Naughty Sharks in the Seychelles

Fresh from my return from getting very close to the world's biggest Bull Sharks, the news has broken of a second fatality in the Seychelles in a fortnight, this time the victim is from the North West, not too far from my home city and one of the two likely culprits in both attacks is the Bull Shark.

As is the norm in these cases, the reporting in the British media has been pretty sensationalist and I even heard earlier today that someone on the radio suggesting the attacking shark could have been a Whale Shark!

A bit of perspective is needed here, we don't really have the details as to exactly what happened, as is often the case with the reporting of shark attacks, the public only really get about five per cent of the actual story. What is clear is that the Seychelles are in the tropics and you have a better chance of finding sharks closer to shore than in other parts of the world, that humans are coming into contact with sharks should surprise nobody.

The rogue shark claim is already being made by every man and his dog, people who know nothing about shark attacks, even less about sharks and who's knee jerk verbal diarrhoea does more harm than good. Victor Coppleson, who first established the rogue shark theory, described a rogue shark as one which "developed a taste for human flesh as easy prey," essentially, a shark which swims around looking for people to eat. Rogue tigers? Yes, rogue lions? Yes, Rogue crocodiles? Yes, but rogue sharks? Not a chance. For animals who supposedly develop a taste for human flesh, why are the victims not consumed? Also, how do these supposed rogue sharks actually develop this "taste for human flesh" in the first place!?

 

Let's look at the facts, Bull Sharks are big dangerous animals, no question about that, likewise the Tiger Shark, the other possible culprit, but are they prowling the world's tropical beaches looking for people to eat? Of course they're not! Having had the privilege to have spent a month in extremely close proximity to up to 70 Bull Sharks at one time, I can say with some authority that they are intelligent, cautious animals with an astonishing turn of pace and agility for an animal of such large bulk. It should also be noted that they are big and very, very powerful, you do not want to be on the end of one of these sharks in full flow because they really do pack a punch but not once did I feel under any threat at all and these were usually feeding sharks. When they weren't in feeding mode, they were even more cautious, they are not the indiscriminate killers the media and Shark Week would have you believe.

The Seychelles has had only two fatalities from shark bite in the last fifty years, not bad going for the tropics and to provide some perspective, there have been more fatalities from shark bite in the Mediterranean in the last twenty years than the Seychelles in the last fifty...

So why were the victims attacked? Honestly, I don't know, I wasn't there, nor am I there now to help find out but please, do me a favour, discount the "mistaken identity" theory immediately. The water in The Seychelles is crystal clear and be it a Bull or a Tiger, they would not assume a snorkeller or diver was a turtle because guess what, people look nothing like turtles! I'm just waiting for the "shark thought he was a seal" quote as well, yep, those famous Indian Ocean Seychellois Seals that hang around near to beaches...

 

The interesting factor in these attacks, much like those in Egypt, is that the injuries were caused by multiple bites. Yes, most attack statistics show that the majority of attacks consist only one bite but these stats are often taken from incidents involving surfers and Great Whites which behave differently in attacks on people to both Bulls and Tigers. Both species are more disposed to biting a victim more than once and without the barrier of a surfboard, the victim is often more accessible to the attacking shark. The first thing most victims will do when bitten by a shark is fight back, if the shark is behaving in an unusually aggressive manner, particularly a Bull Shark, it will most likely respond accordingly and fight back itself, that's when you really have a problem.

Is it possible the same shark is responsible for both attacks? yes but is it likely? Probably not. If it is the same shark, why did it take two weeks to attack again? It may be two individuals of the same species, maybe two separate species, the victims reportedly suffered enormous wounds so at the risk of upsetting the "cuddly sharks" brigade and those who don't believe sharks attack humans with intent, these were clearly acts of aggression on the part of the shark.

But...

