Official GWS Thread

It would be good to see a photo of the damaged kayak for ourselves.

Also to know the length of it. Color was white. I really don't think
color matters much.

too many possibilities for me to hazard a guess, but one thing that
comes to mind is that they could have come on a feeding event
(big pinniped, baby whale) with more than one shark present.

They might have got too close, been charged, knocked out,
charged again, bitten, one jumps in to help the other,
second shark appears, etc.

www.pelagic.org and shark research committee had more than one
report where a shark is defending its food, biting some pretty big
boats etc. 

blue, if you hear of a shark chomping on something, I'd say the idea
is to go the other way, not head in for a photo op.

remember what I said it allways seems to be a white or blue when a kayak is hit.

I have "the book".  One word of advice, don't let the girlfriend/wife get ahold of it.  Mine found it and she would read me a story or 2 every night for weeks.  She's now very scared of sharks and sometimes even more scared of me going out kayak fishing.  She can quote the number of attacks reported at every launch I use.   

-Allen

I'll be sure to leave it out, maybe I'll get a little attention and worry
on my behalf!   

Us dads are pretty darn far down the worry list. maybe you don't
have kids?

Just another toss of my 2c,
To implement a permittted take on Great whites there would have to be a cooperative permitted take on their food source. Otherwise we might see even MORE sea lions out there than there now. And while I think that there would be some support for this in the commercial & even recreational fisheries, I would be really surprised to see sea lion hunting permits be supported by the voting majority of folks in the state of CA. For myself, I think messing with wildlife population numbers generally leads us into trouble. To be real, there will always be GWS out there, as long as there are seals to feed them. There's a balance there that humans just can't get around, and the more we try to manipulate the balance the deeper into trouble we get. We already take quite a few fish that might otherwise go to feed sealls, so I suppose one could argue that we, as fisherfolk, are already doing something to control the pinniped population and in turn, the shark population.
As I have mentioned previously, the MacAllister case has always be an argueable one, IMHO. Among the folks I have talked to in the kayak industry & the scientific research arena the consensus (at least in 1996) was that the guy probably offed his girlfriend & set it up to look like an accident. My own opinion is that this is more likely than a shark attack, but I'm open to whatever evidence is out there.
I went to a lecture by Ralph Collier several years ago & was surprised that he basically pooh-poohed the theory that GWS might "attack" for reasons other than food. I think (& I am by no means a shark research specialist) that the curiousity factor might have merit, seeing as how intelligent animals are generally curious (look at us, with a huge thread about something we all have some trepidation of). Being that sharks have no hands, it stands to reason that they would mouth something that they could not readily indentify. This would explain the two types of attacks, the hard hitting massive mid body bite (which is generally fatal in humans & elephant seals), and the softer, more sly bite (that surfers seem to survive). The recent "attack" up north seems to be an example of the latter. Anyway, I was really surprised that Mr Collier basically did not think this theory had anything to it. Not that he needed to agree, i just thought his response was strange. Of course I was just a smart aleck kid then, so maybe I misinterpreted his response.
To me, the equation is simple, humans, sharks, & seals all love the water and eventually the three will meet each other no matter what. If there weren't any sharks out there then every yahoo with a paddle would be out there with us.
I just hope if I ever do see a GW out there that 1. it knows I am not a pinniped, and 2. it has a boring, uninquisitive personality that is not interested in investigating large floating plastic things.

Sean

well, good to see some discussion on that point. here's my change for your 2c,  .

your assumption of coupling the take of GWS to take of sea lions doesn't hold merit for me.

everything in an ecosystem is linked one way or the other. So restricting that logic to two species in
an ecosystem seems forced at best.

as you note, we mess with plenty parts of the ecosystem, what's the big deal with limited messing with an apex predator?
if anything that has the least effect, not the most on an ecosystem.

note that you can take something off the top of a house of cards, but not the bottom, I'd say
we are safest if we only mess with stuff at the very top of the food chain. Sure pigs and deer
are a pest because their are no grizzlies and timber wolves walking the streets, but that's probably
better than the alternative, if one is going to be at all practical.

Finally it's not even clear there are enough of them to control pinneped numbers. Just enough
to bite a surfer or two each year, apparently, and eventually a kayaker maybe.

