ISAF Shark ATTACK Report 2022!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2024
- Join shark scientist Kristian Parton as he talks you through ISAF shark attack report 2022. Learn all about the shark attack hostpots around the world, and an interesting classification of "provoked" for the Simon Nellist Shark attack last year.
LIKE --- COMMENT --- SUBSCRIBE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shark Bytes is a youtube channel dedicated to bringing you all the latest news, research and information about sharks around the world! Kristian Parton is a current marine biologist and shark researcher who has spent many years working with sharks in the field and laboratory. Having a passion for sharks and rays from a young age, Kristian now wants to bring the weird and wonderful world of sharks to your screens at home!
If you enjoyed this video make sure to SUBSCRIBE to the channel, you'll also be able to check out some of our other great content on the Shark Bytes home page here: / @sharkbytes
Interested in more content? Check out some of our videos here:
- 47m Down movie commentary: • Watch '47 METERS DOWN:...
- Orca's HUNTING Great White Sharks: • Why Orcas Are Hunting ...
- STUPID Shark Week Stunt: • Why Did Shark Week Do ...
Want to hear more about what Kristian is researching at the moment? Check out his Twitter to keep up to date with his shark research here: / kjparton or follow the Shark Bytes Twitter @SharkBytes1994
We're now on TikTok! If you're interested in shorter form content check out the Shark Bytes TikTok account: @SharkBytes1994
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credits:
Outro music: Beggs N' Acon - Heatwave: • Beggs N' Acon - Heatwa...
Shark Bytes Logo animation: George Vary
All content used is in conjunction with the creative commons license, no copyright infringement intended.
Simon was bitten in half and consumed. This was NOT a territorial warning, mistaken identity or provocation. This was a feeding event. You can provoke a bite but when the shark comes back for the rest you've got a hungry shark - and there was Simon.
but would that have happened without those other influences. from the explanation it seems whether an attack is considered provoked or unprovoked isn't about who's to blame in the situation but instead whether the shark's behaviour was influenced in some way that is atypical of shark behaviour. if the fisherman were using bait for example maybe that shark is closer to shore than it would otherwise be, maybe it's more likely to feed if it's already looking for food in the water if there are bait fish closer to sure if the la nina theory is accurate.
I did hear that the underwater topography was such (i.e. deep trenches or cliffs) that white sharks were able to stay deep, then rise up in a fast, jaws open attack. This swimmer was in the kind of area that white sharks will try attacking things to eat in this style, i.e. extremely dangerous. This shark attack report is not helpful if you're planning on your safety against being eaten, esp. in that exact location where the UK swimmer died horrifically. Is there a report out there that covers all attacks on people, and the surrounding circumstances if known, this would be a much more useful report for swimmers etc? Although your chances of being attacked by a shark are low, this is in general, and this is again, not helpful. If you jump in the water next to a random large great white, or indeed any other large potentially aggressive species, you can not use this statistic because your chances of attack hugely increase. This statistic is only useful when taking into account all those people that never, or rarely go into the water and don't have a past-time that involves heavy sea use. Lastly, aren't white shark numbers going up overall, due to more effective measures to protect marine habitats, e.g. hugely increased seal numbers in the US have allowed white shark numbers to get back to what they more naturally were?
This was a predation. In Ma. because of the seal increase we are having more Great White Sharks. Pool Time. 😂
I think it was a territorial event. Simon was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the shark was curious. Maybe Simon was provoking the shark, and he had it coming.
@@evilqueenyiayia Chlorine is bad for your skin. You're literally swimming in chemicals. Swimming in the ocean causes my skin to look much better and brighter.
The section of ocean where Simon was killed looks like the most unlikely place anybody would want to swim, did not look inviting at all, looks like a place your nightmares are lurking and they are.
It was Little Bay, a very active fishing spot. Even without chumming or bait, this means blood (from hooked fish) and lots of thrashing fish. Me and a Brit that I knew used to fish there. In one day we hooked two Port Jackson sharks that were so big they snapped the line and then landed a juvenile that was almost a meter long that we took pics with then threw him back. I've swum in the calm bay itself, up to my chest, but you couldn't pay me to swim out near the rocks where Simon was killed. Not even so much sharks, just waves dashing you on the rocks is scary enough.