Let's not get carried away, sharks don't attack humans with malevolence because they are evil and want to do harm to people for the sake of doing harm. It may be uncomfortable for some people to accept but shark attacks are a natural part of life, incredibly rare of course but the sharks are just doing what sharks do. If you go into the sea where there are sharks, you might be lucky enough to see a shark, you may also be unlucky enough to get bitten by one, it's part and parcel of swimming in areas where we know large, predatory sharks inhabit. Sometimes, despite the human need for it, we can't rationalise a shark attack or explain exactly why it happened, sometimes, sharks attack people for no other reason than the shark has decided it is worth the effort, it really can be as simple as that. Forget what Erich Ritter says, "shark incidents," "shark accidents," "negative shark/human interactions" and all that crap, these were "shark attacks."

That's not to say that these attacks weren't caused by various different factors, sea temperature, human encroachment and impact on the sharks' natural habitat, fishing activity, dumping into the sea...There could be a number of contributing factors to why these attacks took place but at this stage we just don't know so it's pointless prevaricating until we know more.

What is clear is that these are tragic events and the likely shark cull, initiated by a panicking tourism industry makes it all the more tragic because people have to start accepting what may be difficult for them to do so, every year, sharks will kill a small number of people, an infinitesimally small proportion of those who enjoy the beach every year all around the world, but that is of no comfort to the friends and families of the unfortunate victims. 

What we must do is accept this, it's no good claiming sharks aren't dangerous, that they're cuddly and friendly (they're not), nor is it any use claiming sharks are blood thirsty murderers intent on eating every swimmer they encounter (they're not). Sharks are sharks and sharks do what sharks do, this was a case of sharks doing what they do very well I'm afraid, if you want to avoid being bitten by a shark, stay out of the water, if you want to use the ocean, you must accept you have to start playing by their rules.

If the Seychellois officials initiate a shark cull, it will be an absolute tragedy, hasn't enough blood been shed already?

Egyptian shark attacks - Part II

 

In the wake of the fatality in Egypt on Saturday, the fourth victim in total this week, I thought it sensible to address some points raised in the last blog and to also try and make sense of the events of the last week and do what the mainstream media won't, that is, to offer informed, balanced opinion on what may have been the cause of the attacks and offer less hyperbolic explanation than that offered in the press. This article won't offer a guaranteed conclusion, it can't, I'm not out there and haven't spoken to any of the victims or witnesses but what I hopefully can do, is give the opinion of someone with a bit of expertise in the area of shark attacks thanks to many, many years of independent study on the subject relating to attacks all around the world.

The first point I want to raise is that in the first article, I raised my suspicion as to whether sharks had been involved in the injuries sustained by the victims at all. This isn't as much of a wild conspiracy theory as it may at first seem, it has happened before and sharks make great scapegoats, however, it is now clear that four people have been seriously and in one instance, fatally, injured by sharks in the last week. 

When trying to make sense of a shark attack, many things have to be taken into consideration, the victim, the victim's activity, the location, the conditions, conditions in the weeks prior to the attack, the location's historical record with shark attacks and any other activities in and around the location's ocean space before and during the attack. Sharks don't just decide on a whim to swim to a beach and eat the nearest bather!

The Location

Egypt is a great place to spend a holiday, year round sunshine, crystal clear water, it hardly ever rains and is within relatively short flying distance from pretty much anywhere in Europe. The diving is also world class, for pure diving alone, the Red Sea is still the best diving destination I have ever experienced.

I have actually stayed in a hotel on the same stretch of water as Saturday's fatality, in fact where I stayed was only around quarter of a mile away. The hotels in that area have their own private beaches where swimmers and snorkelers enter the water from pontoons that float above the reef. The depth of the water can drop off steeply to around the 20-25 metre mark and marine life is abundant and varied. When I was there it was my first trip to try and film sharks in the Red Sea, a week long diving excursion that was based more on hope than expectation and throughout the time there, saw only a brief glimpse of a five foot long Grey Reef Shark off Yolanda. Everybody I spoke to about the potential for reef sharks off the hotels private beaches said the same thing, you might see one if you're really lucky every two or three years. The odd thing is that they should be there, they're just not. It's also worth pointing out that when I was in Sharm during this trip, it was at this exact time of year.

