Comments on: Gory Details on Kite Surfer Attack

By: dru

dru — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:58:31 +0000

I was raised by a shark. My Dad used to “bite my head off” if I didn’t go to baseball practice. Go figure.

Now then.

Assume for hypotentical purposes that humans and their progenitors have been hunting and fishing in the shark’s domain for over a million years. Not just along the coast of Africa, Indonesesia, but much more recently in North America, Australia, et al. Assume that these human cultures have been competing with and fallen prey to Bull sharks (e.g., along the Zambezi) for even longer. Man-eating sharks not only “know what we are”, but Nature has a curious knack for assisting predators in the game of life as it deems “fit” (in Darwinian terms, no pun intended).

Is it fair to say that sharks may have adapted a prey-specific (human) predation pattern given that human beings are the only prey (other than perhaps Cetaceans) that renders any sort of assistance after the shark has attacked?

Hmm. I wonder if Sir David Attenborough’s public opinions on Bull sharks changed when his mate Nigel Marvin watched “Dr.” Ritter’s little experiment with Bull sharks in the Bahamas.

“I just can’t believe any shark would ever want to hurt me.”

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:41:03 +0000

Interesting to hear your theories Dru.
I was merely citing David Attenborough from a BBC documentary lol.
The documentary was about White Sharks and Elephant seals in Northern California…
It just seemed improbable to me that sharks would have developed a strategy in response to human intervention.
Do you work in shark research?

By: dru

dru — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:00:21 +0000

The observed behavior wouldn’t be a very evolutionary advantageous behavior in the sense that the shark risking injury on the initial hit might not realize the rewards of the kill if larger, more dominant sharks arrive in due course. As is seen off Seal Island in South Africa, once the shark makes the kill, it consumes the prey immediately to avoid losing it to another White shark in the immediate vicinity.

Hence, I think the “bite and wait” method is a way for mature sharks to size up potential suitors. That’s my own theory and I’m sticking to it.

By: dru

dru — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:50:44 +0000

Well, agree to disagree.

The “bite and wait” method is only observed in Northern California elephant seals. If I am mistaken, where else has it been observed?

It is another example of a speculative theory. Even in the aforementioned scenario, I think the “bite and wait” method is more likely a mating strategy. After all, the behavior is seen in an area with arguably the highest concentration of mature White sharks on earth. Take Stunpy the shark. The mature female will attack 5-7 elephant seals in a season. Research shows that at most every elephant seal kill multiple sharks arrive and go through an orderly procession that, according to prevailing theory, “estblishes the shark’s right to feed.”

Well, that wouldn’t be a very evolutionary advantageous behavior, now would it? Many of the elephant seals attacked are killed on the first hit or are in a deep state of shock. I simply do not believe the observed behavior is a result of the shark less “likely being injured” by its prey- especially humans. Large sharks do not have any reason to fear injury from human beings.

Moreover, it seems the VAST majority of attacks on humans involve a few big bites and then the shark leaves. If that is the data, it seems improper to assume that the shark left “to let the victim bleed to death to minimize risk of injury to the shark” but often the shark never comes back, e.g., 1994 White shark attack on Michelle Von Emster off Pt. Loma.

Not saying my theory is not inherently speculative either, but if a shark is truly going to reduce its risk of injury, it just leaves the scene. That is the definition of a “hit and run,” no?

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 11:35:54 +0000

I don’t believe in the hit and run strategy as you outline above.

Large sharks have the one big hit and then retreat while their prey bleeds to death, making it a much easier to consume and less likely they’ll be injured as the victim fights back.

I doubt this strategy was developed due to human intervention and rescue attempt.

By: dru

dru — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:14:35 +0000

The culprit shark was likely 9 ft Tiger that was hunting the smaller sharks in the vicinity. As is typical, the culprit shark took a bite or two and then departed, i.e., a “hit and run” predation strategy. The other, smaller sharks in the vicinity were “circling” in the sense they were naturally attracted to the blood, trauma and distress of the victim. But I highly, highly doubt that one of those many sharks shown in the Media photos was responsible. Nevertheless, even smaller sharks are opportunists. The USS Indianapolis is a great example of how smaller requiem sharks capitalized on the more aggressive predation pattterns of Tigers and Oceanic Whitetips. I’m sure these “circling sharks” would have eaten the carcass if the victim was not recovered.

But that is why the ISAF “statistics” are so inherently misleading, i.e., human beings are the only tertiary prey item of sharks that come and rescue victims, thereby placing the culprit shark in danger. Hence, I believe, the adaptation of the “hit and run” predation strategy, e.g., 1994 White shark attack on Michelle Von Emster off Pt. Loma.

Of course, I’m sure the ISAF didn’t count that one because “the shark probably scavenged her leg after she drowned”. Sure. As is often the case with the ISAF, the evidence in the record does not support such a conclusion. White sharks and Tiger sharks are documented to take big bites and leave, not scavenge drowning victims.

My sincerest condolences to the Schafer family. What a tragic loss.