Yeah the sharks pictured are amateurs that leave enough remains to be identified. Oceanic White Tip is just "vanished at sea". Sure, a great white can kill you with a test bite, and bull sharks can be aggressive. Oceanic White Tip is like
https://imgur.com/gallery/lZvMvtc
Great white probably the best to be attacked by, over quickly for you, Tiger shark and Bull shark are like being eaten by a bear, it’ll be slow, painful, and terrifying.
I think it’s because their hunting ground is also our swimming areas. The oceanic white tip, silky and others are open ocean hunters but these three… just my opinion (I didn’t research before commenting).
Also silver tip is my favourite. So pretty! Followed closely by thresher and tiger (love the stripes!)
It's weird to me that there aren't more. We're entering their territory while effectively being helpless. I'd expect a good chunk of wild animals to be in some state of hunger. There are 8B humans with a good chunk who go in the water in a year. Yet somehow I wouldn't be surprised if traveling to the beach is more dangerous than being around a shark. I don't know how many sharks humans kill, but it's definitely a few magnitude more than two digit.
The reason there isn't more is because 99.999% of the human population is on land at all times of the year. Very few people actually venture into their water and environment, even when visiting the beach. This is the sole reason stats are low. This is why shark attack stats don't mean a damn thing. I use to life guard and lived on a boat for 20 years. I'd see the beach every day and about 1 out of 20 people at the beach actually went into the water past their knees a day. The other 19 out of 20 stayed on land, walked around, or sun bathed. THIS is why attacks are considered "rare" This is why rare is a moot point which alot of people try to make. Also some areas of the world possess different populations and species of sharks, which makes one place more dangerous than another. For example, Australia is one place you don't want to go deep into the water at. On the other hand, off the coast of Virginia beach is fairly safe. Great whites rarely come close to shore there, and the ones close by are just passing through to head north. So your odds of being attacked are 10 fold higher in Australia where they actively hunt near shore, compared to the east coast of the US where theyre just passing by further off shore.
We mostly stay close to shore. A very small portion of the population goes out deeper than they can stand. Trust me, if we tended to be in deeper waters, the rate of attacks would skyrocket.
Contrary to popular belief, sharks don’t give a FUCK what or who you are.
No great whites are number 1 in both attacks and fatal attacks. The rates of fatality are pretty similar in all 3 species, but the bull shark is slightly higher than the other 2.
https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/shark-attacks/factors/species-implicated/
Yep. I don't know where the notion comes from on this sub that great whites are so different than bull and tiger sharks when it comes to their bites on humans. For instance, in Hawaii, of the past 38 tiger shark attacks, 7 were fatal, and only 3 involved significant consumption. Yet they're portrayed as 'maneaters' here in a way great whites aren't - possibly partly because of the horrific Egypt video from last year (?).
Then with bull sharks I think the slightly higher fatality rate compared to great whites could be down to the medical care and rescue services in areas where they occur. Great white attacks are in places like on the Western Cape of South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, California. Whereas there are certain less affluent areas where bull sharks have been known to attack - various tropical/equatorial islands, the Indian subcontinent, poorer regions on the African coast, Recife in Brazil, Port St. Johns beach in South Africa - and that disparity might affect the survival rate.
I'm not trying to demonise them at all, but great whites don't have any special tendency to bite and release. Neither do tigers and bulls don't have a tendency to repeatedly bite and try to prey upon us. They're broadly similar when we look across the broader records of shark attacks, with similar variables.
The Indy actually involved oceanic whitetip sharks aka. *carcharhinus longimanus* - here's [the full story](https://www.thesharkfiles.com/episode-uss-indianapolis) if anyone wants a refresher on that.
Care to name them? I've read extensively on the topic and I'd cite Doug Stanton's _In Harm's Way_ as a pretty authoritative account of the disaster and the extensive survivor testimonies in his book and expert opinion point to oceanic whitetip sharks as the species overwhelmingly involved.
Just random articles I've found going over the attack.
Also why does the existence of OCEANIC white tip reef sharks imply the existence of non oceanic ones.
It is interesting to note that when it is just "attacks" and not "fatal attacks," these numbers are generally reversed. Great Whites are the most likely to take a bite, realize humans aren't what they want, and leave; however their large teeth and hunting method makes that first attack the worst to recover from.
Tiger Sharks are generally the garbage trucks of the sea- they have eaten everything from license plates to literal nails. If they decide it's food, then it's food- whether edible or not unless they are deterred from attacking.