 

Egypt, for all it's wealth in the marine life stakes, is still a very poor country and to be brutally honest, won't be winning any awards for environmental regulation practices any time soon. The biggest problems faced by countries like Egypt (and many of the world's other top diving destinations) is that they are predominantly economically worse off than places like Britain, most of Europe, America and Australia so when opportunities do arise for places like Egypt to economically benefit from tourism, attracted by things like world class diving experiences, environmental practices can be pushed aside to exploit as much money as possible, as quickly as possible.

Egypt's climate means you can have a sunshine holiday where a tan, hot weather, warm seas and colourful fish are guaranteed, this means that 365 days a year, Egypt is besieged by holiday makers and this takes it's toll on the environment in and around the resorts. What is also worth noting is that much of the land in Egypt is, as I understand it, privately owned, many resorts are built upon land purchased from the military and one stipulation the government makes is that if a private developer or development chain purchases the land, they have to guarantee that development will be ongoing, i.e. resorts and hotels will get bigger and bigger meaning more tourists years on year and as such, more of a negative effect on the local environment.

What has this got to do with shark attacks? Well, quite a bit really. Ask anyone who has visited Sharm El Sheikh on a diving holiday in the last five years about how crowded the dive sites are. Boats jostle for position, divers are dumped in the sea for 45 minutes then shuttled off to the next location, whilst the divers are at depth, non-divers snorkel by the reefs in open water, often feeding the small fish with bits of bread.

Every day of the year, some of the best dive sites in the world are besieged by divers and boats without respite and unfortunately these dive boats bring with them the waste and garbage which all too often ends up in the sea.

Egypt has some top class dive operators, Emperor, Red Sea Diving College, Elite and Pioneer to name a few but as with many other places, it also has operators who's practices leave a lot to be desired and unfortunately, one of those practices is the unregulated baiting of large pelagic sharks for the benefit and upon request, of Russian and Italian tourists..More on that later.

Lying a short boat ride away from Sharm's resorts, in fact, directly opposite most of them is the Tiran Straits, home to some of the best diving in the Red Sea, Ras Mohammed, Woodhouse, Jackson Reef, The Gardens etc, all of which have been known historically for their (once) abundant shark populations, sharks have always been in the area, what hasn't however, is large numbers of human visitors and the environmental destruction this unfortunately brings.

The Victims
As is usually the case with Arabian shark incidents, getting the definitive detailed account of what happened is nigh on impossible. What I will cover below is based on media reports and information passed to me by trusted sources with working knowledge of the area and who have been in contact with people in positions of trust in the locations of the attacks.

Attack 1 - Olga Martsenko (48) & Evgeny Trishkin (30/11/10)
At the time of the attack, Russians, Olga and Evgeny, believed to be a couple, were snorkeling in deeper water off the reef. Details are sketchy at best but divers nearby claim to have been circled by a 2.5 metre Oceanic Whitetip only moments before it struck the couple, seriously injuring Evegeny's legs and removing Olga's hand.

Both victims made it ashore and were transferred to hospital in Cairo where they are described as in a critical condition but will both survive.


Attack 2 - Victor Koliy (46) (1/12/10)
Ukranian Victor, was attacked a few miles to the north of the attack on the Russian couple the previous day. Again, the victim was snorkeling and suffered what was described as "multiple" injuries to his legs. Fortunately, Victor has since been discharged from hospital and is believed to have returned to the Ukraine. Reports suggest that Victor was again, snorkeling farther out in deeper water from the reef's edge.


