I'm frankly baffled.
So, some dude had his camera mouthed.
I suspect that he didn't use his pokey stick because he wanted that shot. I also suspect that he was way out of his league as he let the Tiger Shark have his camera instead of pushing back. Apparently, he then stole somebody else's pics of the event and gave them to an agent who then made up a stupid story and sold it to a tabloid.
Big fucking drama.
Who gives a shit - right?
Tigers will sometimes mouth cameras, punters will try and sell their pics, agents will make up idiotic stories - seen it a million times before. Frankly, the only part that disturbs me is that the punter is portraying himself as a conservationist, of all things, and is trying to get some idiot to pay for his next vacation in Cat Island - but then again, seen that a million times, too!
What baffles me is this.
Can anybody tell me what's in it for the operator?
Giving pokey sticks to punters and allowing them to push the envelope when interacting with large predatory Sharks, and this obviously unsupervised is just simply bad business - or am I missing something here?
Yes it's always gonna be a judgement call.
But the way I see it and like in the case of Guadalupe, catering to the pushy image hunters really generates no incremental income but carries unlimited downside risk as the Sharks but above all, the punters will eventually make a mistake - and we all know how that one ends!
Sloppy procedures for zero gain - not impressed!
So, some dude had his camera mouthed.
I suspect that he didn't use his pokey stick because he wanted that shot. I also suspect that he was way out of his league as he let the Tiger Shark have his camera instead of pushing back. Apparently, he then stole somebody else's pics of the event and gave them to an agent who then made up a stupid story and sold it to a tabloid.
Big fucking drama.
Who gives a shit - right?
Tigers will sometimes mouth cameras, punters will try and sell their pics, agents will make up idiotic stories - seen it a million times before. Frankly, the only part that disturbs me is that the punter is portraying himself as a conservationist, of all things, and is trying to get some idiot to pay for his next vacation in Cat Island - but then again, seen that a million times, too!
What baffles me is this.
Can anybody tell me what's in it for the operator?
Giving pokey sticks to punters and allowing them to push the envelope when interacting with large predatory Sharks, and this obviously unsupervised is just simply bad business - or am I missing something here?
Yes it's always gonna be a judgement call.
But the way I see it and like in the case of Guadalupe, catering to the pushy image hunters really generates no incremental income but carries unlimited downside risk as the Sharks but above all, the punters will eventually make a mistake - and we all know how that one ends!
Sloppy procedures for zero gain - not impressed!
1 comment:
As always a better and more salient take.
Post a Comment