks are the most agile
and aggressive — and may be more dangerous than larger adults.
Worldwide, just 27% of white sharks that bite people are longer than 15
feet, while 50% are between 10 and 15 feet. It is extremely cold
comfort to know that if bitten by a smaller shark, your likelihood of
dying is 22%, versus 45% if your assailant is a large adult.
No one knows whether the young great whites now in Southern California
will stay once mature. Fully grown great whites are incredibly rare.
Perhaps no more than 100 live off California, and they tend to stick
around a few elephant seal colonies at the Farallons, Ano Nuevo, San
Simeon, San Miguel Island and Guadalupe Island off Mexico. In those
locations, encounters with humans are uncommon. As Professor Peter
Klimly, a shark expert at UC Davis, says, "If all the bad guys are all
in one place, far away from people, you don't have a problem."
But Klimly acknowledges that there is "an ambience" of sharks
continually moving along the coast between seal colonies, and those
sharks can come into contact with people. And although white shark
advocates insist that the animals don't eat people, they certainly do
bite and kill them. California has recorded 11 fatal attacks and 83
nonfatal attacks since the early 1950s. In Southern California, the
fatal attacks have been off La Jolla in 1959, off Malibu in 1989 and
the woman swimming near the Avila Beach pier in San Luis Obispo County
in 2003.
Clearly, sharks and people need to be carefully managed. But only the
sharks have protection, under a California law that took effect in
1994. That law made sense at the time. The 1975 movie "Jaws" and a
dozen years of sequels sent more sportfishing boats after big sharks
for thrills. Today, as seals, the sharks' primary food, thrive along
the coast as a protected species, no one knows if the great whites are
indeed endangered. The 1994 law called for a study to determine the
great white population along the coast, but no money was allocated to
pay for it.
In light of the research vacuum, scientists have no idea what the
historical numbers are, or whether the sharks have been declining or
thriving. Worldwide, they show no signs of disappearing. They inhabit
nearly all parts of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans, plus the
Mediterranean and Adriatic seas.
Among defenders of the sharks, it's fashionable to say that we "enter
the shark's house" when we go in the ocean and must accept the risk of
attack. There's an undercurrent of guilt in this bravado, as though by
"entering the food chain" we can somehow expiate our forefathers' sins
in exterminating other species, such as the grizzly bear featured on
the California flag but hunted out of the state a century ago. The
woman who loved to swim at Avila Beach is routinely talked of as though
she deserved her death. She looked like a seal in her fins and wetsuit
and was swimming near seals, thus she brought it on herself; the shark
is blameless. Her death was an unfortunate cost, we are told, of
keeping an important endangered species alive.
This may be true, but it seems gruesome and an easy moralization for
people who do not go into the ocean.
The urban beaches of Southern California are not the same as an oceanic
"wilderness" like the Farallon Islands. They are our backyard. We
should not have to forfeit our right to security the minute we step off
dry sand — especially because the scientific case for the great white
shark's immediate endangerment becomes less convincing with each new
sighting.
Knowing more about the shark is vital. We should demand funding for the
science required to make the right decisions. And we should end the
blanket protection offered these animals when they venture near our
beaches. Sharks that menace or attack people should be managed in the
same way as problem bears and mountain lions: captured and relocated if
possible, or killed if necessary.
AB Diver said:
I picked up an old fishing hook at a carboot sale this Summer -- it is 10" long with an impressive offset point & barb to match. It came with a heavy chain leader several feet long and a big swivel -- maybe 2" long. The guy had two of them and one that was quite a bit bigger. Not sure what they were used for -- but seems like the bigger one might be just the thing (or a powerhead/gun). I was thinking of blunting mine and using it as a small float anchor.
Not sure what all the fuss is about terminating the killer shark -- as fishermen we kill fish all the time; this one is easily justified. We shape the environment all the time (parking lots, trawlers, factory ships, earth movers, over population, etc., etc.) -- seems odd to make such a fuss about this beast.
Man already tampers enough with nature without deciding the right of which creatures may be permitted to live and hunt and which must be killed/culled!!!
Nobody is saying it's normal for humans to be in the fishes food chain but it's also not right that man exploits the world's natural resources, but Man does!!!!
Nobody is saying it's normal for humans to be in the fishes food chain but it's also not right that man exploits the world's natural resources, but Man does!!!!