As for mcAllister, the report from the coroner cites only shark bites and bumps and bruises,
no strange slashes, and says that the bites were the cause of death, according to Collier's book.
It's quite possible the paddling community was too close to this event to think clearly about it and
quick to believe convenient rumors that avoid the scary truth. No it wasn't a shark, it was uh, aliens!
yeah, that's it! (Of course, it might have been aliens. I wasn't there, but I think death by shark was the most likely)

Collier is probably pretty unique. I have seen some comments from him that I don't agree
with myself. But to say that he mis-represented the coroner's report seems to be going too far.
the coroner's report can be verified. All you have on your side so far is rumor.

Finally, I kind of agree with your point about yahoos with paddles, but check out the so-cal zoo,
or even santa cruz for that matter, the sharks would have to be an out of control issue to really control the numbers of yahoos.
In the end, the kill permit thing is mostly symbolic, but it's probably also good policy to have a relief valve like this in place.

I'm for internationally auctioned kill permits of a limited number from
the USA, South Africa and Australia. It's largely an issue of symbolic revenge and a presure relief
valve, but I think it's a good idea to have something like this in place.

Best,

J

All other points of this somewhat amusing thread aside - what makes you think that humans have more right to the ocean than sharks?

You're suggesting opening up a hunt on sharks just because you're worried about shark attacks on humans?

Should we ban driving so pedestrians are safe from cars?

Should we hunt endangered lions and tigers (and bears oh my!) just because they kill humans in Africa and India?

If you've ever watched any Discovery channel about animals you'd know that removal of apex predators has HUGE effects on the ecosystem.

hey rockhopper,  . nice stipers you caught, not to mention those perch!

okay, here's my reply:

I don't worry about "rights" in the sense you use the word,
as a "moral" right rather than a "legal" right. I only worry about "legal" rights,
as in I have the "legal" right to my house cause I bought it. I have the legal
right to kill a certain number of fish becaue I'm a citizen of California and I have
a fishing license.

So I'm tossing the whole question of "moral" rights to any particular environment out
the window. Are you going to give your house back to the indians or the grizzlies or
the wolves that used to live there? What moral "right" to you have to anything you "own"?
No, let's not go down that rathole of "moral" rights.

right now we have chosen to cede the ocean to the GWS by given them "legal" rights
the ocean. They are fully protected by law.

We have given them legal right to kill us whenever they chose.


let's stick to "legal" rights. As in right now the GWS has legal right to the whole ocean.

I'm basically saying lets revoke the rights of a limited number of GWS to the ocean.

As for your second point, I'm watched my fair share of the discovery channel and from what I can see
 even the extinction of the GWS would not  appreciably affect the ecosystem.
if you have a fact based argument, let's hear it.

best,

J

"Are you going to give your house back to the indians or the grizzlies or the wolves that used to live there? What moral "right" to you have to anything you "own"?"

That's a good point, but unfortunately all that happened long before my time - as far as Europeans stealing this country from the Native Americans and animals that have the moral right to the land I rent goes. So I had no control or opinion on the outcome of that.

We all do have the oppurtunity to have an opinion on this issue, though, so I'm stating mine.

My point still stands, too. You want to remove sharks from water that they have the "legal" and "moral" right to be in for no other reason than to protect humans who knowingly place themselves in the shark's feeding environment. (How's that for a run-on sentence).

My point is not to say who's right or wrong in their opinion. (And thankfully by the "tone" of your response you recognized that!) I guess my biggest point is that if people want to kayak in the ocean they do so knowing there is the risk of being investigated by a shark. I know a few people whose fear of sharks keep them off the water, when in reality they should be more afraid of the ocean itself, rather than what's lurking underneath.

If people want to go camping in the woods they do so knowing they could be attacked by a bear. That doesn't mean we should go around killing the few bears that are left just to make it safe for people. It means if people are worried about that then they don't belong in the woods in the first place. Same goes for kayakers.

I just don't think that humans have the legal or moral right to ANY ecosystem. Just like commercial fisherman thinking they have some sort of right to decimate fish populations....

Anyway, I'm just rambling on now...lol.

BTW - thanks for the fish compliments!

yeah, largely it's a symbolic thing. Note that it could help to protect the GWS.

Right now the Australians are ready to riot. Basically somebody with a high powered rifle or harpoon
or speargun could kill a few at any time, we all know where they appear every year.
If they wanted 'revenge' for an attack,  they might be inclined to do this.
But if they knew a few were taken out each year, perhaps
in proportion to the number of attacks, they might be less inclined to that illegal action
of killing a few off in an unregulated and untrackable manner.

right now guys like randy fry are basically sacrifices. But if the numbers bump up, humans will fight back.

