Official GWS Thread

maybe a good thing:

http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/pacific_coast_shark_news.htm

Mavericks  —   On November 3, 2005, Tim West and Chris Loeswick were surfing Pillar Point at Mavericks in Half Moon Bay. It was 4:45 PM and they were about 400 yards from Sail Rock and 750 yards from shore. The swell was about 11 feet with limited water visibility from suspended debris in the water. Dan Temko, Harbor Master, Half Moon Bay reported the following; “West and Loeswick were surfing the inside break at Pillar Point and saw good waves forming on the outside. West started paddling over the channel that leads to the outside break. It was low tide and the depth of the water was 22 feet on the edge of the shelf. West’s board was struck from below lifting West and the board about 2 feet out of the water. West fell into the water and his board landed several feet away. There was a lot of thrashing by the White Shark for 3 – 5 seconds when it struck the board. It departed without any further actions toward the surfers or the board. A tooth was discovered buried in the bottom of the board.” White Sharks are known to frequent this area. Caution should be exercised when utilizing this location for your ocean water activities. Additional information will be posted when available. This is the third White Shark attack to be reported from California in the past 15 days and fourth for this year. Please report any shark sighting, encounter, or attack to the Shark Research Committee.


if you were old and crusty like me I wouldn't warn you, but I'd hate to see a youngun chomped.

You guys are pumping the GWS attack propaganda way out of proportion 

Bill, please elaborate.

since your post followed mine, I assume 'you guys'
includes me.  

So far I haven't seen false information posted or anything. pretty much facts? no?

Seems like 18 foot long 5000lb man-eating fish that frequent our local fishing grounds
are worth talking about? I sure hope so!

It's scary sure, in fact it's really scary, but that's no excuse for not talking about it.

Well, maybe that's a reason for not talking about it, but that's denial man, denial!
that's a reason, it's not an excuse. there's a difference.

If anything there's not enough info. Assessing risks is difficult at best.
For example, is it more dangerous to drive to fish or to actually fish? I'm not entirely
sure, none of us have been killed by drunk drivers or by sharks. so who knows.

I can't even find any hard info on this one fatal kayak attack. can you? All I see is that
it happened at malibu. (does potto know about this one I wonder?)

But this is your site, you tell me what I can post about any risks to kayak
fisherman and what I can't and I'll abide by your rules.

maybe you need a special scary forum. urchins. sharks. drunk drivers. waves.
fog. a place for the trouble makers of the world really.

sincerely,

j

JMairey is freaking me out--I love it!     Get me scared enough to where I don't mind not going for lingcod and abs until next April and I'll be happy.  The GWS issue is one not to ignore, but you have to accept it to be doing what we're doing.  Sure, I'm not going salmon fishing at the mouth of the Klamath in late summer--unless we have a group!  But really, I'm not going to seek out known 'sharky' spots, but I do end up yakking and diving in and around them at times...  It's about minimizing risks while having the ability to enjoy an area to some extent.  Some well-informed and reasonably responsible extent.  Now, this extent is no doubt different for us vs. our wives/SO's, and we must also weigh that factor when deciding on a reasonably responsible risk.  It's similar to surfing in more ways than just the shark--a pro died on the North Shore recently--I doubt that anyone quit surfing...

I guess I am just reacting to the fact that it seems like every other post includes some GWS factoids lately. There have only been what 3 reported GWS attacks on kayaks in the entire history of reported attacks on the west coast. The chances of getting attacked by a GWS on a  kayak are so incredibly small I don't think getting all worked up about is worth anyone getting worried about it. People do far more stupid things that will get them killed on the ocean and no one seems to worry about that. Not having a VHF radio while fishing on the ocean, going out alone, in the fog, not filing a float plan. All of us is guilty of of least one of these errors in the past. Let's not even get into the risk of driving to fish 

You can talk about whatever you want on this forum, I am not going to censor any topic, as long as it is relevant. I just get a little goofy when I picture someone who might be interested in fishing on the ocean but they are terrified of getting attacked by a GWS. I would hate to propagate that fear when it appears that given current historical evidence the likelihood of that occurring is very very small.