Sadly we just had a fatal incident in the Swan River in Perth, Western Australia. 16 year old girl attacked by what is thought to be a bull shark. First fatal attack in that river sine 1923.
Lots of interesting information in this video.
Oh it was 100% a Bull Shark, but they won't say what it is because then people go looking for Bull Sharks to kill them, or whatever species is named. Bull Shark females will turn and bite ANYTHING in that water this time of the year through the summer time.
I don't think culling bullsharks in the Swan River!
Since the spate of bites in the Gold Coast canals in the early 2000's, I've kinda regarded bullsharks as the 'wankers' of the fish world. A title once reserved for psychotic, little damsel fish.
@@Breeanna73 asking for an edit
So sad. Canals all over are filling up.
He seemed like a genuinely good bloke. His death saddens me. Thanks for the classy video, as always.
Yeah - it was sad to know he was also from near where I live here in England as well!
And he was an advocate for sharks and their conservation 😔
Good bloke, also very stupid !bloke . You don't go swimming in Australia people.
@@Aaron_Hanson yeah he advocated against shark nets saying they don’t work and kill sharks (which sounds like they work to me) and advocated against drum lines………. But the beach he got speared out of the water like a seal didn’t have either of those….
As an Australian who has always lived on the coast and swam in the ocean, what concerns me the most is the proliferation of Bull Sharks that are naturally aggressive and swim in the shallows. The increase in shark attacks in the last 10 years is frightening.
Sundance,,I grew up in south Florida and we all knew BullSharks attacked everytime..
-The fisherman never release them because of this.
The insulting part is the lies they feed the people about them..
They have always been there.
How many attacks vs people in the water?
well it's their domain not ours. maybe humans shouldn't be so damn greedy causing over fishing.
@@nshorus5001 .. I completely agree and believe overfishing is the cause of sharks swimming closer to the shore. Cage divers and some boaties also antagonise the sharks. Still the Bull Shark is an animal to be feared.
One topic I would love to see you talk about is the great amount of shark bites that happen in Pernambuco, Brazil. Some people call Recife, it's capital, the "Shark Capital". In the last 15 days there were 3 shark bites, 2 of them being in the same beach (Piedade Beach in the metropolitan region of Recife) and only 24 hours apart, a 14 year old boy and a 15 year old girl. The other one happened in Olinda beach (also metropolitan region of Recife) with a 34 year old man. The interesting thing about those incidents is that before 1992, there were as many incidents in Pernambuco as there were in any other Brazilian states. But since the opening of the Suape Port in 92 there have been 77 incidents in Pernambuco with a 33.7% death rate (26 deaths), most of them being either in Boa Viagem (also in Recife) or Piedade. Marine biologists from the region point out that the port may be one of the biggest reasons the bites have been more frequent since it caused a major environmental degradation, forcing the sharks to relocate to the near beaches. Another crazy thing is that from Piedade beach to Boa Viagem beach swimming isn't allowed and there are several signs distributed all over that read "DO NOT SWIM, HIGH RISK OF SHARK ATTACK", but people are dumb enough to get in the water nonetheless and every year the number of incidents increases. I'm pretty sure these incidents don't go to the yearly ISAF unprovoked bites, considering people go to these beaches aware that swimming has been prohibited for years due to the high risk of getting bitten. Anyways, super cool video!
Very interesting, thanks for sharing. I've heard about those beaches before but completely forgot, however I don't think I ever heard the total numbers, that's chockingly high, especially since I'd imagine the signs put off most sensible people apart from a few idiots, however those few idiots still rack up that high of a number. Crazy, I'd never for the life of me swim there
This was a FASCINATING comment. I'm going to look into this more!
Yeah I watched a documentary about Recife, it was very interesting but ended very abruptly. It is a hotpot, the capital name seems to float around between places depending on attacks. I would not surf Recife, yet I surf Nahoon? I think Recife is up there with Port St Johns and Renuion, scary place and dodgy water! Mostly Zambezi from what I can gather.
Simon Nellist was swimming in a fish ball in rough murky water where people were fishing ……….CRAZY thing to do.
