About that Bahamas Video!

Same-same, possibly on another day. But who knows - the web is full of these images

Back to that attempted bite by that Tiger.
It has led to several blog and Facebook posts but above all, to a spirited debate behind the scenes. Depending on the interlocutors, there were discussions about whether the Shark was in predatory mode and this, an attempted predatory strike; about Shark diving protocols, actually the only topic of my last post; and about whether customers engaging in commercial Shark dives do assume full responsibility for their actions and should thus be allowed to do whatever they please.
Regular readers know what I think about the latter so no need to get into great detail there.

Plus, I frankly abhor these discussions.
Shark strikes are so exceedingly rare that they are statistically insignificant, and despite of the attempts by the various statisticians and Sesselfurzer at finding some common trends, there is way too much variability in terms of situations, locations, species etc but above all, they are neither replicable nor testable and as a consequence, they will be forever inaccessible to any proper scientific analysis.
All those wonderful explanations are at best educated guesses but more often than not, they are hopelessly trivial or simply outright stupid. In fact, they tell us next to nothing about Shark behavior but instead, a lot about human behavior in general (e.g. the strikes are more frequent when and where there are more people in the water - dooh) and even more about the personalities and agendas of the various commentators who range from hostile and outright phobic (actually, make it two!) to the Pavlovian on-camera reflexes of the self professed experts to the moronic and very much self-debunked teachings of the Ueber-Charlatan.
Consequently, Shark strikes are not something we usually cover.

But since this thing has become the topic of so many e-mails.
This is where I come from based on my own experience & what I’ve learned from others: divers, operators and researchers.
Not the “truth”, just my personal belief.

• Like everything else (evolution, taxonomy etc), behavior happens along a continuum where we then want to create order & define categories. When it comes to Shark bites, I've tried to do so in this post. Those categories are pretty much clear at the extremes but extremely fuzzy at the boundaries - and although our definitions may be correct at a general level, interpreting stuff at an individual level is often extremely difficult. Think of the legal process: it consists in looking at complicated events and then analyzing, dissecting and reducing them to their essentials in order to try and to fit them into predetermined slots, i.e. the articles of the law, in a process called subsuming. Behavioral analysis is not much different and obviously fraught with the very same difficulties.
  And let there never be a doubt that whilst we're racking our collective heads trying to find adequate interpretations, the Sharks couldn't care less and will continue to act as they please!

• After thousands of dives with Sharks, I’ve only witnessed natural predation a couple of dozen times, mostly after it had already started, and this in bait balls. Only twice have I witnessed the start of predation, once by HHs in Cocos and once by Grey Reefs in the GBR, and in both cases I never saw it coming - all appeared normal and peaceful and then, Bang!
  I’ve learned to recognize agonistic behavior (read it!) and I’ve learned to recognize when a Shark is nervous/excited – but I frankly haven’t got a clue what a Shark in predatory mode looks like.
  I would presume that a) as we define Sharks as being opportunistic, predation arises out of opportunity and is not premeditated, meaning that the animals will instantly start hunting/predating once they perceive a chance for a meal and b) that whereas it makes a lot of sense for a Shark to telegraph agonistic behavior, it would make sense for them NOT to telegraph predatory mode, this in order to better surprise/ambush their prey.
  Apart from the obvious examples (=wounded, struggling fish), I got no clue what, exactly, will be seen by them as an opportunity and trigger an attack – and therefore, when it comes to those big guys, I am always wary and always give them my full attention and respect.

• I equate baited Shark dives with communal scavenging events, like several usually solitary Sharks aggregating around a whale carcass – thus natural behavior in an unnatural setting. Think: notoriously solitary Polar Bears aggregating at the garbage dump in Churchill, Manitoba and you may understand what I'm trying to say.
  I could imagine that during those events, there is some kind of social etiquette among conspecifics (I’ve never seen one of our bulls displaying overt aggression towards other bulls, although I certainly witness rank) whereas I believe that there is competitive aggression vis-à-vis other species because I’ve seen plenty of inter-specific bites, all by the dominant Bulls on other species - and elsewhere, I've also seen Silvertips biting away Nurses, etc.