I'm advocating a limited (say 10) number of kill permits be auctioned by some kind of internatinoal shark
protection body with members that include the US, south africa and australia.

Best,

J

Apologies if this is already somewhere in this long thread.  I read it about a year ago, and hadn't been able to find it since, stumbled upon it again today so here ya go.  I'm not sure I agree with their conclusion though.  They tallied 3 sightings but no bitings...

From : http://www.geocities.com/Pipeline/Curb/5893/whiteshark.html

GWS per HR


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In-Water Great White Shark Encounters are Rare Indeed, Unfortunately Attacks Are Not Any Less Likely.
Abstract
On a sample of 17 divers with a combined total of many many many hours of diving we have only 3 encounters with a Great White Shark (GWS) that occurred while the diver was looking at the GWS through water (as opposed to through the air, like from a boat or kayak) giving a rate between 0.00007 and 0.00010 GWS encounters per hour (somewhere around 1 encounter every four years spent continuously in the water). A rough estimate of the attack rate per hour in water gives similar numbers to this encounter rate, so, here in Northern California, its probably just as likely that you'll encounter a GWS as get attacked while you're in the water.

Results
First we count the numerator (number of in-water encounters).

1. Tony Civitell has one encounter whilst scuba spearfishing alone in Reverse Cove, south of Soberanes Point, south of Carmel.
2. Bob Bachman's buddy has one encounter in Fitzgerald Marine Reserve two years ago while freedive spearfishing.
3. Seth Hopkins and Joe Jackson in Fitzgerald Marine Reserve for 30-35 seconds (Citizen watch info) during a breathold dive Saturday August 7 1999, Seth laying, back down, on the bottom at 35 feet (Casio watch info) and Joe suspended around 18 feet, both of us making sure It knew we were watching. My rate is 1 per 75 hours total in Northern California (0.013), but my San Mateo rate is 1 per 4 hours (0.25). Joe's rate is about the same at 1 per 50 hours NorCal total (0.020) and 7 hours San Mateo (0.14).

Now we count up the (more comforting) denominator (total hours in-water):

1. Dennis Haussler: 0 per 1000 hours.
2. Kurt Bickel: 0 per 2560 hours (16 years X 40 days X 4 hours).
3. Paul Castillou: 0 per 14 years (hours unknown, let's use Kurt's metric to say 2240).
4. Dave Wittington: 0 per 21 years (hours unknown, Kurt's metric says 3360).
5. Dave Wittington's Friend: 0 per 25 years (Kurt's metric says 4000).
6. Dave Edlund: 0 per 26 years (this Dave says his 1990s totaled 1000-1500 hours, so let's say the total is around 3000 hours).
7. Joe Tobin: 0 per 20 years (Joe says about 10 hours per month X 6 months per year X 20 years = 1200 hours).
8. Terry Maas: 0 (Joe Tobin says) per many years (lets say 5000 hours)..
9. Allan Spehar: 0 per 1000 hours (his shore sighting doesn't count here).
10. Peter Wolfgram: 0 per 30 years (4800 hours).
11. Bob Bachman: 0 (I'm already counting his buddy's encounter while Bob was on a diveboard) per 3120 hours.
12. One of Bob's buddies: 0 in 3120 hours.
13. Another of Bob's buddies (the one who encountered the GW) also has a total of around 3120 hours.
14. Dusty Boeger: 0 in 15 years (he estimates hundreds of hours, let's say 400 hours).
15. Seth Hopkins: 1 in a measly 75 hours.
16. Joe Jackson: the same 1 in a minuscule 50 hours.
17. Tony Civitell: 1 in 2000 hours.

Therefore, our survey shows that in a sample of 17 divers we have 3 encounters per 40045 total hours (0.00007 encounters per hour) (In the numerator, I'm counting Joe Jackson and I as one diver, one encounter since it was the same GWS. We now tend to stick together while diving, since after pulling that 30lb Halibut up together on July 29th by the shooting line and especially after Joe's squaring off to the GWS swooping in on my ass on August 7th our buddy lessons are well-learned. If I dive with any of you in the future you'll know why I am trailing by your fins in full-out symbiosis!)

Discussion
This number of 0.00007 encounters per hour is confirmed by Alan Spehar's separate, more or less independent, estimate from the CENCAL competitions (Alan's estimate is 25 divers X 5 meet hours X 5 meets per year X 40 years) producing 1 (by Conrad, in Carmel River, this year, not included in the survey's 17) encounter per 25,000 meet hours cumulative of all divers (0.00004 encounters per hour). Our encounter rate is in this range of 0.00001 to 0.00020 even if we discover one or two more of us has had an encounter I haven't heard about yet, considering there are also some heavy-hitting veterans with 1000+ hours that we likewise aren't including.