May he RIP…
The Simon Nellis attack was tragic and I cannot understand why it is classed as provoked. The dinner bell rang when he swam over that deep trench, he was taken from below and torpedoed out of the water with the shark and didn't stand a chance. I doubt it had anything to do with the rock fishing, people have been fishing there for generations but very few people swim there. The shark also came back for a second bite, it fully intended to take what remained of Simon. We live close to the coast, we spend a lot of time in the sea and we stay where it's safe, sadly Simon didn't. We are in the sharks domain as soon as we walk into the water.🇦🇺
You couldn't have said it better my friend.... Simon knew the risk's he was taking... No way in hell would I swim there.
@KY greenskeeper Me either. The water literally looked "sharkey."
@@lydiaparker1778 ( sharky is putting it lightly) .. no way in hell would I swim there...
@KY greenskeeper Yeah that is why I said me either.
What is a safe area?
Can't wait to hear Hal's opinions on this. He doesn't hold back. Sharks Happen people
My thought exactly 🤗
Same
Hal gets it.
I live Hal- Tack that up to another Attempted Predation!!🙂
Predictable - his opinion will break your brain
Something I know of fishing in the big pond is shark and seals will go after hooked fish even if they were caught on a lure not bait. Hope this is helpful info
The fishing was going on quite a distance from Simon. Simon was swimming right over a big drop off where these big sharks like to hide in preparation for ambush. I don’t think the fishing had anything to do with it. She was just really hungry, and he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Yes. I agree that's the salient point. Where Simon was swimming was facing open ocean, too. When I mentioned this somewhere else someone local got annoyed and said it was the route they all take in this yearly swimming competition. But maybe the very large group swimming prevents attacks during the competition? I do know there's a very deep drop off there, though 😬
Wrong. The attack happened slightly to the left of where the fishos were casting their lines.
@@annabizaro-doo-dah It was not the swimming route
You are so right. There is always guys fishing in these areas. There would be attacks every day. I know the area well, ffs every where in Australia has people fishing. To say it was a provoked attack is actually raising my stress levels
I don't know about that the fishermen use plugs that splash and lures that wobble also smaller dead fish and crab's and sharks show interest in all of them I'd be interested in footage before the event and how an experienced swimmer who knows about sharks came to be in that place a lot happened before the initial attack which apparently just got missed by the camera and started at the second return of the shark . .
I can only comment on FL been going there for the summer more years than I care to disclose. We were taught not to swim near the fisherman or piers because of sharks. I saw a bull shark right at fishermen on the bank in November so fishing does seem to bring the fish and sharks close. We were also taught to stay out of the water if it was full of bait fish. Now the provoked or unprovoked classification, I'm not going to argue because I'm not a shark scientist or a fisherman. I am a swimmer and that is what locals told us about swimming in the Gulf of Mexico, FL.
God bless his soul I knew the guy from diveing in uk he was alovely soul and dedicated to his conservation work I was very shocked when I found out about his horrific demise 😪
If Simon’s attack is classified as a provoked attack, then every shark attack (excluding boating accidents) should be seen as a provoked attack. “You were in the water, you knew the risk”
To record his attack as provoked by ISAF is ridiculous. It’s actually closer to disgusting and shameful in my opinion. I’ve lived on the NSW Central Coast all my life and grown up in and around it’s beaches and rivers. If I was ever attacked, I’d hate for my attack to be classified as provoked!
That was the exact conclusion I came to re: the attack being listed as provoked being "disgusting and shameful". I think it is disrespectful to the late Mr. Nellist, his family and to the fishermen in question to suggest that either party provoked that shark in attacking Mr. Nellist that day.
That is NOT suggesting that the shark is to blame. The shark did what a shark does. Mr. Nellist was, unfortunately, in the wrong place at the wrong time, however it is truly ridiculous to believe that Mr. Nellist or the fishermen were in that area hoping, either intentionall or unintentionally to provoke an attack.
Not suggesting the shark is to blame? Attacking a human and going back for seconds hmm that’s an interesting thing to say!
@@johnreynolds8800 What I mean by my wording is that the shark was acting as if it were a human being acting on malicious intent. The shark did what the shark does best. It hunted and ate in order to survive. Therefore, it cannot really be blamed for doing what it naturally does. My reasoning for not putting blame on the shark is to put a squib into petty notions from people's calls to cull sharks etc just because a shark did what it naturally does. Culling will do absolutely nothing in the longer term. So, with respect, I stick to my reasoning. The shark is not to blame, but neither is Simon Nellist nor the fishermen.
