# australian shark attack



## Guest (Jan 7, 2006)

For our aussies... avoid the beaches please!!!

~~__~~__~~__~~__~~__~~__~~__~~__

Australian woman killed by shark

Saturday, January 7, 2006; Posted: 5:11 p.m. EST (22:11 GMT)

MELBOURNE, Australia (Reuters) -- A 21-year-old woman died Saturday after being attacked by a shark off eastern Australia, a rescue helicopter spokeswoman said.

The woman, whose identity was not immediately released, suffered severe injuries when she was mauled by a shark while swimming near North Stradbroke Island, east of the Queensland state capital Brisbane.

After the attack, the woman was airlifted to a local hospital where she had to have both arms amputated just below the elbow, Queensland Rescue Helicopter spokeswoman Helen Anderson said.

"I believe she also had flesh wounds to her leg and torso," she said.

The woman died of her injuries while in hospital, a Queensland state police spokeswoman said on the condition of anonymity following her office's protocol.

The woman had been swimming in shallow water with friends from a local church group when she was grabbed by the shark, Sky News reported. It was not immediately clear what type of shark attacked the woman.


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2006)

Police hunt for sharks after attack
Up to three sharks may have attacked woman

Saturday, January 7, 2006; Posted: 9:55 p.m. EST (02:55 GMT)

SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Up to three sharks may have been involved in the fatal attack on a 21-year-old woman off an island in eastern Australia, police said Sunday.

The woman, whose identity was not immediately released, died late Saturday after being attacked near North Stradbroke Island, east of the Queensland state capital Brisbane.

Queensland state police inspector Peter Harding said officers were searching for the sharks and had closed several nearby beaches.

"If we found them, I suppose we would try to retrieve them and see if they have any body parts," Harding said. "The idea is to retrieve what we can."

The woman was swimming with friends from a church group in shallow water about 50 feet offshore when the shark attacked, local media reports stated. The woman's dog also was in the water.

The woman was airlifted to a Brisbane hospital where she had to have both arms amputated just below the elbow, according to Queensland Rescue Helicopter spokeswoman Helen Anderson. She also suffered deep wounds to her legs and torso, Anderson said.

Harding said the severity of the woman's injuries indicated she may have been attacked by a group of bull sharks, a species known for aggressive behavior this time of year.

"She was bleeding quite heavily," Harding said, adding that she heard "there was more than one shark involved. There could have been up to three."


----------



## sleepingbeauty (Aug 18, 2004)

i have absolutely no sympathy for this woman, or for anyone who swims, surfs, backstrokes, screws, or plays marco polo in the ocean. the ocean is NOT our house. its THEIRS. and when you go in to someone elses house, you are a guest. thus you take your chances whatever comes. YET AGAIN the arrogance of human beings staggers me. i dont think they will be satisfied until every last ocean predator is dead and the food chain/ecosystem collapses forever.

_"but wait a minuite sleepingbeauuuuutyyyy!! what if youuuu were in that womans shoes, how would you feel then huuuuuuuuhhh???"_

ive been surfing shark infested waters my whole life. ive seen kids get their limbs bit off, ive seen dead kids get pulled out of these waters, ive been face to face with the jaws of death on more then one occasion. ive got battle scars that would give you nightmares. ive been stung, bit, sliced open, drilled on the reef. thats simply the chance you take in the ocean, or anywhere for that matter.

and as far as the sharks go, lets not forget that they are carnivorous meat eating scavangers. yes that may sound 'nasty' and 'evil' but their job is very specific and nessisary. they keep the ocean clean, and are a vital part of the delicate balance that keeps it alive. and how would you like it, if all you had was a mouth full of razor sharp teeth and no arms to feel if this is something good to eat or not? they dont look at a person and go... OOOH! thats a precious human being! nooo we cant eat that! we arent allowed! you see them coming on land into our homes and doing whatever they want to? we have no business in the ocean. we go in by choice. they dont have one.

pro surfer bethany hamilton knows the risk better then anyone, but she aint letting that stop her. 









heres more food for thought:

In the U.S., your chances of getting killed by lightning are 30 times greater than dying of a shark attack.

Bees, wasps, and snakes kill more people each year then sharks.

Drowning, heart attacks, beach accidents resulting in spinal injury, sunburn, cuts from stepping on sea shells, dehydration, jellyfish stings, and traffic accidents going to or from the beach are all far more common than shark attacks.

In 1996 in the U.S. there were 18 reported injuries and deaths from shark attacks, but 198,849 injuries from working with screws, nails, tacks, and bolts; 138,894 injuries from ladders; 43,687 injuries from toilets; and 36,091 injuries while pruning, trimming, or edging plants.