Well said Bill

I really hate to say this...but I predict that a kayak fisherman will be tagged by a GW within a couple of years. It's just a matter of time. There's more and more kayak fishermen getting out there these days AND since the White shark has been protected for a while now...we are seeing the baby boom generation. I'm no expert on the matter but it just makes sense Several reports of hooked fish getting snatched by a GW right by the boat.....I can see that happening to a kayaker. So, keep your feet on board ...especially if you have a bleeding,struggling fish at the end of your line

But this will not stop me from pursuing "game" from my kayak  

Guys all this censor talk is getting me depressed. I have never censored anyone here. 

Don't make me censor your censor comments. 

Bluekayak, stop talking about sharks and go answer my darn salmon trolling questions!
I want to know how much line to start with, and what you do after 30 minutes of
not catching anything. If you would stick to the knitting we wouldn't be getting in trouble here!

okay, for the rest of you:

I scared Abking? wow!   

For myself, I intend to fish pretty much every spot except the aNo island itself.
And that's mainly because those pinnipeds stink and those darn pelicans
poop on you.

So Bill, I'll see you out there,  .

But I agree with Mooch. There will be an encounter in the next 5 years. I'll lay
money down on that one. And it's speculation but common sense says there are more sharks.
The number of attacks is definitely on the increase. Bill you make a mistake when you look at
the last 150 years. try looking at just the last two!

I think there are more sharks out there these days due to protection and a more
healthy ecosystem. 20 juvenile (5ft) white sharks were sighted feasting on grunion just
a few years ago. for example.

There are quite a pile ofnewbs paddling out on cute primary colored plastic boats to fish, me
included, and also a few burly outdoorsmen types like abking and bluekayak and scwafish among others.
but we are all on a collision path with the protected and increasing GWS.

Will the enounter be fatal when it happens? I doubt it. If you see the fish first,
then either it's a driveby or maybe you get bumped or the fish nibbles on
the front or back. In that scenario, you are probably okay. In the other case where it
does the polaris missle attack on you because you look like a nice thing to eat,
well hopefully you don't get bit or impacted too bad. The shark probably won't
come back after it figures out it made a mistake and hit a plastic imitation of something
good to eat. Either way you stand a good chance of avoiding direct munchification.

So that's why I'm going fishing. Cause I think I'll live through whatever happens.

But you never know.

(I'd really like to know the details on this kayak death in 1989 in malibu).

Unlike scallen, I feel safer on a 15foot kayak even 3 miles out than I do
on a 6'6" hunk of foam sunk up to my sternum, at least as far as the survivablity goes.

I also don't use a radio, a gps, a pfd, file a float plan and I fish alone at times. hey I
surf, it's no worse than that.  I might get a compass tho.

But I have some limits.

I probably won't ab dive. Randy Fry's head washed up 3 days later. somebody
found it while walking the beach. my head gets bitten off, I want to be in
deep water where they never find it.

I cringe watching a newb or kid head out into danger unawares.

I got two boys and they aren't doing anything too crazy until they are old enough to tell me
to eFF off.

more scary stories:

My parter in my company is 45 and has lived in the area for 45 years, windsurfing a number of
them and even having a windsurfing store in berkely.

he claims the distinct pleasure of seeing 3 GWS up close and personal:

1. davenport. small, 12 foot. while windsurfing.

2. natural bridges. huge. bus-like. while windsurfing,
went directly over it. he windsurfs less now.

3. new brighton. surfaced right near shore and scared
the bejeezus out of people for miles. this was about 30 years ago.

How many degress of Kevin Bacon do you have to go to get to a GWS witness?
 

Kayakers in the last 2 years? I don't see any, at least on this page

http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/unprovoked_kayaker.htm

Last one was 1995. This page list all for 2000- forward again no kayaks, lots of surfers though

http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/2000.htm

From 1900-today 10 people have died from a GWS, with only one of those being a kayaker. I would wager more people die every day from bee stings or peanuts.

I will take your and moochs bet. Define what "tag" is to be clear. Not a bump, not a stolen fish but an unprovoked (no baiting) bite inflicted on a kayak fisherperson. If that happens in the next 5 years I will buy you both a meal at Ono's.

Bill, with all due respect to the officiaal NCKA handyman, you are too easily defeated. 

big increase in attacks 2000 to 2005. I'm not limiting it to kayakers. see below.