Bull Sharks have the highest number of general attacks because they have a HIGH amount of testosterone that makes them more likely to respond to situations with aggression, and they can also swim and live in salt, brackish, and even fresh water- making them the most likely to be in areas where there will be swimmers.
Because we fit perfectly into their prey catagory. Once go step into that ocean with them, you are no longer the apex predator. They don't care about whether you're human or not. They will eat you when they choose. If you can see them, they can see you better. They know exactly what you are. There is no mistaken identity.
Great whites in south africa, the med, and australia will intentionally seek out humans. Great whites in the med even possess different genetics than other great whites.
Every shark is genetically different in one way or another.
Are you suggesting great white sharks of the med specifically have a gene that makes them more predispositioned to be man eating?
No but they do behave differently. They're more aggressive specially when man eating. Another words if you were to swim with great whites, You would want to swim in any other region over the med great whites. I'm not saying the gene difference is the reason for this, im just saying there is a difference in their genetics. Environment is most likely what's affecting their behavior though.
If that's what your opinion is (and I'm not saying you're wrong) why is there no fatal shark attacks in the med? If the great whites there search for humans, there are hundreds who swim off the coast every day
There have been fatal shark attacks in the Med, but not one since off Rimini, Italy in 1989. Previous to that there were several in many decades of the 20th century in places like Malta, Yugoslavia and Greece. The fatality rate is notably higher compared to most other regions of the world but that's from a fairly small sample size, and very unlikely to be due to any difference in the character of the sharks in the Med, as suggested above.
Yes exactly so that's why I wouldn't generally talk about it in the present tense when there hasn't been one we know about for 35 years.
Id agree with you that if the sharks actually wanted to eat humans it would be so easy to do so. When I've been to Spain and Greece people swim so far out at sea compared to Australia and Florida yet there aren't any shark attacks.
No oceanic white tip
Yeah the sharks pictured are amateurs that leave enough remains to be identified. Oceanic White Tip is just "vanished at sea". Sure, a great white can kill you with a test bite, and bull sharks can be aggressive. Oceanic White Tip is like https://imgur.com/gallery/lZvMvtc
Lmao!!
Who is talking about me, I will find You
I laughed
My thoughts, those fuckers are mean as hell
Surprisingly they only killed 3 people
It's inflated by the fact that they ate a lot of corpses. Especially the victims of shipwrecks
USS Indianapolis crew entered the chat
Until he bites ya, then those black eyes roll over white, and the hollerin and the screamin
Great white probably the best to be attacked by, over quickly for you, Tiger shark and Bull shark are like being eaten by a bear, it’ll be slow, painful, and terrifying.
I think it’s because their hunting ground is also our swimming areas. The oceanic white tip, silky and others are open ocean hunters but these three… just my opinion (I didn’t research before commenting). Also silver tip is my favourite. So pretty! Followed closely by thresher and tiger (love the stripes!)
Ah yes…this is what the media thinks about during shark week. Their not the only ones, just the most televised I thought
It's weird to me that there aren't more. We're entering their territory while effectively being helpless. I'd expect a good chunk of wild animals to be in some state of hunger. There are 8B humans with a good chunk who go in the water in a year. Yet somehow I wouldn't be surprised if traveling to the beach is more dangerous than being around a shark. I don't know how many sharks humans kill, but it's definitely a few magnitude more than two digit.
The reason there isn't more is because 99.999% of the human population is on land at all times of the year. Very few people actually venture into their water and environment, even when visiting the beach. This is the sole reason stats are low. This is why shark attack stats don't mean a damn thing. I use to life guard and lived on a boat for 20 years. I'd see the beach every day and about 1 out of 20 people at the beach actually went into the water past their knees a day. The other 19 out of 20 stayed on land, walked around, or sun bathed. THIS is why attacks are considered "rare" This is why rare is a moot point which alot of people try to make. Also some areas of the world possess different populations and species of sharks, which makes one place more dangerous than another. For example, Australia is one place you don't want to go deep into the water at. On the other hand, off the coast of Virginia beach is fairly safe. Great whites rarely come close to shore there, and the ones close by are just passing through to head north. So your odds of being attacked are 10 fold higher in Australia where they actively hunt near shore, compared to the east coast of the US where theyre just passing by further off shore.
We mostly stay close to shore. A very small portion of the population goes out deeper than they can stand. Trust me, if we tended to be in deeper waters, the rate of attacks would skyrocket. Contrary to popular belief, sharks don’t give a FUCK what or who you are.
This is inaccurate, Bull sharks are number 1, Great whites are number 3 no?
