# Shark attacks Abalone diver in SA



## Davey G (Jan 15, 2006)

SOUTH Australian Police have confirmed that an abalone diver was taken by two great white sharks while diving near Coffin Bay in South Australia. 
The diver is presumed dead after the attack which occurred about 25km west of Coffin Bay near the bottom of Eyre Peninsula.

Police told the ABC the diver was returning to the surface when two sharks, believed to be great whites, attacked him.

Inspector Brenton Saunders said the sharks are believed to have then swum out to sea with the man's body.

The skipper of the aluminium boat from which the diver was working saw the attack which happened south of Perforated Island.

He arrived at the Point Avoid boat ramp in the Coffin Bay National Park about 6.30pm and was treated for shock by paramedics.

It was not known exactly what time the shark attack happened.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/diver-m ... z1EFxz6KtL


----------



## Bretto (May 23, 2010)

Sad to hear, but he should of had a shark shield equipped.


----------



## Marty75 (Oct 23, 2007)

Tragic and bloody scary...

Wonder if he did have a shark shield... poor bugger.


----------



## Zed (Sep 18, 2006)

If I'm to be eaten by 2 whites at the same time, it was my time to go. No question.


----------



## TheFishinMusician (Feb 5, 2007)

Yep, tragic for his family.
Just watching abc news like rob said & the guy was an advocate of shark shield, even appeared on the website. Had an interview with one of his colleagues saying the bloke would Never dive without one. Perhaps it was turned off as he was returning to the boat @ the time? 
Dunno.


----------



## AJD (Jul 10, 2007)

Tragic but "Coffin Bay"? :shock: 
Wouldn't have got me in the water there for a truck load of rubbery abalone!


----------



## solatree (May 30, 2008)

AJD said:


> Tragic but "Coffin Bay"?


It wasn't in "Coffin Bay" which is quite sheltered- It was in "Avoid Bay" :shock: which is open to the Southern ocean.


----------



## AJD (Jul 10, 2007)

solatree said:


> AJD said:
> 
> 
> > Tragic but "Coffin Bay"?
> ...


OK that makes sense! :shock:


----------



## solatree (May 30, 2008)

AJD said:


> OK that makes sense! :shock:


Yep - Just around the tip of Eyre Peninsula from Cape Catastrophe and just east of Anxious Bay :?


----------



## AJD (Jul 10, 2007)

solatree said:


> AJD said:
> 
> 
> > OK that makes sense! :shock:
> ...


mmm - South Australia "The feel good state"


----------



## eagle4031 (Jan 29, 2010)

he normally uses two shark shields
however it is customary to turn these off to put in boat - i believe
in any event - most tragic
it does not mean the shark shields did nt work - no one knows yet - exactly - whther they were on or off


----------



## FazerPete (Mar 10, 2009)

It's an absolutely tragic event and I feel for his family.

On a side note I was Listening to ABC radio this afternoon and the head of the abalone fishing body in SA was questioning the protection of great whites who have grown in number because there is an increase of fish in the bay. I find it a bit sad that there are still people out there with the old "kill anything in the way" philosophy. There must be other measures that can be taken like more pros using self propelled cages rather than just wiping out sharks.


----------



## Brc226 (Jul 31, 2009)

Very sad. That is the second case (that I can remember) where a person has been attacked be 2 GW Sharks in SA. The other was a few years ago off West Beach when a young fella was grabbed by 2 whites when he jumped in the water to ski behind a tinnie - just completed Metric as I recall and was celibrating with friends.

Zed has a point.... 2 whites at once is more than a little unusual.

Condolences to his family.


----------



## eagle4031 (Jan 29, 2010)

the answer is not in hunting them down. i think we need to look at the abundance of their food. for example - are tuna overfished??
we also need to consider the fact that since 1970 the increase in people diving has been dramatic let alone the surfers boaties swimmers etc.
snapper are also like by the great white - the more we protect fish stocks, whilst still allowing fishing, the more we will keep the balance within the oceans and therefore humans will not be a part of the food chain - except by accident - right place worng time


----------



## Zed (Sep 18, 2006)

Here in CA (USA) we have had the MMPA (Marine Mammal Protection Act) since 1972. And since then elephant seal, sea lion, harbor seal populations are up and at the topend of their sustainable numbers. They take over moored boats, marinas and beaches and due to the MMPA no one can do anything about it. This fact welcomes more whites. Among fishermen, seeing a white taking out a sea lion would warrant a standing ovation for the shark. Trouble is, surfers and divers can get mistaken for a pinniped. It's pretty difficult to be mistaken for a tuna. Are SA whites more into eating fish? What kind of pinniped pops do you have in SA?


----------



## GregL (Jul 27, 2008)

Whites don't attack humans because they can't find a tuna. :? :? :? - or kingie, or dolphin, or groper, or squid, or snapper, or crab, or seal, or whale, or other shark or anything else they usually eat that isn't targetted in large numbers by pro fishermen.
They attack humans because we're frickin' easy to catch.
If we're easy to catch then why isn't the regular food source of divers, swimmers or surfers being targetted by sharks?
Because we have bugger all nutritional value compared to seals or large fish.
We are off the menu.
If you get hit, like this poor fellow, you are incredibly unlucky to have been in the wrong place the wrong time with a fired up noah that has mistaken you for something else.

Overfishing tuna is not a reason and never will be - it is Green propoganda.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the Green cause - especially when it comes to overfishing - but only when they produce facts and figures rather than theories.

Turning events like these into ads for Shark Shield makes me absolutely sick - regardless of the products' merit.
The poor guys' family and friends now have to look forward to mourning his loss for the rest of their lives, whilst Mr Shark Shield is looking forward to an increase in sales.
I hate how the world works some times.