In my book, kayakers, windsurfers, divers, surfers are all in the same 'boat', more or less. human powered,
shark vulnerable.

Regarding your bet, I'd have to include a stolen fish, a definitive sighting (with photo) or a sighting + bump as an encounter. any of those
would be enough to stop a lot of people from ever going out again and have to be taken seriously as such.
5 year window and you got a deal.  .

here's an interview with Ralph Collier (official handyman of sharkresearchcommittee.com)
where he discusses the increase in incidents in recent years.

http://www.surfermag.com/features/onlineexclusives/shark04/

SURFERMAG.COM: A more than triple increase in the average of attacks in the past four years is rather alarming to most of us who spend a lot of time in the water. It is probably extremely difficult to pinpoint the factors that contributed to the increase, but what are some of the possibilities?

Ralph S. Collier: First of all, the tripling is in reference to the number of white shark attacks. We have averaged just slightly more than one white shark attack per year during the 20th century. During the first four years of this century we have experienced 16 white shark attacks, which is an average of four shark attacks per year. Which is more than triple in average. But as far as what some of the possibilities are for this increase it could be the result of a number of factors. One is that there could have been an increase in population of ocean-user groups; i.e. there are more divers, swimmers, surfers and kayakers going to the beaches utilizing the ocean, therefore we have more people being placed in a position where they might have an interaction with a shark. The other thing that could be taking place is that the white shark has been protected for the past 10 years. This protection, although not infallible, probably has allowed a larger survivable population, annually, of juveniles. Gill net fishing is much more restricted today than it was 10 or 20 years ago. There are lots of other factors, like an increase in ocean-user groups could mean that there are more people around to observe and report shark activity than before. More sharks being closer to shore this year might have been a result of unusual or anomalous oceanographic conditions.

SURFERMAG.COM: On your Web site you mentioned that the nine attacks on the Pacific coast of North America were the most ever recorded for great white shark attacks anywhere in the world. Are there generally more attacks on the Pacific coast of North America than other places in the world?

Ralph S. Collier: Let me give you a few statistics. From 1852 to 2004, 93 white shark attacks were authenticated from South Africa. Now that’s a period of 152 years. Now if we look at Australia, where everyone thinks that you have the highest incidence of white shark interactions with humans, there have been this is according to an e-mail I received from a colleague in New South Wales, who is the head of the South Australian Shark Attack File he informed me that they have, in a period of 213 years, recorded a grand total of 79 authenticated white shark attacks in Australia. In North America, we have a total of 110 authenticated white shark attacks from 1926 to the present.

SURFERMAG.COM: Do you have any theories on why this is?

Ralph S. Collier: The reason that we have more interactions is probably again a multiple faceted reason. Number one, marine mammals have been protected now for right around 30 years. So the marine mammal population is growing, and has been growing by leaps and bounds.

SURFERMAG.COM: And I would assume then that in other places they aren’t?

Ralph S. Collier: Other locations, they’re probably protected but I don’t know that their numbers are as great as they are here. I don’t know where the juveniles are pupped in Australia. To be honest with you, I’ve never been able to get a firm handle on where they catch juvenile white sharks in the 3- and 4-foot range. There just isn’t any data on that. But I do know that they’ve [fishermen] been catching juvenile white sharks from Point Conception down into Mexico since the early 1930s. The adults are being brought into this area because it’s a good place for them to give birth. Now, the parent leaves after giving birth because you have to have segregation between the adult and the juvenile, otherwise within a few days of giving birth, the mother will start feeding and shell eat her own young. So the females, generally we see them out at the islands. There are frequently large numbers of them in the spring, in San Clemente, Catalina, the Southern California islands. Then the sharks seem to move northward. We don’t have as many reports of sightings down here and they start showing up in Central and Northern California. Well, this is all movement associated with prey. Animals follow their prey. Sharks do what they do based on food and/or mating, and/or giving birth, and when the sharks move north that happens to be the time of the year when we start getting spawns of salmon and steelhead. And these things start occurring along the coastal rivers of Central and Northern California and now we start seeing more white sharks along these areas, because white sharks eat salmon and they also eat seals which come in close to shore to feed on the salmon. So you basically have a circular chain where you have fish coming ashore to go upriver to spawn, you have seals coming in to feed on those fish and then you have white sharks coming in to feed on the fish and the seals. And in the middle of all this, a lot of good places to surf are near rivermouths because the river brings down silt, which creates sandbars, which causes the waves to have nice shape. So its unfortunate that all of these places that these animals go to do what Mother Nature has taught them, happen to be the same places that are good for us to go enjoy our favorite sport.