• I also haven't got a clue of how Shark perceive us during baited dives.
  At best, they may see us as being friendly (as purveyors of meals) or neutral (as just another big animal that happens to be there); but we can certainly not exclude that they may perceive us as threats, competitors or potential prey. My hunch is that based on individual circumstances, all of the above may well apply, and this once again along a continuum.
  Consequently, I believe that during baited Shark dives, there is a risk of
  a) bites due to mistakes (NOT = mistaken identity)
  b) bites due to inter-specific aggression due to competition, the other species being us
  c) bites due to agonistic behavior/retaliation (as any Lemon Shark handling student of Doc and Doc himself can attest to, this is certainly totally misleading in its generalization)
  d) maybe opportunistic predation.
  That’s a lot of risk and with these big species, the consequences are always devastating. I am of the strong opinion that that risk needs to be managed.
  

• Although “common wisdom” has it that Tiger Sharks are placid, they are certainly very successful predators and certainly know how to get the job done.
  Those animals at TB are highly conditioned and display unusual behavior, as in tolerating the presence of divers, as do our Bulls. In many, many un-baited dives, and this in places where they are very much ubiquitous, I’ve only once seen one Tiger and only once Bulls, which I interpret as meaning that they usually want nothing whatsoever to do with us divers.
  The Tigers and Lemons obviously come to TB because of the bait: certainly not because they like or love us! That's just anthropomorphic mumbo jumbo and wishful thinking that we really need to stop propagating. I only know of one example where Sharks appear to approach a diver in search of affection (or is it stimulation?), and that would be Cristina's astonishing Caribbean Reefs - different species, location, circumstances!.
  Far from being the ever placid and friendly puppies some quarters are trying to market them into, I've personally witnessed both Tigers and Bulls actively trying to bite and hurt people after being manhandled, an I know two of our Bulls for being particularly ill tempered, something our handlers need to be acutely aware of. I also differentiate between species, with Silvertips being high on my list of Sharks with “attitude” that need to be treated with a lot of respect and circumspection.
  Consequently, I believe that aggression is situation-, species- and individually specific, and this once again along a continuum

• I believe that the behavior of that Tiger was either agonistic (feeling hemmed in) or retaliatory - and yes the differentiation is fuzzy and rather irrelevant.
  What IS relevant is that
  a) the diver was either fatally complacent or really had no clue because he should have pushed away the animal instead of allowing it to swim between his legs (WTF?)
  b) irrespective of the ultimate motivation, a bite by a Tiger is a bite by a Tiger, with possibly devastating consequences but above all,
  c) as I said, I really have no clue what induces a Shark to recognize an opportunity - but IF it had managed to nail the diver, I just cannot exclude that that Tiger would not have “switched gears”, perceived the chance and started feeding.
  The only Shark/human predation I’ve ever seen is the Ritter accident (watch it!) and I am convinced that that Bull was not very motivated: but he first nibbled and then ate that leg because it perceived a chance for a meal, possibly attracted by the pasty white skin and possibly because once he tested it, there was no neoprene & it tasted good – but who knows, maybe the Bull just didn’t like the dude, something I can totally emphasize with!
  

• The average experience and knowledge of our clients is very low and I believe that this is a global and increasing trend.
  In fact, 70+% of our customers have less than 100 dives. Seeing one of these big Sharks used to be the crowning of one’s diving career, now they are a “product” and a lot of people seem to believe that they are trivial, if not harmless. Others are adrenaline junkies & want to play hero.
  In both cases and if not curtailed, this leads to the same reckless behavior.

• Long story short: as a commercial shark operator, you got to stack the cards in your favor.
  Protocols are obviously location- and species- specific but there are a couple of simple rules for baited Shark dives: excellent briefing, separation of sharks and people, avoidance of contrasting colors, meaning full body dark wetsuits and gloves, supervision of clients, uniform predictable routine not to confuse the animals (=no multi-user sites or at least, a uniform set of procedures - and yes, bravo Patric!). Here is another great example for good procedures in another place.
  For the life of me, I also don’t see any upside whatsoever in the grabbing and manhandling – yes we feed ours but that’s as far as we go, otherwise we just sit back, enjoy, observe. We want Sharks to be Sharks, meaning that on one side they are badass and require our respect but on the other side, they are obviously tolerant of divers and need not be unduly feared & demonized - but both aspects, not only one, are equally valid!