If Simon had seen the shark and then swam there anyway would you say it was un provoked or provoked ?
@@ravenfeader That is an interesting question to be fair and, in such a scenario, it would change a lot of things ie. Mr. Nellest's motivations for deciding to swim when he knew a GW shark was present and whether he would swim the same way (would he continue doing a recreational swim or would he be going out to swim explicitly to see the shark etc.) I, for one, would not believe someone would willingly go for a recreational swim if they knew that in the stretch of water they were swimming there was a large GW shark present.
According to the ISAF's definition of a provoked attack, its states; "Provoked bites occur when a human initiates interaction with a shark in some way. These include instances when people are bitten after harassing or trying to touch sharks." After listing other examples, it states "In these encounters, the shark is responding with defensive behaviour".
In such a scenario, because Mr. Nellist had gone out to swim knowing there was a shark in the water, you could argue that he went in and "initiated" an attack by going into the water with that pre-knowledge.
Yet would Mr. Nellist have tried initiating any further contact with the animal if he was going into the water to swim in the same stretch of water he knows the shark is in?
For me personally, I would consider most cases of attacks where the person is in the water with a shark, and is in the water deliberately because there are sharks there and is, therefore interacting with them, whether it be passive (observing) or active (touching etc) then they have, in effect, provoked any attack that could occur.
If the person is swimming in the area and has not idea that a shark is there (even if the waters are known to have sharks) and does not see a shark before going into the water, such as Mr. Nellist that day, then those attacks are wholly unprovoked.
It's the same philosophy I'd pertain to the case of Sam Kellett. He was spearfishing, which by the ISAF's standards, would mean he provoked an attack, yet to my logic, he did not go into that water to get swallowed whole by a shark, therefore I'd consider his attack as unprovoked too.
I’d think that the ongoing pandemic would be a factor in why the numbers were lower, not as many people traveling means not as many people in the water.
Not so much "the ongoing pandemic" as the govt response to the pandemic.
@@roguesquatch1 Depends on the country since some are still going through it but yea, government regulations are definitly a effect. Same with people being cautious too.
Absolutely, there was a notable dip in 2020, then a spike when the beaches reopened in 2021
Prob the economy too.
Hardly anyone goes swimming off Tupia Head/ Buchan point except ocean swimmers training
At this point I don't think that anyone can safely state if an attack was provoked or not. But I've seen the video and I've seen the waters he swam in, I think it was pure crazy to swim there. Moreover I've seen some interviews of bystanders and a guy said that the water is very deep and murky and noone would swim there alone, only in groups. Not that it would change anything I suppose, but it was clear that these were dangerous waters to be swimming into... Very sad about Simon though...
Apparently the competition takes that route. But that's a hundred or more swimmers at once. Crazy to swim over such a deep drop off.
@@annabizaro-doo-dah also crazy that they have a swimming competition in these waters...
@@annabizaro-doo-dah The swimming route is a circle in Malabar Bay, the next bay over
i was on the rocks, this is a usual swim track, ive swam it in mornings for 20 years, so dont know why you are bullshitting online, he was just unlucky
@@jump171 and you're still playing with your luck
Well I’ll never look at ISAF again. Off to Sharks Happens ✌️. But I’m all hear for you Christian!
That guy is the laziest, most uninspired creator. He literally downloads articles from web resources and reads them verbatim. It blows my mind how little a person needs to do to draw in an audience on UA-cam.
@@wesmartino64 Even if that is true. He has a nice voice and I'm not normally going to look that up myself, so it's nice to hear it conveyed in an interesting way.
So following this exlanation all attacks on fishermen, including spearfishermen, are provoked, right?
Well, that's how to keep your stats low. What a nonsens.
It’s absolutely ridiculous the Simon Nellist attack is classified as provoked. That way they should classify any case where a human goes into the water as provoked.
It’s an interesting one that’s definitely going to ruffle a lot of feathers
It’s definitely political, no way that’s classified as provoked. Most surfers will always have at least one fisherman on the beach while surfing. Does this mean no shark is accountable if there is any fisherman on the beach? How convenient
How can they say Simons attack was provoked? That means everyone who goes for a swim is provoking an attack...