SURFERMAG.COM: In your book you mention that 60% of great white attacks were from a recurring location. What are some of these locations?

Ralph S. Collier: Some of the recurring locations off the top of my head are the Farallon Islands. Tomales Point in Northern California. In Southern California, some of the recurring locations would be Paradise Cove, Malibu. La Jolla, we’ve had several attacks in La Jolla. One fatal. There was a fatal attack in Malibu, Paradise Cove, on a kayaker in 1989.

SURFERMAG.COM: I think there’s a common misconception that sharks primarily hunt with their sense of smell. What is the primary sense that makes sharks such efficient predators?

Ralph S. Collier: It’s an efficient use of a number of sensory systems. Sharks have a lateral line, which for things like explosions or splashing, they can sense displacement of water at quite a distance, using a lateral line and hearing as well. When they get close to an object, lets say they smell blood in the water from a dead whale, they will follow that back to the animal. Depending on water clarity, when they get close enough, vision takes over. Short distances, we believe based on water visibility, white sharks are probably more of a visual predator within 20 to 30 meters of their prey. And that is probably best emphasized by the fact that if you microscopically examine the retina of a white shark eye, you will notice that they have the same ratio of rods to cones as a human. Which means, not only do they have the same acuity that you and I have to determine finite detail on objects, not only up close, but also at distances, but they also have the ability to see colors.

SURFERMAG.COM: What is the largest adult white shark you’ve observed?

Ralph S. Collier: 19 feet, 3.5 inches, and it weighed 4,680 pounds, I think. The heaviest great white I’ve ever worked with was a female that was 16 ft., 9 in. and weighed 4,745 lbs.

SURFERMAG.COM: Is there anything you can suggest to surfers who might encounter a great white shark?

Ralph S. Collier: The first thing I would suggest if a shark comes upon you, and you see him, odds are pretty good that its not going to strike you. The reason is that usually predators do not announce themselves to an unsuspecting prey, so he’s probably more curious than anything. If you see the animal, try to remain calm; if it’s at the surface, try to keep sight of it. Do not make any sudden, quick moves. Keep sight of the animal. When the opportunity presents itself, I would make for shore. Do whatever you have to do to remove yourself from the water as quickly, as quietly, as smoothly as possible. Don’t do any excessive splashing. Don’t flail your arms in the water and start digging like crazy for the shore. Because that sudden burst of energy and noise might attract the animal and make it a little more curious and think that you might be something that is trying to flee. You basically just need to remain calm and let it check you out. I cant tell you how many dozens upon dozens of reports I get every year of a white shark coming up alongside a surfer and circling the board a couple times and then just swimming off. They’re more curious about surfers than they are intent on eating them. White sharks, because of their vision, I do not believe, based on my research, that attacks on surfers are the result of mistaken identity, as it is referred to, which is really a predatory attack. I think some of the attacks on surfers are predatory, but I think the majority of interactions are more out of investigation and curiosity.

I split this off so it does not get buried in some random HMB report thread. I do think this is an important topic.

Since this is a kayak site I think we should limit it to kayakers, after all I think we have a much different profile in the water when compared to surfers and divers. Not many 15" surfboards out there and I am pretty sure there is not surfboard that matches a OK Drifter profile either. Surfing and diving/swimming are far more dangerous from an historical perspective than kayaking in terms of GWS attacks, the stats bear that out.

So I have to hold firm on the fish issue, if I shark attacks a fish on your line it is clearly going after the fish and not the kayak. This is a shark attack on a fish. When a sea lion grabs a fish we don't start screaming a sea lion attacked a kayaker. I am talking about attacks not sightings. Sightings, while scary, are not going to hurt anyone and therefore are not dangerous. See the point below about "if you see one it will probably not attack you" Now if I saw one and would certainly vacant the area and then scoop the poo out of my wetsuit but by and large I would be ok.