• Are you still with me? :)
  So here's how I see it - literally!
  - there are people in close proximity to a bait crate, one of the stupidest things one can possibly do
  - this is absolutely nothing even remotely resembling a structured, let alone supervised dive
  - there is a large (!) Tiger Shark who attempts to bite one person and then takes an active interest in another who instead of confronting the animals tries to hop away.

To me as a commercial Shark dive operator, the obvious lack of protocols is absolutely reckless and unprofessional, and deeply abhorrent.

The customers?
Just your usual pick of dedicated and quite obviously green image hunters.

The operator?
Betcha it is again Dolphin Dream, habitual enabler of bad things with Sharks!
Quousque tandem...

OK that’s it… apologies for the verbal deluge.

Red Sea - the Experts have spoken!

Did you miss me?
I was marooned in Tonga and no, things there have not improved!

In the meantime, wondrous things have happened!
I’m alluding to my last post about the Red Sea Shark attacks: 28 comments and nobody has hyperventilated or insulted anybody! It’s really a good thread and I invite you to go read it as some highly experienced and intelligent people have shared remarkable insights and entertaining anecdotes.
Very cool indeed!

Also, the experts have published their expert opinions.

Haven’t heard much from Doktor Ritter (hear hear Biminibill!)
All I’ve found is this interview where he has looked at some pics and come to the following spectacular eco-behavioral conclusions

To call this an attack would be wrong. I would call this an accident.
The bite marks I’ve seen on the pictures look like the Sharks were defending themselves. The accident might have happened as follows: first, the Sharks took a bite in order to test the smell (sic) of that creature – in the same way that we touch something to test its consistence. Then, the victims defended themselves, at which the Sharks took a harder bite because they felt threatened.

Meaning that next time a Shark bites you, let him nibble and do not fight back!
Wow!

But then, as I’m about to post, I find this !
Again: Wow! Talk about armchair sniping from way out there in left field! And no, I’m not gonna waste my time, and yours, in commenting on the content, the arrogance, the bullshit. If by now you haven’t caught on to this particular con, there’s nothing I could possibly say that will sway your mind anyway!

Which leaves the other three musketeers.
Quite honestly, I was looking forward to their statements with considerable trepidation: after all, if the only PhD (this is wrong) has already come up with this kind of rubbish, what was I to expect from the lowly naturalists?

So there.
In a private post, George Burgess says this.

From Sharm El Sheik, Egypt.

….. For those of you disturbed by the unscientific nature of the subject do not read on (or wait until these results appear in a scientific journal). Others may find the results of my investigation of interest. ……...

From Cairo

..... The attacks were unprecedented in scope – five in five days (two each on Tuesday and Wed., one on Sat.); major trauma, the last a fatality; all from nearby locations; unlikely attackers for shallow-water attacks.
Three of the non-fatal attacks involved major injuries (loss of limbs) and the victims were very fortunate to survive.

Here’s the kicker: two of the attacks were by an oceanic whitetip and two by a mako (likely a shortfin).
Note the use of “an” and “a” – there is conclusive evidence that a single individual whitetip was responsible for two of the attacks, including the fatality, and a single mako almost surely was involved in two separate attacks. The fifth attack was by a carcharhinid - it may have been a whitetip, perhaps even the same one implicated in the other two, but not enough evidence at this time to say for sure.

The whitetip incident is, I believe, the first documented case of multiple attack by a single shark, although others have been suspected.
Will check on this more when I return and can access the ISAF database. The oceanic whitetip was identified by distinctive color patterns and a bite mark on its upper caudal lobe in underwater photos of the shark taken just before/after one attack and other photos taken from shore during another attack. The attacker also was tracked to other dive locations post-attack via photos taken by divers. It was a big one - 2.5 m – that also threatened other divers prior to its first attack.