Between 1959 and 1990, 5,528 people were stuck by lightning in the 22 coastal states (excluding Alaska) and Puerto Rico, with 1,505 fatalities. During the same period, there were 336 shark attacks in the coastal waters of those states, with 12 fatalities.

In 1987, New York City reported the following number of people bitten by dogs: 8,064; other people, 1,587; cats, 802; rats, 291; squirrels, 95, raccoons, 11; ferrets, 7; skunk, 3. There were 13 shark injuries reported *nationwide* the same year.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

Sleepy...you're so gosh-darn controversial.


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2006)

Yeah she's controversial, but she's right - humans have become so egocentric esp. where money can be made and why should everything revolve around us? I have no partiality for sharks, but so what? My likes/dislikes shouldn't be the centre of all thought and neither should anyone else's.

But as LC and SB both said, be careful where you swim...............


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2006)

I agree SB. Women should always be careful of sharks in the water.


----------



## Milan (May 29, 2005)

That's why we swim between the flags at the beaches where the lifeguards are constantly monitoring for sharks, rips etc.

I think the women that was killed was swimming in an area where your not really suppose to be.


----------



## Milan (May 29, 2005)

Just after writing my post above I heard on the news a 7 yo girl died from a box jelly fish attack right at the very tip of QLD. Last time we were at northern QLD in summer you couldn't swim in the waters becuase of the stingers. Why the parents let their little girl swim in these waters in summer baffles me :?


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

Milan said:


> Just after writing my post above I heard on the news a 7 yo girl died from a box jelly fish attack right at the very tip of QLD. Last time we were at northern QLD in summer you couldn't swim in the waters becuase of the stingers. Why the parents let there little girl swim in these waters in summer baffles me :?


Well not to mention all the giant squids roaming those waters...

I'm sorry, i couldn't help myself.


----------



## sleepingbeauty (Aug 18, 2004)

*
Updated: 9:38 p.m. ET Jan. 7, 2006 Associated Press
The woman was swimming with a friends from a church group in shallow water about 50 feet offshore when the shark attacked, local media reports said. The woman?s dog was also in the water.*

you are absolutely right milan. what was she doing 50 feet from shore with a dog no less? i forget where i read it, but supposedly its not a good idea to let your dogs swim in the ocean offshore, because dogs are like shark magnets. (maybe thats why they use them as live bait on reunion island)


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Just to add fuel to the fire....or balance to the argument....or something like that. When people care about the environment, or the animal kingdom, or the ecosystem, it always seems to be in a prejudicial manner. It always sounds like people are excluded....we dont belong. And yet we are members of all three groups: the animal kingdom, the ecosystem, and the environment. Look to the Western United States. We've set aside millions of acres of land to never be developed. And thats a good thing - in a way. The drawback is that human development is also a function of nature. We are natural brush clearers. Animals and bacteria arent enough to do all of the work in the forests. You need people roaming about looking for dead sticks for firewood, and yes, sometimes chopping down trees to build your log cabin. Without this necessary interference, entire forests are destroyed when the dry kindling we leave on the forest floors ignite. We serve a purpose for forests. They serve a purpose for us. Its symbiotic. And unlike animals we have instinct and mind....the ability to modify our actions based on their outcomes. So now we go into the forests, and it costs millions of dollars, but we pay people to clear the brush. I think its a good compromise. But still, the forests need us like we need them.

Do I have sympathy for the woman bitten by a shark? If when asked that you mean "Do you hate the shark for being in those waters and biting her?" I would reply absolutely not. It cant modify its actions. Its doing what its supposed to do. Do I feel pity for the woman? Absolutely.

I agree with this entire paragraph that you wrote Sleepy, except for the ending statement. I actually thought it was cute the way you described the shark thinking and using his fins :



> and as far as the sharks go, lets not forget that they are carnivorous meat eating scavangers. yes that may sound 'nasty' and 'evil' but their job is very specific and nessisary. they keep the ocean clean, and are a vital part of the delicate balance that keeps it alive. and how would you like it, if all you had was a mouth full of razor sharp teeth and no arms to feel if this is something good to eat or not? they dont look at a person and go... OOOH! thats a precious human being! nooo we cant eat that! we arent allowed! you see them coming on land into our homes and doing whatever they want to? we have no business in the ocean. we go in by choice. they dont have one.