Attack 3 - German Woman (3/12/10) - Fatal
Details surrounding this attack are at present vague, some reports suggest her body washed on to the beach, others report that she was brought ashore by a lifeguard, however, what has come to light is that eye witnesses are claiming to have seen a shark which is considerably larger than the shark implicated in the first attack on the Russian couple.

The victim suffered large wounds to her mid to upper arm and her legs were badly mauled. Again, the victim was swimming in deeper water, this time off the private house reef of the Hyatt hotel, where she was a regular visitor.

Reports of a fourth attack and fifth victim have now been confirmed as false, the "victim" in question, a young Russian woman received lacerations to her hand, caused not by a shark, but by coral.

As is often the case in shark attacks, the extremities are the parts of the victim sustaining injuries, that is, the arms and legs, including hands and feet. What follows is my informed opinion, that doesn't make it fact, however, I am confident that I may well be accurate. We may never know exactly what happened but the purpose of this is to offer a more balanced account than that which you will find in the mainstream media. I haven't seen the bodies and I haven't had the benefit of speaking to eyewitnesses...

In the first attack, one interesting facet of the circumstances becomes clear, that the victims were snorkeling in close proximity to a group of divers. The couple were not the only people at the surface in the water and the divers saw the shark before it attacked. As I mentioned in the previous blog, when swimmers and snorkelers sustain injuries to their hands and arms, it is often in the event of the victim touching the shark, or attempting to fight off an attacking or aggressive shark. My guess is this, the shark, having circled the divers, was drawn to the couple at the surface, I would imagine the male of the couple was the first to be bitten, sustaining injuries to his legs whilst attempting to move away from the approaching shark or kicking out to defend himself. Upon seeing her companion struggling with the shark, has Olga attempted to help the victim, punching out at the shark or trying to push it away, thus encouraging the shark to bite her in self defence, removing her hand in the process?

It is most often the case in attacks on humans that a removal of a limb is the last act of an attacking shark so this would make sense. As is usually the case and having seen it myself, when snorkelers or swimmers are approached by an inquisitive shark, very few will respond in a calm manner, arms and legs are flailing and when "fight or flight" kicks in, "flight" is usually the course of action taken. If you are approached by an inquisitive or aggressive shark, to move away from the shark, attempting to escape, only encourages the shark to inspect you more closely and what is the part of the body nearest the business end of a shark in this scenario? The feet and lower legs, hence why  believe the male was first to be bitten.

The same train of thought could be applied in the second attack, inquisitive shark approaches a snorkeler who attempts to escape or kick out at the shark and receives injuries to his lower legs. If a victim is attempting an escape, behaving like potential prey can illicit an appropriate reaction in a predatory animal, also, to defend one's self can be interpreted as an act of aggression on the victim's part and can again, illicit a response from the "attacking" animal.

In the instance of the fatal attack, what is it that caused the victim to unfortunately not survive? Was the attacker more aggressive or were the injuries more severe due to the size of the shark? Did the victim's own condition mean she was less able to withstand injuries a younger, fitter individual may have? We may never know but reports have suggested that people originally rushing to her aide, when realising what was happening left the water to find a vessel in which they could bring her ashore. It seems that the victim was further away from other bathers during this attack and assistance took longer to arrive, did that play a part in this incident ending with a fatality?

Should the final victim have been in the water in the first place? Did she even know about the attacks earlier that week? It isn't that ridiculous to suggest she may not have known, I know when I go on holiday, I don't watch television, I certainly don't bother reading newspapers in languages I can't understand and how likely is it that staff at the hotels were being particularly forthcoming about the events surrounding the previous attacks? In the event I find out more detailed information surrounding each or all of the attacks, I will of course post it and amend my theories if needed, accordingly.

The Culprits
The more astute reader will take note of the fact I have pluralised the above. The notion of a "rogue shark," so beloved by the press and armchair Matt Hooper is one I just don't buy I'm afraid. To justify that, let's look at the basic definition of what a "rogue shark" actually is. A rogue shark is "JAWS," a shark which actually swims around looking for people to bite or eat. Some animals do exhibit rogue tendencies, lions, tigers and crocodiles for example and the theory is based on evidence a rogue animal has a "taste for human flesh."