The similarly-sized mako first attacked a wader (!) in hip-deep water then bolted back over the top of the reef into blue water only to reappear a minute later and perhaps 10 m away from the first incident, attacking a snorkler.
The first victim got away with some lacerations; the second was not so fortunate, being mauled on both arms, losing one.

All five attacks occurred in depths no more than 20 m deep.
A very strange situation indeed. It appears that the disposal of sheep carcasses by sailors bringing a load of live sheep in through the nearby shipping channel may have played a part in this, as may have unseasonably high water temp’s.

More to come as we sort through some other data.

In the past, I’ve not been very kind to Burgess.
He does come up with some highly speculative and also, irritating statements - but to his credit, like him or not, he is the go-to man when it comes to Shark attacks. And this time, I must really say that I am impressed! This is interesting, refreshingly factual and also, it does not dwell on gratuitous speculation.
Well done!

Which brings me straight over to this.
You may want to notice that the press release is authored by Collier, an amateur US West Coast GW attack investigator and by Levine, a travel agent, plus 3 unknown Egyptian (?) officials - and no Burgess!
There’s much I could say here about professional qualifications, fake academic affiliations, ongoing feuds and jumping guns & stealing shows – but then again, is anybody in the know surprised?
So, for a change, enough said!

Let’s instead focus on the merits of what is being said.
First and foremost: well done for not having tried to whitewash this – these were indeed genuine, and very likely predatory attacks and not accidents or mistakes or the like!
I also like the reference to the increase in the population of aquatic recreationists augmenting the chances of encounters, and to the specific topographical features whereby the water gets very deep close to the shoreline.

The remainder? Hmmm…

• The sheep carcasses? Indeed, maybe. But then again, the only confirmed occurrence appears to date back to the end of September which makes for a rather tenuous causal connex to events unfolding two months later. Or not?

• The depletion of natural prey due to overfishing? First, from everything I hear, the species most targeted and thus depleted in the Red Sea are pelagic Sharks rather than pelagic Fishes, thus leading to the exact opposite conclusions – but granted, I don’t dispose of the numbers and may indeed be wrong. Which of course begs the question whether this assertion is supported by any specific data? Second, I’m hearing the implicit assumption that “Sharks” will go anywhere and eat anything if they are hungry, very much like the proverbial Bears and Wolves are said to approach human dwellings during particularly harsh winters and the like. But Sharks are not Bears and Wolves. With the exception of a few large generalist feeders like Tigers, most Shark species occupy very specific ecological niches where they have evolved to be successful hunters of very specific, in this case pelagic prey. Conversely, individuals that would stray to hunt outside of their ecological niches would be comparatively unsuccessful, meaning that evolution would have selected against this kind of behavior (and incidentally, one could argue that anyway, those Bears and Wolves would still be roaming well within their original habitats from which they were displaced by our invasion). Look at the Med and the North Atlantic: well before the comparatively recent craze for Shark fins and according slaughter of Sharks, fish stocks in those waters were severely depleted - and yet, I don’t remember witnessing any consequent notable increase in Shark attacks. I remain skeptical.

• Fish feeding attracted the Sharks? Maybe – and if so, I would suspect that the attractant might have been the commotion rather than the fish bait (what was it anyway: bread and the like?). Then again, I have the exact opposite experience here in Fiji. Shark Reef sits on the edge of Beqa Channel that drops down to 300m and where given determined meteorological conditions, there are regular sightings of both Tuna and OWTs – and still, in more than 10 years of baiting with massive amounts of food creating a huge commotion, no OWT has ever visited the reef! See above, reef habitats are simply not the ecological niche of pelagic Sharks, full stop! In brief, way before attracting any pelagic Sharks, the Fish feeding on the coast would have first attracted the local coastal Sharks, among which the ubiquitous Tigers – and obviously, it has not! Again, I am highly unconvinced!