But I dont agree that we, unlike the animal kingdom, shouldnt leave one habitat for another. So what if the shark did have arms? And feet? And one day walked up onto shore? Oh wait...thats already happened. Its called _evolution_. And guess who they became? *Us*. Because the ability to exist on both land _and_ water was deemed by nature to be both good and productive. The step in-between them and us is called amphibians. And they do come out of the water in far away lands like India, and enter our houses. And then, just like a lion, we fend off the predators which are trying to eat our young, such as water-snakes in India which hide in children's shoes. I just hate it when nobody sees the *BIG* picture. We are nature. We are as much a cancer as the water snake, and he is as much a cancer as me. Its such a human mistake to narrow our focus like this.....and now I'm sounding like Spock.

Incidentally, in this exceptionally long post, I used evolution to explain my take. I'm not for or against the theory from a religious standpoint - the truth is the truth. But I'm not entirely convinced of the theory, as it has alot of holes in it from a genetic standpoint. For instance, the whole theory rests on the idea of billions and billions of beneficial mutations, when what we see on a daily basis is that a mutated code of DNA or a gene inevitably creates disease or weakens a host. And then there's the question of whether you can really create entirely new genes out of thin air. There might be answers to these questions that I havent found yet, and the fossil record seems to indicate that many species changed over time, but I'm not against the idea of God spontaneously introducing species either, or a less simplistic idea than evolution being produced. But for my purposes in this post, I do beleive that we are as necessary as dinosaurs, or sharks, or cats, or dogs, and that the science of living things, as we know it today, backs up this assertion.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## agentcooper (Mar 10, 2005)

Homeskooled said:


> Just to add fuel to the fire....or balance to the argument....or something like that. When people care about the environment, or the animal kingdom, or the ecosystem, it always seems to be in a prejudicial manner. It always sounds like people are excluded....we dont belong. And yet we are members of all three groups: the animal kingdom, the ecosystem, and the environment. Look to the Western United States. We've set aside millions of acres of land to never be developed. And thats a good thing - in a way. The drawback is that human development is also a function of nature. We are natural brush clearers. Animals and bacteria arent enough to do all of the work in the forests. You need people roaming about looking for dead sticks for firewood, and yes, sometimes chopping down trees to build your log cabin. Without this necessary interference, entire forests are destroyed when the dry kindling we leave on the forest floors ignite. We serve a purpose for forests. They serve a purpose for us. Its symbiotic. And unlike animals we have instinct and mind....the ability to modify our actions based on their outcomes. So now we go into the forests, and it costs millions of dollars, but we pay people to clear the brush. I think its a good compromise. But still, the forests need us like we need them.


but homeskooled, with our overpopulation, there is no way we should be given free reign to do what we want with all the natural resourses (forests, etc...). at this point in time, i think it's necessary for the government to step in and set some boundries.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2006)

Homeskooled said:


> . When people care about the environment, or the animal kingdom, or the ecosystem, it always seems to be in a prejudicial manner. It always sounds like people are excluded....we dont belong. And yet we are members of all three groups: the animal kingdom, the ecosystem, and the environment.Homeskooled


agentc is right - we've multiplied out of proportion to other species and we consume/pollute more than ever. That's why we look at ecological problems as situations that must exclude humans. It isn't prejudicial to assume humans are taking more than their share - it's obvious that we are, not an unfair assumption.
And of course we belong to the earth, but do we act like we are? Do we do much that supports a healthy earth? NOT AT ALL! Anyone who thinks we do, has their eyes closed; not my opinion anymore than "breathing is necessary to human life" is my opinion, it's a self-evident fact.
The problem is that we don't feel part of nature anymore. No one can conquer nature, but we've learned to dominate parts of it, by exploiting other parts of it. Taking a few steps back helps to see beyond our desires and egos and it's not pretty.


----------



## sleepingbeauty (Aug 18, 2004)

im not even going to explain myself in sentence form. :roll:

log cabins??

try McMansions

brush clearing??

try environment DESTROYING urban sprawl

people roaming the forests picking up dead sticks??

try fleets of bulldozers mowing down entire rainforests at the rate of one-half acres every second NEVER to return, all for what? lining the pockets of 1% of the worlds population by supplying our addiction to cow flesh? (dont even get me started on cows!)

