Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Look For Patterns In North Carolina Shark Attacks
HughPickens.com writes: The Washington Post reports that there have been seven recent shark attacks in North Carolina. Scientists are looking for what might be luring the usually shy sharks so close to shore and among the swimmers they usually avoid. It's an unusual number of attacks for a state that recorded 25 attacks between 2005 and 2014. Even with the recent incidents, researchers emphasize that sharks are a very low-level threat to humans, compared with other forms of wildlife. Bees, for example, are much more dangerous. And swimming itself is hazardous even without sharks around.
George Burgess, director of the International Shark Attack File at the University of Florida's Florida Museum of Natural History, speculates that several environmental factors could be pushing sharks to congregate in the Outer Banks. It is a warm year, and the water has a higher level of salinity because of a low-level drought in the area. Also, a common species of forage fish — menhaden — has been abundant this year and might have attracted more sharks to the area. Burgess also says some fishermen put bait in the water near piers, which could lure the predators closer to shore; two of the encounters took place within 100 yards of a pier. "That's a formula for shark attacks," Burgess says of these conditions, taken together. "Now, does that explain seven attacks in three weeks? No, it doesn't."
George Burgess, director of the International Shark Attack File at the University of Florida's Florida Museum of Natural History, speculates that several environmental factors could be pushing sharks to congregate in the Outer Banks. It is a warm year, and the water has a higher level of salinity because of a low-level drought in the area. Also, a common species of forage fish — menhaden — has been abundant this year and might have attracted more sharks to the area. Burgess also says some fishermen put bait in the water near piers, which could lure the predators closer to shore; two of the encounters took place within 100 yards of a pier. "That's a formula for shark attacks," Burgess says of these conditions, taken together. "Now, does that explain seven attacks in three weeks? No, it doesn't."
Swim with sharks get eaten, simple.
All that toilet flushed cannabis has to end up somewhere.
it's your go-to for funds.
A lot of times a shark will bite something just because it's curious, like how a dog will sniff something and then pick it up in its mouth.
A shark attack needs a shark and a person. Researching what the sharks are doing differently is fine but it will never be the full picture unless you look at what humans are doing differently too.
It's a hot year as stated; Are more humans swimming than previous years there? Are they swimming at earlier times or later times than usual? I'd bet that even if sharks have abnormal behavior this year that humans do as well.
Its shark week
Overfishing. Combined with the fact that sharks have to eat something.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
I found nothing about bees in TFA that was linked; perhaps the article has been edited because it does sound a bit incredible.
The claim that sharks are less dangerous than bees, lightning, or whatever, is a fine example of misleading with statistics. Bees and lightning can strike anyone who walks outside (that is everyone but the most extreme basement dwellers), but sharks are only going to attack people who swim, and while they are swimming.
For a start, I never go into the sea; neither does my wife, son, neighbours, 99.9% of the citizens of the Central African Republic, and I guess most people anywhere. Even of those who do enter the sea, the vast majority must spend a very small percentage of their time in it.
I would submit therefore that the risk of shark attack while in the sea is very significantly higher than that of a bee attack or lighting strike when walking around on land.
Most folks understand that the risk of shark bite is very small. They continue to swim even with the media reports. But when there a multiple shark bites in a relatively small area in a short period of time, and those bites resulted in very serious injuries, it is only natural for a person in that area to hesitate to let their kids in the water. In that case, there helps to be some re-assurance that it is an anomaly or a spike caused by some temporary environmental change, rather than a trend. So it is good that the media is also reporting various attempts to explain the spike.
Shark bites get media attention because that is what people want to read about. Don't just blame the media.
I'm surprised no one looked into Shark fishing from piers and shores as a possible cause of the Shark attacks.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/shark...
There are many other articles. It makes sense to me. If you lure sharks closer to the shore by throwing dead meat in the ocean then yeah they are probably going to attack swimmers. This is why some districts ban this. It clearly locates their feeding area (or their perception of it) closer to where legs are dangling in the ocean.
Why do people make things complicated?