• Shark feeding? Do I once again hear that Sharks fed by humans will learn to feed ON humans? This is boring – but if you insist: please, do re-read this! Having said this, there is however one caveat: shark feeding does aggregate Sharks and if conducted in the wrong place, e.g. in the vicinity of swimming beaches and the like, it will contribute to increasing the chances of encounters between the Sharks and the aquatic recreationists – and if conducted in the wrong way, e.g. by triggering feeding frenzies, all bets are off anyway! Is this is true and the guys were feeding the Mako, they were really asking for it! As Richard points out, it is very much the responsibility of Shark diving operators to choose the correct locations and procedures, and rogue operators need to be taken to task! Again: snorkeling with large predatory Sharks is just plain stupid - and talk about this having been prophetic! Alas!
  
  

This is plenty dangerous enough!

• Temperature and metabolism? Yes most Sharks are poikilothermic - but it just so happens that the Mako as a Lamnid like the GW is not! Plus, despite the intuitive plausibility of such a hypothesis: are there any data supporting the assertion that Sharks will eat more when ambient temperatures rise, and if so: concerning which species? My personal observations certainly don’t support that hypothesis. Rather, they lead me to the conclusion that instead of falling into a feeding frenzy, Sharks that feel too hot will re-locate to where the ambient temperature is more to their liking, and that different species prefer different ambient temperatures. For instance, in Cocos, the Hammers will always be found just above the thermocline, meaning that in an El Niño year, they will stay deep and during a La Niña, very shallow. Or to take another example, Juerg’s research on the Bulls seems to indicate that they prefer to reside in water between 25 and 27 degrees Celsius. Conversely, our Reef Blacktips seem completely adapted to the much higher temperatures on the reef top. Different Sharks have evolved to function best in different habitats and temperatures and when those parameters change, they just do not behave like mechanical automatons but instead, re-locate to where conditions are best for them. And then, there’s this: many pelagic Fishes like Tuna are highly migratory and fishermen know that both they and the pelagic Sharks that follow them are associated with specific thermoclines, both in terms of depth but also in terms of how warm water expands from the Equator in Summer and contracts back in Winter. With that in mind, would it not be much more plausible to assert that the unusually elevated sea temperatures may have contributed to aggregating both the Sharks and their prey in the Northern Red Sea?

Yes I’m speculating – but so are they!
The fact is that two different species of pelagic Sharks (forget Ritter) have attacked several snorkelers and a wader (!) on the coastline.
This is truly absolutely exceptional and cannot be suitably explained by the usual generalist sound bites about Fish feeding and overfishing – if causal, both would have led to attacks by coastal Sharks first.

So bear with me if I come up with my own set of wild speculations – and let there be no doubt that my guess is as good as anybody’s and that we’ll never know what really went down anyway.

• An environmental effect, likely the unusually high temperatures, caused pelagic Fishes and the pelagic Sharks that prey on them to wander into the Northern Red Sea

• An “event” caused the Sharks to approach the coast, the most likely being that their prey went there (think Sardine Run), or that indeed, a Sheep carcass floated there - or the prey dispersed or was consumed and the Sharks approached the coast when swimming one of their typical search patters

• The stimuli (think splish-splash) sent out by the snorkelers attracted the Sharks who then attacked

And after these simply brilliant deductions (If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit), I herewith end my posts about the Red Sea attacks!
Hopefully!

About Shark Attacks

Undoubtedly, one of the Mossad Sharks!

Time for a preliminary post mortem.
Like everybody interested in Sharks, I’ve been closely following the news tidbits trickling out from Sharm El Sheikh and the various opines in the media and the blogosphere.

There’s much of the usual fluff and idiocy - but there’s also some stellar stuff.
Take the “experts”. Whilst many prate and pontificate, I found this remarkable interview with Avi Baranes. Now THIS is the kind of person you gotta consult, a highly reputable Shark researcher who has been investigating those very waters for a very long time – and accordingly, the interview brims with factual information and quietly addresses and dispels the usual myths. Bravo!
Equally noteworthy are the posts by Richard, by the SOSF and by Michael Scholl - however with some caveats that I’d like to address below.