One could argue that swimming in open deep water where these sharks are known to live and mimicking a regular prey animal’s movements did place this person in line for a predation attack. Provoked? Taking a big chance for sure.
@@philipberry6477 one also could argue an animal with millions of years of evolution under it’s belt doesn’t eat humans for any other reason than eating. Humans don’t look like seals when they swim anymore than they look like an octopus. So no we don’t “mimick” their natural prey.
Classifying the Simon Nellist incident as "provoked" is absolutely insane. Yes fishing was happening in the area however, the victim did not do anything to provoke the attack itself. The ISAF's classification system is realy, really misleading every year.
he was swimming and thats all isnt it? how is that provoked especially when i highly doubt he saw the shark ever before the attack.
The victim might not have done anything, but ISAF's explanation at least makes some sense. Even if the victim didn't provoke any nearby shark, circumstances surrounding him very well might have provoked the shark.
@@DominionSorcerer yea maybe. to me its a big gray area of what provocation means. thats what needs to be defined. likr if you say provoked say why.
@@colonelradec5956 It depends on how the shark is like. The shark could be like "hey I don't like you here leave".
@@DominionSorcerer The fishing may well have drawn the shark to the area, however, there was a decision made by the shark to attack based on nothing more than the victim's vulnerability. This was a predatory attack, no question, repeated goes at the victim followed by complete ingestion of the remains. The victim did not directly interact with the shark, nor did he initiate aggression so this for me, absolutely is a prime example of an unprovoked predatory attack, the kind of which happens more in Australia than anywhere else. Other places have more bites and more attacks, however Australia has a much higher rate of victims being consumed.
Question.....the numerous attacks on spear fishermen inc. fatal attacks, they were all recorded as provoked yes? If not then there's something very very wrong with the categorization of the SN predation as provoked and it raises serious questions as to who's interests are being protected. Spear fishermen are fishing in the water, if SN was provoked then you can't get more provoked than spear fishermen!!
I think that they do count those as provoked also.
My idea of provoked is quite different, I don't write reports though.
None of then should be considered provoked, what they’re saying is if sharks may have been drawn in closer to humans it’s provoked, but the sharks still chose to eat/bite the people so it’s manipulative.
the Simon Nellist attack was unprovoked in my opinion, that white shark would have been in the area regardless. Also he did nothing to provoke that shark, it willingly attacked him.
It unfortunately doesn't matter whether or not it is the victim of a shark attack that provoked the shark, if another person provokes a shark and the shark bites someone else, it's still a provoked attack.
ISAF might have been a little too hasty with saying this attack is a provoked attack, but I can understand their logic.
Then it's provoked if he went swimming in an area where the white shark would be anyway, especially adding in the fish being caught, poor visibility, dark wet suit, and rocky shore, he looked like a seal. That's what Gavin from ISAF explained in his letter.
@@kayleeserna4278 With that logic every shark attack would be provoked, Most people that get attacked by a shark know they are in the area and decide to swim anyway.
Hmm I would love to ask Gavin from ISAF how not to look like a
Seal when surfing or swimming? Dress up like a scary bear?
@@johnreynolds8800 it's a ridiculous hypothesis. An animal that evolved millions of years cannot tell the difference between a swimming human and a swimming seal? An easy but poor in nutrition meal is what we are to sharks.
"Provoked attack " ? Crazy !
Puzzling "outcome" to say the least.
Australian fatality last week Kris.
Thoughts & condolences to family & friends of teenager Stella Berry, victim of, allegedly, a Bull shark, in the Swan River, Fremantle, Perth. Left a jet ski to play with dolphins. Super Brave guy jumped in, pulled her ashore, to no avail.
First fatality there for 100 years.
Although a guy survived a Bull shark attack in the same river in 2021.
Sounded like a pretty grim one John!
@@SHARKBYTES Know one thing, me personally, you wouldn't find me in ANY Australian waters swimming !
Not even for a million $'s.
Be it "netted" beach, river, estuary etc.
Knowing my luck I'd be that one in a million "Wrong place, Wrong time" unfortunate souls !
How long's the list of potential predators in that area ? Especially up Northern Darwin region, sharks, salty crocs, sea snakes, jellyfish.........
Amazing that there isn't a WHOLE dossier file, rammed full of attacks !
