Visit our Popular Forums

Wand · 15-11-2011, 17:03

Maybe holed in another attack by those notorious West Oz skarks?

A 59-YEAR-OLD yachtsman has been rescued off the West Australian coast after setting off his emergency distress beacon when his vessel began sinking.

The distress signal was picked up at about 9.20pm (WST) on Tuesday, indicating the 13m yacht Scarlett was in trouble about 85km northwest of Dampier.

An Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) search and rescue aircraft was sent out from Perth, while the WA Water Police vessel Delphinus and local rig tender The Far Swan put to sea.

An AMSA spokeswoman said friends of the yachtsman called the rescue coordination centre to say he had sent them a text message that his yacht had sunk and he was in his dinghy.

The search aircraft crew spotted the dinghy at about 1.50am (WST) on Wednesday around 30km east of the original satellite detection point.

The Delphinus arrived about an hour later to rescue the man and tow his dinghy back to Dampier.

He is reported to be uninjured and police will interview him to determine the cause of the sinking.

downunder · 15-11-2011, 17:28

Another ballasted (better not say monohull) vessel on the bottom.

Good thing he had a dingy. Sharks would have been least of his problems without dingy or liferaft. No 1 hypothermia.

Liltttzr · 15-11-2011, 17:46

I have taken my oldest son swimming with sharks in the Caribbean and it was one of those things he will never forget. When we feed them we teach them. They are apart of the food chain and the system. We remove them we remove part of the check and balance. How many others went the way of the dodo due to our actions. We need to think before we react. Just my thoughts. Also I have lost friends in Fl to this type of action. I neither blame them or condem them.

**Jim Cate** · 15-11-2011, 18:58

Why are they shooting sharks in Oz???

Maybe because surfers are out of season?

Jim

TassieBloke · 15-11-2011, 19:35

See, this is where the Sandgropers are doing it all wrong.

Many years ago, there were quite a few of us that used to a lot of hookah diving off the coast of Bruny Is. and Eaglehawk Neck, down Pt Arthur way. We had an agreement with the sharks, we left them alone, if they left us alone. Seemed to work for 10yrs or so...

Maybe they could renegotiate and agree that they only take annoying tourists from elsewhere, and leave the tasty Australians alone.

rgscpat · 15-11-2011, 19:44

So sharks kill humans out of mistaken identity or for food.

Humans kill sharks for a variety of reasons...

Why does man kill?

He kills for food.

And not only food-frequently there must be a beverage. ~Woody Allen

Fbram · 21-11-2011, 07:42

I do apologize in advance if I offend anyone. My intention is just to explain MY point of view.
With that said, onto my lines:

It's such a pity when beings capable of achievements like Beethoven's 9th, Euclide's Elements put themselves in the same level of low cognitive species just because it's a matter of reassuring Apex predator's positions.
The future of our children at shore/sea may be the most compelling excuse to hunt these animals, but in the opposite side one might argue that sharks probably hold the key for the cure of cancer, so we need to preserve them for future generations...

My first reactive response to the original question was to blame ourselves, all humans, after all: 1- we almost annihilated their food chain and 2- they've learned from us to associate FOOD with people.
In the other hand, I have to consider I'm not fully educated on this matter (yet) and because of that I would have to account other people's experiences and think twice about my own thoughts and reasoning... (btw, that's why forums are great, we can read and politely discuss what others think/know).

Due to 'other people's experiences' and comments in this thread, I'd like to request assistance to clarify a few points (if anyone could):

- Can GW really remember ONE incident and it is vastly PROVEN that after this only ONE incident they develop a considerable preference for humans (taste) other than other species (it has been studied and understand)?

- Would Australian authorities ONLY allow shooting THIS specific shark (with NO doubut, the right shark will be put down)?

- PR/TOURISM is NOT the main reason, right? I understand money is important, but they are not doing it solely for the dollars (australian or us dollars).
- REVENGE is not a variable in this equation, right?
- PREVENTIVE ATTACK is NOT the philosophy behind it neither. The 'JAWS effect' isn't taking its toll (isn't mainly at least).