"We serve a purpose for forests. They serve a purpose for us. Its symbiotic"

lol, where did that bit of native american wisdom come from? oh wait... yea they got wiped out as well.

dude, dont even get me started. :lol:


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Hmmm....agentcooper, whether or not one thinks we are overpopulated (and I dont necessarily think that's true), I agree with your sentiment. We *shouldnt *be able to do whatever we want with alot of things, including the environment. Just because we can doesnt mean we should. The point of my post was to say that you cant take human beings out of the natural equation, in anything we do, good or bad. For instance, how do you know its unnatural for us to do what we do, beachgirl? To pollute or overpopulate? Oh yes, its horrendously evil and irresponsible (at least the pollute part), but that doesnt make it unnatural. Just where do you draw the line between the animals that eat humans and the humans that eat animals? I just dont see the ecosystem problem that has been developing as so black and white....there's much gray in it. For instance, global warming is more than likely a natural phenomenon. But because we release almost as much CO and CO2 into the atmosphere as the earth itself has lately (the days when most volcanoes were active dwarfed our pollution), we are speeding the process up several centuries. But then again, so does cow manure, a natural pollutant. Species have killed each other off in the past, and the ones I'm thinking of arent human. I dont have a point to what I'm saying - but I am pointing out a different way of looking at the problem.



> im not even going to explain myself in sentence form.
> 
> log cabins??
> 
> ...


Mcmansions? Nice. Supersize me was a good movie. Your missing the point, Sleepy. I 100% agree with what you've said in that quote. I dont know whether we've exceeded our natural bounds, but we've certainly exceeded them morally. I'm saying that scaled back human interaction is both *good* and *natural*, in an effort to show that it isnt as black and white as saying sharks belong in the water, humans belong on land. Because lately, what I seem to be hearing from some people is that humans dont belong *anywhere*, and not only that, but it would be according to mother nature's wishes, and I disagree. What Indian said that wise saying? Lol, this one (I'm part native american).

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

Rubbish Homeskooled. I wish you would refrain from thinking that human beings are the most important creatures on the planet. The opposite is true. Sometimes it seems to me that you want to destroy the entire animal kingdom as well as physically unwell people and the environment, so that you can usher in the Judgement Day that you lot seem so impatient for. I don't blame you. 2006 years and still waiting. Is he too busy appearing in the middle of potato chips or stains on a pavement?

'True' intelligence, such as ours and, perhaps, Dolphins and some of the greater apes, leads to them performing actions that most of the rest of the animal kingdom does not do unless for food or in self-defence.

I too have absolutely no sympathy for that woman. Of course, I am sorry that she was attacked, of course - I wouldn't be human (still up for debate) otherwise. But Sharks are MEANT to swim in the sea. That's what they do. Surfers might as well paint a Seal to the bottom of their surf boards, idiots. What do they expect? If sharks were running around the streets of New York chomping away at people, then I'd understand.

So, how many people are killed by sharks? I tell you. Less people than have been killed falling off a toilet. And we get all hysterical, chop them up, butcher them, and cage away. Aren't we just so wonderful Homeskooled?

I'm sorry my friend, you are so utterly wrong in this regard.


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

But surely we have to look out for our own species first and foremost.
The sad fact with a lot of animals is that their mental capacity is so tiny that they probably don't feel much emotional pain. I remember feeling absolutely awful about a young chick that had been badly hurt in a car accident. But then I realised that whatever was going on in its tiny mind was so limited that I couldn't possibly relate to it in any way. Indeed that was quite a depressing thougt, but I realised that fretting over this creature was absurd.
Chimps and dolphins are another matter.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2006)

Axel19 said:


> But surely we have to look out for our own species first and foremost.
> The sad fact with a lot of animals is that their mental capacity is so tiny that they probably don't feel much emotional pain. I remember feeling absolutely awful about a young chick that had been badly hurt in a car accident. But then I realised that whatever was going on in its tiny mind was so limited that I couldn't possibly relate to it in any way. Indeed that was quite a depressing thougt, but I realised that fretting over this creature was absurd.
> Chimps and dolphins are another matter.


I don't believe that, it's human egocentricity/arrogance that allows us to believe that other creatures can't feel or think. That's what used to be thought of human babies but now there's tons of evidence to prove it wrong.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2006)

Homeskooled said:


> - but I am pointing out a different way of looking at the problem.
> 
> [
> Homeskooled


Actually, not different at all - this is the most common way of looking at the problem and it happens to be the most convenient for humans and the least guilt-provoking, while still seeming to care about it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2006)

[quote="Homeskooled" For instance, how do you know its unnatural for us to do what we do, beachgirl? To pollute or overpopulate? Oh yes, its horrendously evil and irresponsible (at least the pollute part), but that doesnt make it unnatural.
Homeskooled[/quote]

I never said it was unnatural.

You haven't specified what kind of "nature" you're refering to - human nature or the nature of the earth, or any other kind of nature......?


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

> I don't believe that, it's human egocentricity/arrogance that allows us to believe that other creatures can't feel or think. That's what used to be thought of human babies but now there's tons of evidence to prove it wrong.