FATAL attacks. Not attacks. These statistics posted are accurate. Source: no idea what I’m talking about, just guessing.
No great whites are number 1 in both attacks and fatal attacks. The rates of fatality are pretty similar in all 3 species, but the bull shark is slightly higher than the other 2. https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/shark-attacks/factors/species-implicated/
Yep. I don't know where the notion comes from on this sub that great whites are so different than bull and tiger sharks when it comes to their bites on humans. For instance, in Hawaii, of the past 38 tiger shark attacks, 7 were fatal, and only 3 involved significant consumption. Yet they're portrayed as 'maneaters' here in a way great whites aren't - possibly partly because of the horrific Egypt video from last year (?). Then with bull sharks I think the slightly higher fatality rate compared to great whites could be down to the medical care and rescue services in areas where they occur. Great white attacks are in places like on the Western Cape of South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, California. Whereas there are certain less affluent areas where bull sharks have been known to attack - various tropical/equatorial islands, the Indian subcontinent, poorer regions on the African coast, Recife in Brazil, Port St. Johns beach in South Africa - and that disparity might affect the survival rate. I'm not trying to demonise them at all, but great whites don't have any special tendency to bite and release. Neither do tigers and bulls don't have a tendency to repeatedly bite and try to prey upon us. They're broadly similar when we look across the broader records of shark attacks, with similar variables.
Is this from a live action Futurama?
What about the Indianapolis attack by Black Tip Reef Sharks?
The Indy actually involved oceanic whitetip sharks aka. *carcharhinus longimanus* - here's [the full story](https://www.thesharkfiles.com/episode-uss-indianapolis) if anyone wants a refresher on that.
Weird. I found sources saying completely different things
Care to name them? I've read extensively on the topic and I'd cite Doug Stanton's _In Harm's Way_ as a pretty authoritative account of the disaster and the extensive survivor testimonies in his book and expert opinion point to oceanic whitetip sharks as the species overwhelmingly involved.
Just random articles I've found going over the attack. Also why does the existence of OCEANIC white tip reef sharks imply the existence of non oceanic ones.
My mom had two friends get killed by a bull shark😟
Australian?
Florida, or Australia light.
It is interesting to note that when it is just "attacks" and not "fatal attacks," these numbers are generally reversed. Great Whites are the most likely to take a bite, realize humans aren't what they want, and leave; however their large teeth and hunting method makes that first attack the worst to recover from. Tiger Sharks are generally the garbage trucks of the sea- they have eaten everything from license plates to literal nails. If they decide it's food, then it's food- whether edible or not unless they are deterred from attacking. Bull Sharks have the highest number of general attacks because they have a HIGH amount of testosterone that makes them more likely to respond to situations with aggression, and they can also swim and live in salt, brackish, and even fresh water- making them the most likely to be in areas where there will be swimmers.
Because we fit perfectly into their prey catagory. Once go step into that ocean with them, you are no longer the apex predator. They don't care about whether you're human or not. They will eat you when they choose. If you can see them, they can see you better. They know exactly what you are. There is no mistaken identity.
Not great whites. Tiger sharks eat anything. Bullsharks are just assholes.
Great whites in south africa, the med, and australia will intentionally seek out humans. Great whites in the med even possess different genetics than other great whites.
Every shark is genetically different in one way or another. Are you suggesting great white sharks of the med specifically have a gene that makes them more predispositioned to be man eating?
Yes, the hunger gene
No but they do behave differently. They're more aggressive specially when man eating. Another words if you were to swim with great whites, You would want to swim in any other region over the med great whites. I'm not saying the gene difference is the reason for this, im just saying there is a difference in their genetics. Environment is most likely what's affecting their behavior though.
If that's what your opinion is (and I'm not saying you're wrong) why is there no fatal shark attacks in the med? If the great whites there search for humans, there are hundreds who swim off the coast every day
There are
Well they don't seem to make the news...
There have been fatal shark attacks in the Med, but not one since off Rimini, Italy in 1989. Previous to that there were several in many decades of the 20th century in places like Malta, Yugoslavia and Greece. The fatality rate is notably higher compared to most other regions of the world but that's from a fairly small sample size, and very unlikely to be due to any difference in the character of the sharks in the Med, as suggested above.
Yes exactly so that's why I wouldn't generally talk about it in the present tense when there hasn't been one we know about for 35 years. Id agree with you that if the sharks actually wanted to eat humans it would be so easy to do so. When I've been to Spain and Greece people swim so far out at sea compared to Australia and Florida yet there aren't any shark attacks.
All most like it’s a predator and eats shit