Following this logic, all shark attacks on humans are provoked, because any minimal stimulus that could attract the shark (splashing, vibrations, spearfishing, electromagnetic impulses from a motor or from the victim's own nervous system) would be an incitement to the shark. to attack, which is completely absurd.
But even if we could consider fishing to be a means of provoking the attack, it wasn't Simon who did the activity and he probably didn't even know they were fishing there, so it's still stupid to classify it as a provoked attack.
It is as if we unknowingly walked past a bear feeding point that we did not see, one of them attacked us and the authorities decided that it really is our fault for passing by, even if we went our own way without disturbing them.
That's stretching it, a lot. Simon was running a risk swimming where he did, imo.
In the video (which I cannot recommend watching) the area that Simon is swimming into is actively being dived by birds and directly beside where the guys filming the attack are fishing. Anyone who has ever fished the ocean knows to fish where the birds are diving because that's where fish are currently feeding (usually on bait fish).
Would I personally say this was provoked? No. But is it extremely unwise to swim into a group of diving birds? yes. I feel sorry for this man who was just swimming and might have not even noticed the diving birds/fishermen and was killed for it. I can only hope he was not conscious and passed out from shock.
i've seen some of the uncensored video as i'm sure many people have. the reason the attack was so well documented is because there were fishermen on the rocks, and on the boats in the water. however i don't think any of those fishermen were all that close to Nellis. he was quite a way away from everyone. additionally, this was a white in full predation mode. i somehow doubt a white of that size is there for the baitfish run. it predated him like it was taking a seal, and instead of those events when they get a mouth full of surfboard and surfer sandwich, it got pure human, and decided... "close enough" and finished him off. i've long believed many of the predation attempts on surfers end in survival because the shark got a mouth full of surfboard which probably doesn't taste right and spokes them NOT because humans aren't on the menu. additionally there is something strange about the whites in Australia. I've seen a lot of video on them and they're so much more aggressive in Australia then they are in California or new Mexico.
Oh that's interesting! I also don't know enough about fishing but it's interesting to know that a 'provoked' attack doesn't necessarily mean the individual themselves was doing the provoking.
It allows them to downplay the number of unprovoked attacks. It's a foolish policy, since it just prompts people to regard them as a biased and unreliable source.
@@greghenrikson952 100%
Maybe they should just say anyone entering the sea is provoking an attack ?
Wonder what Hal thinks about the Simon Nellis decision ? ISAF is a joke
That classification of the Simon Nellist attack sounds like a mere means to bring the numbers down while laying blame to other people to me. Yes there were anglers on the rocks as we all saw in the footage. But anglers tend to fish where there are a lot of fish (otherwise the whole activity wouldn't make much sense, would it). As everybody knows, schools of fish draw in predators that want to prey on them (like the anglers), and in the ocean, that means a concentration of fish may draw in sharks preying either on the fish themselves or on their predators (e.g. marine mammals). If that was a valid reason to classify that attack as "provoked", all attacks that happen near locations where the natural prey of sharks is abundant should be classified as "provoked". I think that wouldn't leave many "unprovoked" attacks. As far as I'm concerned, that classification of the Nellist attack is BS.
yes but if anglers are causing fish to flop around and causing eratic behaviors from those fish those pulses are what attract sharks. Which in turn provokes an attack.
The whole point is that he provoked the attack, unintentionally, by swimming in an area with a high risk of sharks feeding. Add that too the murky water conditions and his wetsuit he would have been indistinguishable from a seal to the shark.
@@Benji-jj2bg Please have a look at the footage of the incident taken by one of the anglers. They are fishing from the top of a rock point by the side of the mouth of a small stream. Look at the surf in which they are fishing. It is strong. Then think again. At that spot bait fish would struggle and get in trouble in any event. Predators can chase them against the rocks and then pick them off easily. Plus the surf perturbs their ability to sense an approaching predator with their lateral line system or visually. Perfect hunting grounds. This spot reeks of predatory fish of all kinds and other marine predators being attracted to it, with or without the presence of anglers. 😉
@@thomasstroh2845 even by your summary, it seems that their is an argument that the shark could have been provoked. Even if you think it's "unlikely".