I didn't say they can't feel or think, just that their cpacity for doing so is so limited that we can not possibly imagine what it's like to be an animal.
There is little behavioural similarities, their brains are tiny (Sperm Whales have the largest brains in the animal kingdom), particularly the frontal cortex thingy, which is where higher forms of consciousness take place.
All I'm saying is that an animal life can not be so easily compared to that of a human, and we shouldn't get too hung up on animals suffering. Don't get me wrong they probably do feel some sort of pain, and we should do our best to avoid making them suffer, but human affairs, relatively speaking, will always be of greater importance.
I don't undertsand how some people can so readily extend sympathy to a creature who's mental life we know very little about, but can not extend sympathy to some poorly educated human beings who harm animals, but are merely victims of their own biological, psychological and cultural determinism, just like all animals (except for the cultural bit).

Furthermore I think Homeskooled is entirely correct. Obviously it isn't right for us to do great harm to the environment. But you can not so easily state that it isn't natural. Nature gave us our powerful intellects to aid our survival, our intellects and what we do with them are as much a part of nature as anything else. Nature itself is neither good nor bad, it is merely indifferent. If we define what is good and what is bad in utilitarian terms, which is the easiest criteria, then it may well be good to damage the environment to some extent. It is good also that people can swim in the sea. This is obvious.
I'm not disagreeing with anyone, but I don't see why everyone's attacking Homeskooled when he raised some valid points, purely for the benefit of discussion.


----------



## agentcooper (Mar 10, 2005)

Axel19 said:


> I didn't say they can't feel or think, just that their cpacity for doing so is so limited that we can not possibly imagine what it's like to be an animal.
> .


how do you know that, axel? do you have any proof to back that statement up? i'm just curious...


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Martin, 


> Rubbish Homeskooled. I wish you would refrain from thinking that human beings are the most important creatures on the planet. The opposite is true. Sometimes it seems to me that you want to destroy the entire animal kingdom as well as physically unwell people and the environment, so that you can usher in the Judgement Day that you lot seem so impatient for. I don't blame you. 2006 years and still waiting. Is he too busy appearing in the middle of potato chips or stains on a pavement?


Now was the potato chip comment really necessary or relevant? In any case, I want to know why it is that you feel that human beings are the least important beings on the planet, and what your yardstick is for judging importance. What is it?

As for the assertion that I would wish to destroy *any* part of the animal kingdom, I think thats just a bunch of hot air your letting out to make the arguments flow. And how the heck did physically unwell people find themselves in your abovesaid rant? Wha? Now I'm for euthanasia? Go sit in the corner.

Axel, you said:


> The sad fact with a lot of animals is that their mental capacity is so tiny that they probably don't feel much emotional pain. I remember feeling absolutely awful about a young chick that had been badly hurt in a car accident. But then I realised that whatever was going on in its tiny mind was so limited that I couldn't possibly relate to it in any way.


To which Beachgirl replied:


> I don't believe that, it's human egocentricity/arrogance that allows us to believe that other creatures can't feel or think. That's what used to be thought of human babies but now there's tons of evidence to prove it wrong.


And in your rebuttal Axel, you brought up exactly what I would. The brain. A chicken's brain doesnt allow for emotion. The higher the brain developement goes, the closer they get. But none have acheived awareness of self, which really would be the ability to have a psychiatric problem. Once you are aware of *you*, why you even have the possibility of having DP. And beachgirl, he didnt say that they cant feel or think....he said that they *cannot feel emotional pain*, which is true. To do that you must have a highly developed frontal lobe, and hopefully, temporal lobe and limbic system. Chimpanzees come the closest, as well as dolphins, but their biggest achievement is recognizing themselves in mirrors, which occurs in humans before one year old, along with a phenomenon called _object permanence_, which allows you to realize that things exist even if you cant see them. I think that occurs at month 9, and no animal has shown the capacity for such a simple thought. It is a safe bet to say that they do not think. Emotional pain? Becomes more probable the more developed a species is. Can they feel bodily pain? Absolutely. I feel as badly for the bit lady as a hurt dog.



> And of course we belong to the earth, but do we act like we are?





> The problem is that we don't feel part of nature anymore. No one can conquer nature, but we've learned to dominate parts of it


I took these statements, Beachgirl, as a statement that dominating nature was something we weren't supposed to do, something unnatural. 
My original post was to say that dominating it is natural and beneficial to things such as Western forests, so long as we do it ethically and responsibly, but society being what it is, we usually dont. Who likes having responsibility nowadays?I worked on a political campaign for PennEnvironment this summer to lower mercury emissions across the 50 states, and everyone looks the other way. I'm advocating looking directly at the problem, and the supposed "solutions" that people are putting forth.