To me, there can only be two viable choices (dichotomy is such an easy thing): Either we claim we have superior brains and put the shark down for the sake of mankind or we just call ourselves lower animals and go for the payback.
Either way, the fish will die...

PS: Has anyone considered asking the question of why current alarm system missed this shark? No finger pointing (really, not blaming anyone), but wouldn't authorities FOCUS on developing a better shark detection system instead of using the easy 'Get Out of Jail Free card' (i.e.: the Beast Must Die)?

hellosailor · 21-11-2011, 07:54

"- Can GW really remember ONE incident and it is vastly PROVEN that after this only ONE incident they develop a considerable preference for humans (taste) other than other species (it has been studied and understand)?"

Sounds like "Plum Island" where, on a recent zombie movie marathon, the nice folk try to convince zombies to eat horses instead of people.

In order to confirm or refute the idea that sharks develop a taste for bipeds, it will be necessary to enlist a pool of volunteers. Feed one to a shark, see if it comes back for more.

That's the scientific method, isn't it?

"achievements like Beethoven's 9th," don't let the pretty pretty shiny shiny part of the world distract you from the basics. Law of club and fang still applies to tasty treats.

Anyone remaining in the pool after 72 hours is welcome to hum the 9th and see how it impresses the shark.

Fbram · 21-11-2011, 08:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellosailor

"In order to confirm or refute the idea that sharks develop a taste for bipeds, it will be necessary to enlist a pool of volunteers. Feed one to a shark, see if it comes back for more.

That's the scientific method, isn't it?

Not necessarily, true (although very funny)... You CAN prove/infere something (or even, PROVE something IS NOT true) without actually risking someone's life.
If you consider criminal statistics, you don't have to commit a crime. If you consider airplane's accidents, you don't have to crash (and kill dozens).
All you need to, is just accurately account the occasions.
The idea is: Once, fishermen believed in mermaids, now we have (almost) positively proven they have never existed...

hellosailor · 21-11-2011, 08:26

Yes, but to accurately account for shark feeding preferences--you have to let the sharks perform random double-blind tests. I guess that means you'll need TWO pools of volunteers. One with people, the other with baby seals?

Fbram · 21-11-2011, 08:54

Very funny, baby seals pool... once again, very funny.

Well... Not really, nowadays you may use other fancy techniques to study these occurrences (indirect data), but you cannot afford to be lazy if you want to be thorough...

**noelex 77** · 21-11-2011, 09:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Yes, but to accurately account for shark feeding preferences--you have to let the sharks perform random double-blind tests. I guess that means you'll need TWO pools of volunteers. One with people, the other with baby seals?

I vote for a third pool filled with politicians and tax collectors . Some blood could beneficially be added to this pool

Fbram · 21-11-2011, 09:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I vote for a third pool filled with politicians and tax collectors . Some blood could beneficially be added to this pool

Poor 3rd pool sharks...

**hummingway** · 21-11-2011, 11:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fbram

My first reactive response to the original question was to blame ourselves, all humans, after all: 1- we almost annihilated their food chain and 2- they've learned from us to associate FOOD with people.

I don't know about Australia but in Canadian waters there are more seals then ever, so if that is the food source, I would wonder about validity of your assumption.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fbram

- Can GW really remember ONE incident and it is vastly PROVEN that after this only ONE incident they develop a considerable preference for humans (taste) other than other species (it has been studied and understand)?

Your asking the wrong question. It's the change in behavioral pattern that's the problem. Sharks bite because that's what they do. The problem with feeding sharks is they identify people with food supply, not that people are food but that there is food where they are.

In the Red Sea there was a series of attacks in shallow water by species that don't typically habituate to shallow water. Scientists think they were there as a chain of events that began with cargo ships dumping sheep they were going to be unable to sell overboard in the deep waters of the sea which brought the sharks. Meanwhile people had been feeding small fish in the shallows. The small fish had changed their behavior from a using cover to gathering in large schools to feed. This set up vibrations that sharks are sensitive to and brought the sharks in to the food source. Between that and divers training them to see humans as a species that, while not a food source themselves, supplied the food.

Once the sharks had habituated to the area they were seen as a problem, not necessarily because they are man eaters but because they are in the environment where they've become a problem.