It is fairly widely known nowadays and certainly widely accepted, that sharks do not particularly care for the taste of human beings, in fact, only approximately 10-15 human beings have ever been totally consumed by a shark during an attack, that is, they were alive before coming into contact with a shark which then killed and ate them. It is certainly feasible that the number of unfortnates suffering this grisly fate could even be in single figures.

The examples used by fans of the rogue shark theory such as the Jersey Shore attacks in 1916 have since been proved far more likely, in fact almost beyond all doubt, to have been carried out by multiple sharks. Egypt has even had its own rogue shark conspiracy before, in the 1980's where three people were attacked on the same day in the Port Said area of Cairo. The incident was often used to support the rogue shark theory but neglected to mention the third victim (the first two were companions together) was injured many miles away and would have required the shark to sprint up the coast to find and attack him.

Human beings don't have the relevant nutritional value for sharks to get a taste for us, sharks aren't "killing machines" they are highly evolved predatory animals that do what they do, really, really well. They are not vindictive animals hell bent on the destruction of the human race but animals which sometimes make mistakes based on natural behaviour patterns.

The Oceanic Whitetip has taken a bit of a hammering in the press this week and as a large, bold and sometimes aggressive shark, commonly found in the area, it would make a likely suspect but let's not forget some of his mates who might also be worth a mention, the Tiger Shark, Silvertip Shark and the Great White.

The Oceanic Whitetip is big enough, aggressive enough and has the tools to have carried out these attacks, no question about that, however it is a pelagic species, not often found so close to beaches. That's not to say it's impossible, they have been encountered close inshore where reefs have steep drop offs, much like those in Sharm so it's not impossible they would be seen that near to a beach, very rare yes but not impossible.

The Tiger Shark has been surprisingly lacking in the press this week. She is big, heavy set and one of the few shark species capable of doing serious damage to a human being. The nearby Tiran Straits are home to a resident number of Tiger Sharks which are fairly regularly encountered by divers and unlike the Oceanic Whitetip, will regularly venture into shallow water.

Contrary to popular belief, Great White sharks do occur in warm water and even tropical locations, The Bahamas, Madagascar, Northern Australia, Tonga, The Seychelles, all of these places have recorded large numbers of verified Great White shark sightings and encounters, you can add the Red Sea to that as well. Great Whites do visit the Egyptian coast and at this time of year, with sea temperatures around the 23-25 degrees Celsius mark, they are more than capable of withstanding these temperate conditions and as we all know, are more than capable of inflicting serious injury with ease.

Isn't she beautiful! Yes she certainly is but the Silvertip is also a bulky, sometimes aggressive shark which has been involved in attacks on humans before. Silvertips are found in the waters around sharks and whilst also more commonly found in pelagic environments, do venture closer inshore with more regularity than the Oceanic Whitetip. The Silvertip is less twitchy than other requiem sharks, has an inquisitive nature and will attack if provoked, it also has the dental equipment to do some serious damage to the human body.

All these sharks have track records in wounding swimmers and divers, they all occur in the locality of the attacks and all could be considered possible suspects. Very few sharks have the tools to cut through bone, a pre-requisite if a human limb is removed in an attack. That also discounts the Mako caught by fishermen from the attack in which Olga lost her hand and lower arm.

The least likely culprit is the Great White, the other three however could all be reasonable suspects, could it be that a couple of species have been involved? Could it be that a couple of sharks of the same species have been involved? Very possibly. Could it be that one shark is responsible for all the attacks? I really don't think so.