The way I see it, in this specific case, one needs to try and answer the following queries

• What species are involved. Apparently, the species implicated are Oceanic Whitetip(s) and Mako, both pelagic as opposed to coastal species, which is certainly surprising. I’m particularly surprised to hear about the Mako, because this is very much a specialist predator of fast pelagic Fishes like Tuna and Billfishes, features a very specialized dentition aimed at grabbing rather than cutting, and is exceedingly rarely implicated in attacks on humans. OWTs on the other hand appear to have a much broader feeding spectrum and have the typical generalist dentition of “grabbers” in the lower jaw and “cutters” in the upper jaw, like the equally pelagic and generalist Blues and most Carcharhinids in general. Consequently, OWTs (not Makos) are frequently found feeding on floating carcasses, mainly of cetaceans, where they are able to cut out chunks of meat. They have a well deserved reputation for being highly inquisitive to the point of chasing people out of the water, and have been implicated in a plethora of attacks mainly on shipwreck victims.

• What induced those pelagic Sharks to come close to that coast where the attacks happened. In the Red Sea, OWTs are normally regularly sighted hundreds of miles further south and I would have expected them to move north, if at all, following their preferred temperature gradient, often in line with migrations of their habitual pelagic prey. Yes they are also known to follow ships but with the above in mind, my gut tells me that the most likely explanation might be environmental, as in weather/temperature/currents/movements of prey rather than the much cited paucity of natural food due to overfishing or selected anthropogenic interventions like chumming and baiting that would only draw in Sharks from a much smaller radius. Of note, the cited dumping of sheep carcasses happened at the end of September and cannot be credibly considered to be causal for events occurring in December.

• The cause for the attacks, and their interpretation. This may sound trivial but to me, the immediate causes are obviously location, opportunity and stimulus. Firstly, it has to be noted that the coastline drops off precipitously, meaning that snorkelers and swimmers venturing away from shore quickly find themselves in very deep water indeed. Secondly and due to the massive increase of the local tourism infrastructure, the ocean is teeming with aquatic recreationists, greatly increasing the chances for such an encounter. Thirdly, people splish-splashing at the surface send out the exact stimuli that predatory Sharks will consider worth investigating. As to the interpretation of what happened once the Sharks encountered the victims, see below.

• What can be done so that this will never ever happen again. Barring the complete prohibition to swim and snorkel, or the complete fencing off of areas where people swim and snorkel: nothing at all! As long as people will frequent the Ocean and Sharks will hopefully exist, occasional attacks will continue to occur - but one can certainly minimize the risk by following a set of sensible recommendations, the first one being don't be stupid!
  

Which leaves the interpretation of those attacks.
Whilst the mainstream media revel in the image that all Sharks are indiscriminate man hunting killers, the pro-Shark faction claims the exact opposite, that Sharks never prey on humans and that all attacks are the result of mere investigation or mistakes.
Both I believe are wrong.

Shark attacks can be defined as incidences where Sharks bite people.
The term thus covers a very wide spectrum of species, behaviors, motivations, triggers etc and any generalizations will inevitably lead to mistakes – thus, please correct me if you think I’m wrong!
Also, barring a personal interview with the perpetrators, the exact causes for these specific attacks will never be known, so whatever conclusions will emerge will only be (hopefully) plausible but ultimately always untestable hypotheses.

In very general terms, Shark attacks can be divided into the following categories.

1. Attacks associated with feeding events, i.e. predation and scavenging.

The most notorious species implicated in this category of attacks are the large predatory Sharks Great White, Tiger, Bull and Oceanic Whitetip.
Whilst large adult GWs appear to be specialist hunters of mammal blubber, the other species are generalists with a broad spectrum of prey and consequently, hunting techniques. It should thus not come as a surprise that the track record here is unequivocal: these Sharks will sometimes attack and prey on humans!

Granted, these events are exceedingly rare.
It is obvious that humans are not the primary prey of any Shark species and let me spare you the long winded and pathetically trivial explanations as to why evolution could not possibly have selected for it. Also, granted, sometimes the Sharks appear not to like (whatever that may mean) what they have attacked and either spit it back out or not bother to come back to completely consume the meal. In GWs, this may be linked to the fact that we may indeed be too lean for a specialized hunter of blubber. In other species, it may be an indication of the fact that the Shark was not very hungry, or that something disturbed it whilst it may have hung off waiting for the victim to stop struggling.
But when limbs go missing and Sharks hang on, those are predatory attacks, period!