@@Benji-jj2bg in the end, the sea is the sea creatures' home, not ours. Large, pelagic sharks are top predators in this world. If we enter the sea, we're in their territory. We are definitely not their natural prey, also likely not a prey they would prefer over anything else, but for a top predator we are still absolutely potential prey. So I have a very fundamental issue with the distinction between "provoked" vs. "unprovoked" shark attacks (not counting bites by sharks in captivity or when people at the beach try to handle a shark in the shallows). I honestly think, human presence in the sea as such is the provocation here and everything else follows from there. The fact that sharks are still not very interested in us is illustrated by the low number of total attacks whether you distinguish between provoked and unprovoked or not. To my knowledge, this is only done in the case of shark attacks. With all other top predators that occasionally (in many cases much more frequently than sharks) kill and sometimes consume humans an attack is an attack, be it by a tiger, a bear, a crocodile, etc. That whole approach of the ISAF makes no sense to me, it is utter nonsense. Simon Nellist swam in the ocean and got attacked and consumed by a Great White Shark that apparently was in feeding mode at that time (although even a territorial attack by a Great White Shark is likely to kill a person if immediate medical attention is not available). It is extremely painful and tragic for Simon's family and friends and also an extraordinarily rare event. End of story.
I believe sharks are the only predators that have an army of their prey trying to defend them. If a lion or a tiger ate a human no one would question it's motive, it's a predator that needs meat survive. There's no great mystery there, is it?
When a shark does it there's always the campaigns to paint the shark as noble and misunderstood. Mistaken identity, it was provoked, actually the shark is the victim here. 'We are not on the menu'. I guess the shark that ate Nellist didn't bother reading the menu? 'They don't like the taste of us'. Seriously, how would the experiment to gain that knowledge be structured? Claiming to know what taste a shark experiences when they bite something borders on ridiculous.
The easiest explanation is often the correct one and regarding the relationship between humans and sharks there are two rock solid facts.
Sharks eat meat. Humans are meat. I will leave the arithmetics of those facts to you.
Let me put these in the nicest word I can muster .
1) Shark attacks on humans are incredibly rare like extremely rare 1 in 11.5 million to be exact . If sharks wanted to eat and kill us , (which would be a huge energy waster when most have to go weeks without eating) don’t you think those chances of being bit/attacked by a shark are higher ? Wouldn’t fatality rates also be higher , and to spare you from googling the chances of dying by a shark attack are 1 in 3.7 million . What happened to Simon was tragic but it isn’t the norm for a shark to do that . Quit using this man death as a way to peddle your “Sharks are viscous predators” mantra .
Wasn’t the area he was swimming a known feeding/breeding ground for white sharks? Fisherman or not, they are in that area
Not a breeding ground, but they are there frequently. They are often spotted by the Golfers, up above.
As a fisherman, it doesn't matter what bait you are using. If you are slaying the fish, it draws the attention of sharks. If you are dumb enough to swim within eye shot of a fisherman, you are putting yourself at risk. Sharks will bite live bait, dead bait, artificials, jigs, or swim baits. That's just how it is. The tax man will get his cut.
Jeez you must be fun to go for a pint with. Sound words though.
Nothing they say will convince me that that Nellist predation was a provocation. Jeez, the guy was eaten ffs.
Nellist himself didn’t provoke the attack, the fishermen did. Since he was swimming near the fishers, the attack was considered provoked.
When you go into the ocean you're literally provoking marine life. This guy was swimming in an area that could have sharks and he was supposedly an expert diver. Don't tell me that he didn't know the risk of his activity.
Dude two videos in a matter of a couple days!!! LOVE IT MAN. More more more!! Love your videos!! ❤❤❤
You’re welcome Mike, back again on Sunday!!
Provoked me bollocks
Hi hope you are well. RIP Simon Nellist. From what information is out there about this incident Simon swam the same route regularly in preparation for an upcoming event. Then nature and karma removed him from his loved ones forever. No provocation at all. I have seen footage of this event and it is extremely sad and disturbing and the people who witnessed it happening will surely never be the same again. Blessings to all affected by this sad event. Namaste. 🙏
The ISAF seems to be continuing the trend of not being reliable.
There were actually 9 fatal shark attacks in 2022 the same number as 2021. But ISAF obviously wanted to present a decline in numbers for whatever their agenda is. That's why they went on calling some attacks provoked and left that numbers out.