I am aware from the CENCALFREEDIVER list that Larry Burris SCUBAing in Carmel Bay encountered (two passes) a GWS. I don't know how many hours he's been in the water though, nor do I know how many other vets are out there to contribute their thousands of GWS-less hours to the denominator. You can see that I don't want to prejudice the count towards the numerator!!

Notice that if we back off of Kurt Bickel's eager metric (160 hours per year, is he a fanatic?) and move towards a more sane metric like Joe Tobin's (60 hours per year) for those guys that just have yearly estimates, then our total hours becomes 1 encounter per 31045 hours (0.00010 encounters per hour). Cool, very cool, it all works out to quite rare indeed .

But what might be the number of GWS attacks per hour? Boy this is gonna be rough, but change the numbers as you see fit. Starting from 60 attacks in 73 years (1926 to 1999, I know many of these weren't while diving, but...) I would guess 100 (low?) to 500 (high?) full-on scuba/freedivers logging 160 hours (Kurt Bickel's metric) to 60 (Joe Tobin's metric) hours a year. This gives 0.00001 to 0.00014 GWS ATTACKS per hour in the water, remarkably similar to our range of GWS encounters per hour. I conclude that the two are just as improbable, but at least I would be more comfortable if the attacks were MORE improbable than encounters . I'm just glad Joe Jackson and I landed on the encounter side of these two improbabilities, at least for this time . One final number to consider is the 0.10 fatality rate given an attack. That is a tough one to get around and would only increase if we consider the poor souls who were never found again.

Conclusion
It should be noted that Joe Jackson and I believe we may never have even seen the GWS (unless it had attacked, and we may have caused it to abort its attack) if we weren't buddy diving in our (by now) typical style: always in eye contact, one following the other and meeting up on the bottom. It was on our way down that Joe squared off with the GWS heading toward my legs (from the bottom I was watching Joe, wondering why he wasn't coming on down, then I saw the GWS in an "einne-meanie-minny-moe" stalemate wondering who might taste better.

Our suits were identical, did we confuse Whitey with our schooling-fish tactic? Was my lingcod-style defense, holed up on the bottom waiting for danger to pass effective? Was Joe's China Rockfish tactic of raising his spines to make himself appear larger effective? We probably would all agree that the number of times that a GWS encounters us is likely to be more than 0.00010 per hour, and after seeing how that thing moves in the water I'm convinced it doesn't have to let us know that its checking us out for a dinner potential. It is able to sense us from well beyond our visibility range here in Northern California, and it can move in with great stealth, should it like the prospects.

So, given the indistinguishable rates of encounters and attacks, the GWS's stealth, predatory sense, low visibility in the water, and finally its range, I might speculate that they encounter us quite frequently, but should you encounter it, the bugger is really seriously considering an attack, or, the optimist might say, it has just called one off. In any case, you'd best find a cave quick and go in there with your best static breathold!

Other Dangers
Some people say that the drive to the dive site is more likely to kill you than a shark. Auto fatalities are probably more remote than shark encounters, given that you are a freediver around here (let's say 3 hours driving per dive per person for 40 dives a year multiplied by the national average (I think) of 50,000 fatalities per year per 250,000,000 person gives 0.000002 fatalities per hour driving, significantly less than encounter rates and, incidentally, less than attack rates too. Sorry that's no comfort either. Sleep tight and D(r)ive Safe!

Whether by shallow-water blackout, entanglement (kelp, fishing line, etc.), knocking yourself out on a rock, or some other means, its drowning that has to be the biggest gotcha. No statistical data on that yet, though.

Acknowledgements
Thanks to all those named and not named for your participation in this study. You guys have dove a lot, and Kurt, if you keep it up, you're bound to encounter one too. Might I suggest you try at Fitzgerald Marine Reserve?!

-Seth

If you did a study with kayaks the numbers would be incredibly tiny compared to the dive stats.

Well, I jump right in and dive, so their numbers are the ones I pay attention to.    After swimming in norcal, I feel positively bulletproof in my kayak. 

Well, I jump right in and dive, so their numbers are the ones I pay attention to.    After swimming in norcal, I feel positively bulletproof in my kayak.

Ditto.

I surf, so I also feel comparitively safe in a kayak.

it was interesting that they computed the diving to be more risky
than driving (and that's just the shark factor).