"As a commercial fisherman of 38 years, a shark fisherman virtually from it's inception in the mid eighties, and HMS a.p. member and a IAC technical advisor on sharks, if you actually want the scoop on the health of the shark populations in this country please don't expect to hear it from the apologist such as George Burgesses (shark attack file), Bob Hueter's (Mote Marine lab) or even the NMFS since the truth is in short supply. If you believe their line it is because of more people are in the water, or more bait fish, or hotter water, or even more turtles in the water (a favorite food of sharks) yet fishermen are being shut down because others say there are less. The inconvenient truth to the increased shark interactions is that it is simply all about the increase in sharks... Don't believe me? Check out the agencies Coastal Shark Survey: http://na.nefsc.noaa.gov/shark....
If you are not interested in googling it i will quote a few paragraphs . "
"The first systematic survey of Atlantic sharks , conducted by the Apex Predator Program in the summer of 1986 (or about the time the shark fishery got it's start). "We caught and tagged more sharks in the 2012 survey than at any previous survey said Natanson, who has been on all but one of the surveys. The previous high was in 2009 when we caught 1676 sharks and tagged 1352. In addition to the numerous sandbar sharks, (the main focus of the former shark fishery), we caught more Dusky (the main reason the shark fishery has essentially been eliminated) tiger and black tip than in any prior survey.
As a followup to the two most recent surveys, i happened to be offshore fishing recently when Scotty on the Eagle Eye 2 was on his way by conducting the 2015 survey. Unfortunately even thought the numbers are not yet posted, in acquainting myself with the captain over the radio and making him aware of my interest in the numbers he was seeing, he confided that this survey was going to blow the numbers of the previous two away......in other words simply.....more than EVER.
Finally If you decide that after watching "shark week" they are as lovable as Bambi or Flipper, and believe that you are more likely to be struck by lightening this week then dive in. As not only a fisherman that is no longer allowed to target sharks and hasn't been since 2002, as a surfer that is nervous any time the swell comes up and also a oceanfront motel owner that is concerned as a businessman......you simply be the judge...."
I agree with your conclusion but not your reasoning. Try this on for size:
The comparison with bees stings is misleading a BS statistic because they're comparing deaths per entire population rather than deaths per vulnerable population. A farmer in the middle of Oklahoma has a pretty low chance of being eaten by a shark but he has a shot at being a bee fatality. Therefore he's skewing that stat in the shark's favor for someone who is considering whether a beach is more risky than staying home with the bees.
Vulnerable-to-bee means anyone who is outside anywhere in any of the US's 3.8 million square miles. On a daily basis, this is pretty close to the entire population.
Vulnerable-to-shark means anyone who is in the water at or near an ocean, which translates to an area of about 88,633 square miles (source). Practically speaking, this is orders of magnitude less than the entire population otherwise the entire interior of the US would be abandoned.
Shark bites get attention because sharks are rather terrifying to most people (especially if they've seen Jaws). Yes, you can die from bee or wasp stings, but that doesn't induce raw, primal fear like a shark. The thought of plunging to your death in an airline accident is terrifying to most people, even though you're far more likely to die in a car accident. The notion of a child being abducted by a stranger is a parent's worst nightmare, yet it's more likely to happen by a close friend or relative.
You can't easily quantify, measure, and rationalize human fears. Even logical, otherwise reasonable people can have completely irrational fears. It has nothing to do intelligence... primal fears do a pretty good job of attempting to override intelligent responses. That's why we call it "primal". Yet most people still fly, even if it frightens them to some degree. Most people swim in the ocean, knowing that sharks lurk somewhere beneath the surface. We still send our children off outside of our immediate protection. That doesn't mean those fears went away - just that we need to suppress some of them on a daily basis in order to live our lives.
Oh, and ten thousand people are not dying per day from inadequate health insurance in North Carolina. Way to toss some "hysteria overdrive" of your own into your argument. And many people are very much concerned and saddened when large disasters strike, like in Nepal, as one recent example. That made worldwide news, in case you missed it.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.