Which brings me straight over to the whitewashing.

Yes we love Sharks, yes Sharks are much maligned and we need to work at improving their reputation: but the fact is that large predatory Sharks are dangerous and that they need to be treated with respect and with circumspection!
That makes them neither bad, nor good – that just makes them large predatory Sharks! I’ve said it before – we need to remain fact based and refrain from creating our own unhelpful stereotypes!

The common pattern of predatory Shark attack has been called Sneak Attack whereby a Shark suddenly turns up (in fact, many survivors claim that they never saw the Shark prior to the attack) and persistently attacks, very much like what happened in Sharm is being described. This is not surprising and only consistent with most attacks by terrestrial predators who relay on the element of surprise in order to approach their prey.

Great Whites sometimes attack Seals and Sea Lions which are close to the surface by sneaking up close to the bottom and then attacking more or less vertically at high speed, resulting in the much publicized predatory breaches.
Some surfers have been attacked in the same way, leading John McCosker to develop the hypothesis of Mistaken Identity, meaning that the GWs attacking a silhouette at high speed may have mistaken a surfer for a Pinniped, especially in murky water. This is certainly plausible, the more as GW are being routinely induced to attack decoys in the same manner.

BUT: this is strictly GW lingo!
This cannNOT just simply be applied to other species! Specifically, this is not how Tigers prey on Turtles (and no film maker goes potting around Hawaii towing Turtle decoys) and it does not apply to each and every “mistake” a Shark may make! Thus, asserting that most Shark attacks are due to Mistaken Identity is a fallacy and as such, nothing more than pseudo-science!

The same applies to Investigative Bites.
Once again, this is GW lingo, as Great Whites are known to test objects and people by (more or less, see Rodney Fox) gently nibbling at them. Rather than being a strictly predatory behavior, this is probably linked to testing food when scavenging and may, or may not result in subsequent feeding.
Other species known to investigate people, snorkelers and divers alike, by mouthing are Tigers and I hear, Lemons – yes, as in TB!

Not Oceanic Whitetips!
They are the picture child for investigation via bumping. They will circle ever closer, the frequency of bumps will increase and if not countered vigorously or if the affected person does not leave the water, this will likely result in a predatory attack, sometimes referred to as Bump and Bite attack. Check out the video here: this is typical behavior and it is pretty obvious that this Shark would not suddenly slow down to apply a gentle test bite! The same apparently applies to Bull Sharks.
Of note, this is different from the ramming with snout mentioned in Martin 2007 that is related to aggression, not predation. Incidentally, Martin does not cite ramming with snout as an agonistic display in OWTs, a further confirmation that in this species, that behavior is linked to predation!

Once again, attributing Investigative Bites to species other that GWs, Tigers and maybe Lemons is mere whitewashing and pseudo-science! It also looks like an attempt to exonerate the Shark from having had bad intentions or the like, something that I find rather peculiar to say the least!

2. Attacks associated with self defense

You may want to go and re-read this: several species of Sharks display behavior that is called agonistic and is linked to self defense. Failure to identify and adequately react to that behavior may lead to what are generally open-mouthed, slashing bites that result in cuts rather than missing tissue.

Attacks on surfers and bathers by small piscivorous Sharks like Blacktips and Spinners (see Volusia County) or the frequent nips on the feet of waders by subadult Blacktip Reef Sharks are commontly referred to as Hit & Run attacks and generally result in mere harmless cuts. They, too, are believed to be the result of self defense as the Sharks may simply have been startled and may have wanted to fend off a perceived attack, or may have previously displayed agonistic behavior that was never noticed by the victims.
These are, by far, the most frequent Shark attacks on people.

Finally, there are the Provoked Attacks, where the people have touched the Sharks, as in the retaliatory bites by Wobbegongs and Nurses that get dragged out from their covers by the tails.