> Actually, not different at all - this is the most common way of looking at the problem and it happens to be the most convenient for humans and the least guilt-provoking, while still seeming to care about it.


I really dont think very many people share my exact sentiments....There is a consistent double-standard applied by most people with an environmental agenda. And thats because it *is* an agenda, with a point to make regardless of how it is made. Because these stances are irrational, by default they have to use double-standards. First we say that humans are in the animal kingdom, or worse than animals, or usually just plain unnecessary. I obviously disagree. Then usually an example is used to show how animals never exceed the bounds that mother nature has set, and why cant we do the same thing ( although the first premise is that we too are animals, its conveniently dropped for this point)? The next step is usually to point out that humans are indeed important to the welfare of nature and animals (eventhough its been illustrated how unnecessary and unnatural we are) finally completing the convuluted mental pretzel we find ourselves in. My point is that either *humans are indeed necessary, special, and natural* or else *we are not a product of mother nature, unnecessary, and should continue doing what we are doing as we are no better or worse than animals themselves*. I beleive that we are indeed special, and shoulder special responsibility to look after the animal kingdom and environment. Axel, I beleive you and I are on the same page.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2006)

I think it was absolutely tragic that this woman was attacked by sharks and later died.
Hey she was somebodies sister,friend,daughter etc.
It was an accident.
When somebody gets into a car and an idiot comes speeding around the next bend and kills them.Is this also a time to not offer sympathy?

Australians love their beaches.Most of the population live on or near the coast.From a young age the majority of us attend beaches as one of our major forms of recreation.
Even though there is a risk we hardly see it as a major risk.

As for the attack.
A local guy interviewed said he never swims in the particular area of the attack not that he had ever heard of any shark attacks occurring in 
the many years he had lived there.
He said the waters were well known with local fishermen to have a sh.. load of bull sharks.

The tourist operators naturally suggested that the waters in the area are as safe as anywhere else.

A shark expert described the situation.Shallow water that drops off suddenly to be very deep water.
The women was swimming in a channel.
The days preceeding the attack the area had experienced rain and storms
making the water murky.
The attack occurred early in the morning.
What was most likely happening was the smaller fish swim on the edge of the channel.
Sharks follow them in from deeper waters for a morning feed.
I can't recall the reason but apparently this feeding is more likley to happen in a frenzy fashion early in the morning and at sunset.
The expert suggested we must put up more signs.

The conditions had all the warning signs of a possible risk if you had the information.
In all the years I've lived at the beach I had never heard anybody explain that there can be certain conditions that are more likley to attract sharks than others.

So the lowdown is if you are concerned, don't swim early or late in the day.
If you see many small fish jumping about,including dolphines(sharks eat
baby dolphins)be very wary.
Don't go into murky water.I gather simply because you can't see what's underneath.
Yes,keep with the crowds,swim within the flags on patrolled beaches.

Speaking of sharks did anybody see the movie "Open Waters"?
How strange when somewhere so beautiful can quickly turn into the last place on earth you'd ever want to be.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

No it wasn't neccessary Homeskooled, but I was in a benzo mood.

Actually, it was neccessary, because it points out the huge multitude of crazies who flock to see a stain that looks vaugely like the Virgin Mary on a window, while millions of people are dying all over the world. It emphasises the total brain-lock people experience when it comes to religion.

It justifies my idea that fundamental religious people really don't care about human beings at all. Just their own salvation, whatever that is.

I smell a whiff of intention regarding my mental health in your comment that I think Humans are generally terrible creatures. Do I not? Even if I do think that's true, and I do, I still love 'em. I can't help being what I am.

Your friend,
Martin.


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

Yes I agree with Homeskoole, he had the knowledge to write what I was going to say. That isn't to say I have no respect for animals, rather that I don't bother to empathise with them, because I doubt they have much of a mental world.



> how do you know that, axel? do you have any proof to back that statement up? i'm just curious...


It is precisely because we don't have much evidence to the contrary that I believe that. We have a habit of examining animals anthropomorphically, that is in the form of humans. We say cats are arrogant, sharks are angry, owls are wise etc, all because there is a slight behavioural similarity between them and us. On the whole however their is only a tiny behavioural similarity between them and us, infact they have a very limited behavioural spectrum comparted to us. If we aren't going on their behaviour as an indicator to what goes on in their mental world, then what are we going on? 
We naturally imagine when we see an animal in pain that it is going through something human. Apart from the actual bodily experience of pain, there is little evidence to suppose that the mental experience is similar in any significant way. 
People always point out that we share 99% of our genese in common with chimps, but we also share 71% of our genes in common with dandilions, which goes to show how much of a difference one percent must make.
I prefer to see animals as natural works of art, and I can't see why anyone would want to destroy them, except for food. Sure it's fun to imagine that animals are very much like us, but such thinking belongs to poetry and literature, not scientific debate. 
Basically my point is still that human life is infinitely more important than that of animals, but that animals are still splendid creatures that we must make every effort to protect.