Regards,
Greg


----------



## eagle4031 (Jan 29, 2010)

all valid points Greg
yeah - and i theorised - not always right
it is true that sharkshield will get good business and i agree in the wrong place at the wrong time


----------



## Zed (Sep 18, 2006)

Sorry Greg, but do we wait for the Government umbrella factory to supply the people when it rains? 
No, we live in capitalistic countries, and umbrella salesmen make their $$$.

People are better of with the umbrellas, and will be better off with more SSs.

Condolences to the family, of course.


----------



## emufingers (Aug 11, 2010)

Each attack brings sadness and I sympathise with the families and friends of victims. It is interesting however, how the human fear response works. The typical response is to try to explain followed by a desire to control. here are some examples'

*Explanation:* Some claim more fish( snapper) therefore more sharks. Others claim less fish therefore hungrier sharks therefore more risk to humans. Sharks are getting meaner

*Control:* Kill the specific shark, reduce shark numbers, Put a cage around the diver, get a shark shield, don't swim where sharks are.

There is poor evidence for most of the explanations and most of the control measures. It is unlikely given the number of attacks (very few) that sound evidence for control other than a physical barrier (cage)will ever be available. Even shark shield tests cannot tell us whether the shield will repel a shark with a mind to attack. We choose arguments that suit our value orientation and political belief systems in order to try to shift the blame for the risk. In the end we each make an individual choice based on poor evidence.
We choose to enter the sharks domain. Despite the journalist's use of the term stalking or lurking to stimulate the fear response, sharks are going about their lifestyle, looking for food. In their environment they are a high order predator. If we choose to enter the environment, we place our selves at risk. We enjoy freedom in the water so we look for high tech solutions rather than cumbersome barriers. We choose the risk, which in statistical terms is small, but varies according to our activity and the places and seasons we choose. There are no guarantees. While it is important to consider the impact of humans on the planet and the state of fisheries, it is a mere distraction in this case. The sharks are there, occasionally they will attack and kill humans. The responsibility for the risk is an individual one.


----------



## GregL (Jul 27, 2008)

kraley said:


> GregL said:
> 
> 
> > Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the Green cause - especially when it comes to overfishing - but only when they produce facts and figures rather than theories.
> ...


I am not disputing the overfishing of SBT - I am disputing the link between overfishing and shark attacks on humans.

There is no need to challenge me on the overfishing of SBT. The guys who make the desicions on SBT (The International Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna) are already well ahead of us, with the species already having been listed as Conservation Dependant, and a committment by all members of the commission agreeing to *reduce* the total global catch by 20% for the 2010/2011 season, along with the implementation of a new harvest strategy that will determine TACC levels from 2012 and onwards.
The next meeting of the ICCSBT is being held here in Australia in August. It will be very interesting to see what the next step will be.
The facts and figures do show that tuna *has* been overfished in the past, but they also show that stocks are gradually rebuilding.
(apologies for the unintentional hijack - maybe use Dan's 'This is hardcore' thread for further discussion)


----------



## eagle4031 (Jan 29, 2010)

emufingers said:


> If we choose to enter the environment, we place our selves at risk. We enjoy freedom in the water so we look for high tech solutions rather than cumbersome barriers. We choose the risk, which in statistical terms is small, but varies according to our activity and the places and seasons we choose. There are no guarantees. While it is important to consider the impact of humans on the planet and the state of fisheries, it is a mere distraction in this case. The sharks are there, occasionally they will attack and kill humans. The responsibility for the risk is an individual one.


i agrre with this 
for example - when i go fishing i do not think i will get an encounter the chances are small. i lived in great white country but never saw one. you just have to be unlucky and if humans stop pursuing our fun because of bad possibilities - no one would climb mountains, swim, surf, hike, dive, race cars or risk taking a driving holiday


----------



## Rose (Jan 30, 2006)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Billybob (Aug 29, 2005)

I notice Shark Shield have removed Peter Clarkson's glowing testimonial for their product from their website. Interesting.


----------



## eagle4031 (Jan 29, 2010)

i think removing Peter Clarksons testimonial was wise. until they find out exactly what the circumstances are, everything is conjecture. Divers habitually turn the shark shields off once surfaced so they can return evrything to the boat. The shark shield may have worked - love to know the full story. Hope it all comes out. I do wonder about a shark in full fast attack mode being too focussed on the prey to stop.


----------



## mehi (May 25, 2009)

Two Great Whites competing for food is anything going to stop them, personally I don't think so


----------



## Stealthfisha (Jul 21, 2009)

Billybob said:


> I notice Shark Shield have removed Peter Clarkson's glowing testimonial for their product from their website. Interesting.


Sounds like flood insurance again. 
If I was 100% of my own product and charged $600+ for an Aussie battler to buy it from reading all my testimonials... The last thing I would do would be removing some poor bugger that has just died who yesterday was an advocate to my product. Shame SS, shame. 
Like others have said, maybe move this to another thread.

RIP the poor diver and his family. This guys does not deserve any of us asking whether he wore what and whatever. The guy is dead and let him rest. He was earning a crust. That's enough for all of us to stop debating if he wore it or not or switched it on..... Or if he knew the risks etc... Let this one go to the keeper guys.


----------



## Big D (Apr 28, 2007)

Baggs71 said:


> Billybob said:
> 
> 
> > I notice Shark Shield have removed Peter Clarkson's glowing testimonial for their product from their website. Interesting.
> ...


Maybe they did it as a mark of respect and not for any sinister reasons....


----------



## solatree (May 30, 2008)

Big D said:


> Maybe they did it as a mark of respect


That was also my assumption. Must be pretty hard on the family.


----------