In my opinion the most likely scenario is that the Oceanic Whitetip and Tiger Shark are the most likely suspects in one or all of the attacks. If this was happening in the Pacific Islands, Hawaii, Northern Australia, Florida or Durban for example, in similar conditions, the finger of blame would immediately be pointed at either the Tiger or the Bull Shark, with the absence of Bull Sharks from the area, is that to say it's reasonable to believe a Tiger Shark could be implicated in one of the attacks at least? In my mind yes, does it make it so? No but it is a possible scenario.

Environmental Factors
What do I mean by the above? Well, to put it simply, factors in the area which we either know for sure, or can reasonably be assumed to have happened given information from reliable sources.

I have not seen it with my own eyes but very trusted friends and colleagues have, it is widely accepted that some dive boats in the area are known for baiting the water to bring sharks closer to divers, in particular Oceanic Whitetip Sharks. Even more alarming is that on some of these boats it is claimed, operators encourage divers to pet the large sharks and bites have occurred because of this. These practices are often undertaken for predominantly Russian and Italian tourists who pay extra for the pleasure. Before you start using this as ammo to rail against the shark feeding industry, please bare in mind what I have said in a previous article on that specific subject, shark feeding dive operations and dive operations feeding sharks, are two very different things.

It is common practice for tourists to feed the fish close inshore. Not a massive problem you might think but if smaller fish are encouraged to hang around and propagate in bather heavy areas, don't be surprised if bigger fish fancy popping by to have a look as well.

Large pelagic fish in the Red Sea are in enormous decline, overfishing has taken a terrible toll on populations of pelagic species which in turn has affected the feeding practices of many predatory species. If you remove prey species in big enough numbers, it is going to affect the species which rely on them to feed as part of their natural diet. If we alter a species' natural predatory behaviours, it is likely they will adapt to that alteration. By that I mean if an animal naturally survives on rays for example, if the rays are all removed from an area, that predator either has to leave and find more rays or start finding other things to eat to survive which then has a knock on effect for that new prey item. Could this mean that larger sharks are moving closer inshore due to their being less prey in deeper waters? Maybe...

Perhaps most startling and telling, are reports that a merchant vessel transporting cattle and livestock to Jordan had jettisoned a number of the animals overboard in waters close to where the attacks took place as recently as the week before the attacks. Had the animals died on board and been disposed of overboard? This is not the first time this has happened. During the foot and mouth crisis in 2001, consignments of cattle were transported from South Africa through the Red Sea, this coincided with reports of dive groups encountering Great White Sharks off the coast of Sharm and also around the Brothers and Daedelus. I spoke with a dive guide in 2007 who had two encounters herself during 2001, she also happened to mention it was suggested that it may be best not to talk about it at the time due to fear of it affecting business. We will probably never know for definite whether the sharks followed the cattle transporters but it would be a valid explanation. As soon as the Great Whites appeared, they disappeared again after just over a month...

Also, when the French passenger plane crashed in the northern Red Sea in 2003, the number of sharks encountered by divers exploded and for around three months, large numbers of sharks were encountered with unusual frequency

A Valid Explanation?
I'm not saying this is what happened, it is merely what I think happened, if you want to either agree or disagree based on any additional information or feedback, I always welcome informed open discussion. So here goes...

It's no coincidence in my mind that a load of dead animals get dumped in the sea near to a popular tourist resort where the sea is full of swimmers, divers and snorkelers and a week or so later some people get bitten. If you take all the information on face value it could be argued that within a dwindling population of large pelagic sharks, a small number of individuals have been attracted closer to shore by the decaying sheep and cattle carcasses tossed into the water. The waste pumped into the water from the hotels, the fish feeding activity from tourists and the possibility of dive boats feeding sharks in the area would potentially be enough to encourage predatory behaviour in the visiting sharks. Upon encountering vulnerable swimmers at the surface, have the sharks exhibited aggressive, inquisitory behaviour whilst in a heightened state of predatory awareness due to the increased level of stimuli (rotting sheep, increased fish activity, large numbers of people in the water, waste from dive boats and hotels) in the water? It's very, very possible.