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2006)

Martinelv said:


> It justifies my idea that fundamental religious people really don't care about human beings at all. Just their own salvation, whatever that is.
> Martin.


 Ditto. Martin says what I didn't have the courage to say.


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

How did we get on to the topic of religious fundamentalism?


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

My dear, _dear_ Martin, 
I didnt actually mention your assertion that humans are terrible creatures anywhere in my post. You read my mind, though, if you think I'm of the opinion that beleiving humans to be less than animals is both bad for one' relationships and one's mental health simultaneously. You have to begin trying to seperate the person from the person's actions. It helps alot in accepting people with diverse opinions, in with-holding judgement of others, holding ones temper, and making objective decisions regarding religion, politics, people or any issue of real importance. A woman robs a bank- does this make women evil? A dog bites a mailman - does this make canines vicious?Humans do terrible things-does this make humanity terrible? Honestly, if I were you and I truly thought humanity was a terrible thing, *I would not love them. I would not love something I considered to be evil*. I dont beleive that even _you_ truly beleive or comprehend what you are saying. It is attitudes like this that allow society to go on as it is going, because _people do not beleive that it is worth saving_. And anytime something flippant like that is said to further devalue humanity, it lessens responsibility in someone else's mind. Its a vicious, devolving circle.

I dont even know whether I need to bring this up, but I _still_ dont see how you find the fact that simple-minded, good-hearted people go trapsing about looking for signs from the divine in potato chips as proof that they "dont care about humans at all". I can peice together in my own mind other reasons why you might beleive this to be so, and I'm right there with you. Those types of people do exist, and their religion is a fake one. My parents are of that ilk. Christ called these types of people "white-washed sepluchres"(a tomb). They have all of the trappings of religion, they are"white-washed" but their heart is as dead as a tomb. St. Paul said that one could be a martyr, but if you "had not love", your faith was worth nothing. For anyone that doesnt know, to be a martyr is to die for one's faith. Not even that can make up for an absence of true caring about morality and the welfare of people. I remain

Your friend, 
Homeskooled


----------



## agentcooper (Mar 10, 2005)

axel, there are a ton of things we don't understand about what animals can and cannot do, feel, or think...here is just one simple example.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/01/11/ants.teching.reut/index.html

and that is just about ants.


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2006)

I'm so glad my practical advice re swimming to avoid a shark attack was
appreciated :lol:

Carry on then,blah de blah de blah,yadda, yadda ......."life is but a dream"
:wink:


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

Such a polarity of opinion.

"I don't care much for animals because they don't have much mental ability"

LOL LOL LOL

Does that ability include the capacity for suffering ? If so, I guess it doesn't matter as long as those Big Macs keep coming. These 'animals' have been around for billions of years without causing any trouble. They just ate, slept and reproduced. So why are we, who are destroying the environment, hunting for pleasure, believing in fantastical ideas, indulging in all manner of prejudices and wars, and all in a few thousand years don't forget, so worthy of such magnificent praise? The religious attitude in this aspect makes me wake to puke. Literally.

Homeskooled - Some humans are evil because they are intentionally destructive. Seemingly animal savagery, hurricanes, earthquakes, as terrible as they might be, are not deliberate acts. THAT is why I dislike so many people and respect the natural world. Nothing, nothing at all on this planet has our capacity for causing suffering as we do, and people deserve everything they get. The vast majority of this planet, while perhaps thinking that animal cruelty is 'bad', or that the environment 'might be going to pot, do not give a damn.

I'm boggled. My mind is boggled. Yes, yes, art and some of our achievements are wonderful. But by who's standards ? Ours. And ours alone. I doubt if an Ostrich will change his mind about us if we showed him a Da Vinci or a Rubens.

I eat chickens though, and indulge in prejudice and environmental damage....because....I'm human. And too selfish to do anything about it.


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

> axel, there are a ton of things we don't understand about what animals can and cannot do, feel, or think...here is just one simple example.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/01 ... index.html
> 
> and that is just about ants.