So attack on a kayaker where the kayak is actually struck, preferably without a fish/seal/sea lion involved within the next 5 years. I will buy a meal at Ono for Mooch, Jmairy, and Blue Kayak (since he is the top of the list to be the person hit  )

I am not debating that attacks are increasing, just debating that those attacks are more likely to impact kayakers. I am not saying it can't happen, or even that it won't happen. I am just saying that is it not very likely to happen and I certainly don't want it to happen to anyone.

Your bet is on. mark it on your calendar, 5 years hence. december 16 2010.

if we make it with no attacks on kayaks, by your definition, I'll buy the lunch.  
Be the best lunch I ever bought. And if you have to buy one for me and mooch and paul,
or just two of us,  , hopefully the person involved will be uninjured.
or a so cal guy. okay, just kidding... 

Now, if a powerboater gets eaten off the side or sunk or something tho, that's drinks
all round,  . unless it's alan tani, but the rest of those losers, miller time!
Now I'm only half kidding.  cause if one of us gets eaten I can just see the
smart ass remarks on coastside...

I'm also quitting my job as self-appointed warner of all kooks, barneys, willbers, noobs,
kids, dorks, vals, ignorant fools, and other people that have no clue. Cause with this
bet Bill, you just got that job,  .  keep 'em safe.

This link should probably be reposted: http://www.pelagic.org

I'm actually pretty darn left of center (when not completely apolitical)
and elitist to boot, but this guy sean van sommeran has me beat by a mile.

paul, no offense, but I wouldn't hire you as my lobbyist. 
Scallen's friend, sean van sommeran, is gonna take you out
like a sniper on a roof, like a D.J. in a booth... he's a professional.

personally, I think the path is clear: GWS and humans are on some
kind of collision course as long as people go in the water and GWS
and marine mammals are fully protected. something has to give.
whether that takes 5 years, 10 years or 20 I don't know, but it'll
happen.

An interesting question is whether a limited # of GWS kill permits
should be given out.  They could probably sell them for thousands
of dollars each, maybe more.  That buys a lot of protection for other things.
5 sharks @ 20K a pop is an extra game warden or a lot of fish stocked, etc.

10 years of protection is a lot. If the GWS eats a few people the
backlash could be strong, the shark will suffer, or else there'll be a
lot of legislation prohibiting use of the ocean.  It's possible they'll
let it all go, but I doubt it, this is a legislation happy country. At some point,
you'd think even a guy like sean van sommeran would realize that.
Probably not much good will come from the collision of a booming
GWS population and humans.

This link should probably be reposted: http://www.pelagic.org

personally, I think the path is clear: GWS and humans are on some
kind of collision course as long as people go in the water and GWS
and marine mammals are fully protected. something has to give.
whether that takes 5 years, 10 years or 20 I don't know, but it'll
happen.

An interesting question is whether a limited # of GWS kill permits
should be given out.  They could probably sell them for thousands
of dollars each, maybe more.  That buys a lot of protection for other things.
5 sharks @ 20K a pop is an extra game warden or a lot of fish stocked, etc.

A collision course? You make it sound like some sort of apocalypse is coming. When it "happens," what should we expect to see? Great whites dragging boaters and beachgoers out to see in a massive-scale attack? Maybe attacks are on the rise, but it's hard to envision an inevitable clash between a land mammal (that only uses the ocean for recreation) and a fish.

It was a shame about Randy Fry, but his head washing up on a beach doesn't make his demise more deserving of retribuation against great whites. I'm not quite sure why you threw that tidbit of info into your earlier post - sounds like shock value.

I also can't see the reasoning in selling hunting permits for great whites. California is one of the few places where great whites are protected, and to suddenly un-protect them would be a step in the wrong direction. We know very little about these sharks, and until we fully understand their life cycles, we should maintain their status as a protected species.

I'd say that sea lions are more overpopulated (and more of a nuisance) than sharks. I'd be in full support of reducing the population of pinnipeds which would, in theory, curb the GWS population, or at least send them somewhere else to hunt.

Blue Kayak, what IS wrong with that photo? I've been looking at it and can't figure it out.