These attacks were not feeding attacks, in that the sharks weren't trying to eat people, they were most likely acts of aggression from sharks who's behaviour had been altered by human interference and unfortunately people have been seriously hurt and one killed. The problem is the mainstream media will most likely only cover the tip of the dorsal fin in this story, sharks make easy bad guys and stories of environmental alteration don't sell as well as sharks attacking helpless humans. A small number of sharks have been attracted closer to shore by human negligence, people have been bitten and unfortunately the sharks are going to pay the price. Will they catch the culprits? Probably not, will they catch and kill innocent sharks? They already have...

It is a sad story all around, the most startling part of which for me was the statistic that only 11 Oceanic Whitetip sharks of  adult size (2 metres+) have been identified as resident animals, in that they have been documented twice or more, in the area, an area which could once lay claim to be perhaps the best place in the world to encounter Oceanic Whitetip Sharks in the world. This incredible shark was once claimed to be the most common large pelagic fish in the oceans (fish weighing 100lbs or more), it is now critically endangered in many parts of the world, but that won't be a story so widespread in the mainstream press.

As with all shark attacks, we have to look at the bigger picture, a good example being the spate of attacks at Port St Johns in South Africa between 2004 and 2009. The press featured comments from locals and fishermen claiming that the restrictions on shark fishing and the shark diving industry were to blame, what wasn't so widely mentioned was that the beach was used by a local tribe to take part in ritualistic animal sacrifices, in fact, these sacrifices were undertaken on the morning of two of the attacks, both of which were fatal.

All I ask is that you take on board the fact that sharks do not look for people to bite or eat, the rogue shark theory is almost certainly a myth and the biggest victim in shark/human encounters is without doubt the shark. It can be difficult to separate emotions from incidents like these but hopefully more information comes to light, you never know, I may even be right.

I want to thank Avi, Ed, Howard and Patric for passing me some info, in patric's case he should be applauded for taking the time to do what much of the media hasn't, contact a local dive expert and see what they think about everything, as an industry leader, Patric has clarified that the divers in Egypt, almost to a man, want to see tolerance and understanding for the sharks in Red Sea waters and for that we should all thank them.

Seeing as this is a fairly epic blog, I am going to treat you to a couple of videos, made aware to me by my friend, the rather brilliant Mike Neumann, the first may go some way to explain why Oceanic Whitetip Sharks occasionally bite snorkelers and divers, some of the behaviour is pretty scary on the part of the humans involved, the second video is something Mike was pretty reserved with in his comments but I'm afraid I can't exercise such good will, I hate it, I hate this video with a passion and have a strong dislike for the idiots involved in it, it makes me angry and shows a lot of people make diving with sharks all about them and a way to show off to their pals. The dive operator shouldn't have allowed it and the divers themselves are exactly the type of divers that I never, ever want to be on a dive boat with. What both videos do show however, is how tolerant sharks are for human stupidity, all three species in the videos, Oceanic Whitetips, Lemon Sharks and Tiger Sharks could very easily kill every one involved in the videos, the important thing is, they don't, they don't even give them a nip...Bare that in mind next time you read reports in the media about shark incidents...

Finally, feel free to pass this to people you know are talking about the attacks, it might help increase understanding from the shark's point of view, if you are part of the press and want to contact me, please do, if you want to comment and give your thoughts, again please do and finally, to the shark conservationists, I know that innocent sharks have paid the price as well this week but let's also remember, it isn't the fault of the victims, let's not try to play the life of one thing over the life of another, whereas I agree that a human life does not have more value than that of a shark's life, it does not mean the shark has more value than a human, let us try to exercise sympathy and reasoned debate, that is far more helpful than spreading propaganda that may at first seem helpful, when it is actually the total opposite. Sharks are not friendly, they are not like puppy dogs...Sharks are sharks and should be appreciated and cherished for what they are.

Stay safe everyone and thanks for reading!

www.officetoocean.com