3. Attacks associated with competition

Typically associated with spear fishing, Sharks may bite people when competing for the speared fish. These attacks are thus not aimed at preying on the person but rather, at chasing away a perceived competitor.
Incidentally, the same happens between different Shark species (but apparently not between individuals of the same species): I’ve personally witnessed a Silvertip biting a Nurse to dislodge him from some bait, and filmed one of our Bulls biting away a Lemon who wanted to approach a feeder.

Consequently, when referring to site fidelity in Sharks, one should always talk about residency as opposed to territoriality. The latter implies defense against conspecifics, a behavior that has been observed in many Fishes but apparently, never in any species of Shark!

This is again different from aggression associated with rank.
Sharks do display behavior that may be interpreted as “posturing” and there are even anecdotal accounts of actual bites on conspecifics in the context of social interactions.
Yes, it’s complicated!

4. Attacks associated with mistakes

Sharks make mistakes.
Considering the impressive array of senses they dispose of, this may seem surprising: and yet, they hunt, attack and bite a vast array of objects like boat propellers, metallic structures, decoys, and ingest completely inedible items like the famous number plates and car tires - and most often and fatally, they will be fooled by fishing bait and lures!

Mistaken attacks on humans are mostly associated with Shark feeding and baiting.
Many species of Sharks (and Fish!) are highly competitive and uncontrolled Shark feeding events can quickly develop into Feeding Frenzies where the animals get highly agitated and may end up biting other Sharks or the human spectators by mistake. Equally, Sharks may accidentally bite the feeders’ hands during hand feeding shows, etc.
Again, these are genuine mistakes and neither competitive nor predatory in nature – the latter much contrary to the opinion of the anti-feeding lobby.

Talking of which, you may want to check out these latest statements by Burgess: apparently, the perpetrator of at least two attacks is one and the same Shark! Amazing!
Plus, there’s this: "These are open-ocean sharks that are living in an environment that is food-poor," says Burgess. "So when you do find food, you darn well better take advantage of it. Do they remember things? Sure, they remember where the good places to eat were, and they'll come back." Surprise surprise: I happen to totally agree - re-read this! But... Sharks that may have been conditioned to come and feed on Tuna heads learn to… feed on Tuna heads! Not humans!

There you have it I believe - and again, if I'm factually wrong, feel free to correct me!
Long story short: if we want to be credible Shark advocates, we got to do our homework and first of all, be informed about the animals we love!
Science is always in flux and today’s insights may quickly become tomorrow’s fallacies, meaning that we must keep abreast of the latest research results and not base our knowledge on old publications and approximate hearsay. Most importantly, we the amateur naturalists should never make up things on the fly, nor should we idly re-interpret what is considered to be the accepted consensus.

This does not mean that we should not challenge the current status quo, as that is precisely the process by which knowledge is being advanced!
BUT: the only accepted technique for doing so is the Scientific Method and as always, let me warn against the siren calls and intellectual shortcuts of the self promoters, quacks and charlatans!

All researchers I’ve ever met have always been eager to engage in informed discussions and to entertain different hypotheses, if adequately supported by according observations. Those researchers are not omniscient and also, not omnipresent and often, observations by common mortals like us have greatly contributed to the advancement of scientific insights - so even if you have no academic background, don’t be shy and speak up!
But do your home work first!

In diesem Sinne!

PS read this brand new report - so, how do you interpret it? :)

Juerg on the Red Sea Attacks!

Alas, only in Schwyzertüütsch - but rather brilliant!
Na Wolf: kannste das entziffern?

Audio (it's the Swiss national radio) here.

Lucky!

From the UK Telegraph comes this breathtaking sequence of a lucky baby seal from South Africa's Seal Island. Whow!

Enjoy!

Mako Shark Predation finally filmed!

Source

History has been made.
With the aid of the world's fastest underwater scooter, "Animal Grappler" Erwin Marlin and his team have succeeded in capturing live video of a Mako Shark catching its prey at full speed in the open ocean!
This has to be seen to be believed!

Proudly powered by Moose Horn Beer.