Well I don't know, that article didn't explain much. But then neither have any of my posts. All I'm saying is that I can't relate to animals, because behaviourally there isn't enough similarity between us, therefore I don't have any reason to infer that there is much similarity in our mental worlds. I may be wrong of course. I can not get inside a cat's mind to check whether it is having a human like experience. Since we understand what suffering is from our own experience, we can not call something we have no experience of suffering. Does a stone get depressed? Does a chair get lonely when you take it away from other chairs? I can not prove that they don't, but I certainly don't have any evidence to suppose that they do.

When a scarlet macaw loses its partner it is said to become depressed. We say depressed because it becomes dispondent and inactive. This does not mean that what they experience is anything like what we experience when we are depressed. Certainly if we are going on mind/matter dualism, then they lack the matter so to speak, as Homeskooled pointed out their frontal lobes are too small for anything remotely similar to our experience. If we are using behavioural criteria then they don't behave as humans do when we get depressed. They certainly feel bodily pain, but even that is likely to be different to human bodily pain, since a great deal of our experience of pain is based on our perception of it, which takes place in the mind.

Again I don't like animal cruelty, these creatures doubtlessly do have some capacity for suffering, but I've never understood how people can empathise with them to such an extent that they devote their lives to fighting for their rights. I simply can not empathise with animals on a rational level, but I still feel some when I accidentally kill a spider or my cat gets in a fight. 
Ultimately I think that a lot of people's sympathy for animals comes from a sort of romanticism, rather than rigorous empirical observation. 
However I think that the general attitude towards animal cruelty is right, it's wrong in most cases and should be avoided. In my opinion nature is more beautiful than any piece of art. It's probably only because of the monetary value that a Monet is worth more than a 150ft cedar. 
It would be a terrible tragedy if we lost our rainforests and coral reefs, or our tigers and rinos.[/quote]

Sorry Shelly I know it's annoying when you type a massive posts and no body responds. You were right of course.

Actually don't listen to me agentcooper and anyone else, I think it's better to go on intuition when it comes to ones own personal morality, and your intuition is more useful than any emprical based ethical systrem could ever be.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

> Sorry Shelly I know it's annoying when you type a massive posts and no body responds. You were right of course.


Sorry your info got caught in the crossfire, Shelly. I did read it and knowing that is your area of the woods, appreciated the time and info you brought to the table.

Too bad we can't just have snowball fights around here, huh? Now *that* would be fun! :lol:


----------



## Milan (May 29, 2005)

terri* said:


> Too bad we can't just have snowball fights around here, huh? Now *that* would be fun! :lol:


Now this is definitely a queue for mrmole.

I'm expecting an animated GIF with a whole lot of whoop arse snow fighting.

Shelly, I did read your response and took note of it. Unfortunately your post got caught amongst all the emotional exchanges.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2006)

ooh apologies I like this :lol:

No seriously if I only save one life my work here has been done.

I am a little worried about Martin.
I sure hope he keeps an eye out for those fishy frenzies when next in the sea.
Oh well,he was warned...................no sympathy :wink:


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

Shelly - if I am swimming in a shark infested sea, on a Surf board which looks like a Seal and I get bitten, then I promise I will not complain. I wonder, do these surfers have insurance against Great White mutilation? In America perhaps?

It's like complaining deliberately throwing yourself into a Lions cage and complaining about getting mauled. Madness.


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

Nobody is complaining. It's like people say, the chances of getting attacked by a shark are tiny, so people are understandably shocked when it happens.


----------



## Milan (May 29, 2005)

Now I'm no mathematician or statistician but how do they work out those odds? Is it simply the amount of shark attacks per population of a country? This doesn't count for much because a lot of people never go near the beach. I'd say that as soon as you're knee high in water your chances of been taken by a shark increase a thousand fold. The odds are less if your swimming between the flags with life guards watching out for sharks and much more if your a surfer sitting on a board that carves out a nice seal silhouette when viewed from a sharks perspective.

A couple of years ago I was fishing on a mates boat and we were only a kilometre out and there were shit loads of hammer heads swimming about. I think the chances of an attack are a lot higher than people wish to believe.

I also heard on the radio this morning that there are a couple of blokes who are inventing a shark resistant surf board. Basically it's a board with a picture of a sharks head underneath. They reckon it repels sharks. I for one would not want to test it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2006)

Milan said:


> I also heard on the radio this morning that there are a couple of blokes who are inventing a shark resistant surf board. Basically it's a board with a picture of a sharks head underneath. They reckon it repels sharks. I for one would not want to test it.


Aww come on Milan, it sounds safe enough.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2006)

Milan surely they jest? what if it's a horny male shark floating underneath the board :shock:


----------



## sleepingbeauty (Aug 18, 2004)

SHARK SHLONG??? 

OUCH!!!!! :shock:


----------