The four fatalities of 2022 that didn't make it in the 2022 ISAF report were:
1.Simon Nellist Sydney (swimming) GWS
2.Victor Estrella Mexico (scalloping) GWS
3.Antonio Roseto Degli Abruzzi Colombia island San Andres (Swimming) Tiger shark
4.Caroline DiPlacido Bahamas (snorkelling) Bull shark.
Rip to all of them.
If they have more information, it needs to be said. This is about safety. Ridiculous that a guy got EATEN on film and they are saying it’s not the fault of the animal.
As such, a surfboard attack should always be a provoked attack.
'Fault' implies mistake or responsibility. The shark didn't make a mistake as it ate him, which is clearly what it intended to do. The shark also can't take responsibility as that's an alien concept for a shark. The shark wasn't at fault, it just did what it does.
Just remember these guys fishing were filming each other, not Simon, he was in the background. What happened to Simon seems accidental footage at first, I think we should take into account the absolute shock and horror that unfolded before their eyes. Had that footage (which I have not seen, nor want to) wasn't captured nobody would ever know what happened to Simon. They sent off the call for help in the hope of a possible rescue. There's a very deep trench where he swam and it's known that sharks love those trenches.
@@ourcorrectopinions6824 Maybe, or maybe the OP used those words because they meant them? Unfortunately there's an awful lot of people who demonstrate a 'the shark is at fault mindset', it did something bad it, it hurt a human, let's go hunt it, let's cull the population etc. etc. I was just trying to address the glaring errors of that mindset, if that was the case 🙂👍(typo edit)
@@ourcorrectopinions6824 Yes, for SN's loved ones to see, or even just know, that parts of his horrific final moments were available online must have been horrible for them. That the footage was out there though is, on balance, for the greater good. Just as certain shark species shouldn't be persecuted for, very rarely, causing harm to humans by demonstrating behaviour which is natural to those sharks. It's not right that people should be fed information which is, at the very least, misguided. The facts are that certain shark species will sometimes bite people and a very small number of species will sometimes eat people. Given the armoury of senses available to these species, it makes no sense to say that the majority of interactions culminating in harm to humans are cases of mistaken identity. Or that the shark didn't want to bite or consume that individual, when the facts suggest that the opposite is true. That rarely a human is harmed as a result of mistaken identity, but rather, in the majority of instances, the shark did want to bite or consume that individual. Those two small pieces of footage documenting part of the attack on SN should leave people in no doubt that sharks are to be respected. That they will see us as a threat, an intruder into their territory or, very rarely, prey and they will act accordingly, in ways which are natural to them. Given the ISAF's classification of the SN attack as provoked, literally pretty much any human activity can result in an interaction which is designated as provoked. Their position being that the sharks behaviour was altered, from that which is natural to it, to something which was unnatural, by the presence of human activity. This would be logical only if they removed the option to classify a human interaction as unprovoked. Therefore, either their logic is flawed or there is another reason why they have stated that, in this instance, the attack was provoked. Maybe there is an agenda of which we are not aware? The footage of the SN attack being out there enables people to draw their own conclusions based on logic, rather than having to rely on simply believing what they are being told by people with either questionable logic or motives or maybe even both. Perhaps that footage being out there might even save someone's life? Yes it's distressing to watch, for anyone with an ounce of compassion in their heart, but knowledge should surely be prioritised over ignorance and truth should be preferred to lies. Those two small pieces of video impart knowledge of what can happen and expose the truth of such interactions, in about as blunt and brutal a way as possible👍
So you're suggesting that a human being who's natural environment is not the ocean getting eaten by an animal in its natural environment is somehow at fault ? Get a grip on life mate, if you stuck your hand in a bees nest what could happen ? If you go swimming in the ocean with apex predators what could happen ? The shark was doing what it naturally does. You wouldn't blame a croc for some muppet swimming in the Fitzroy river that got attacked so why the shark.
I’d for sure say that, bait or not, fishing would draw sharks in. Fishing is drawing food to the area, ergo drawing sharks to the area I would think?
The thrashing of prey fish getting reeled in would also draw their attention I’d think
@@axemeanything1599 absolutely. Basically everything that the act of fishing entails, bait or not, would surely be a lure in for sharks. I do understand why ISAF are classing it as provoked - although as they said, certainly not consciously.
@@axemeanything1599 by that logic swimming is provocation.
@@angelmartin7310 humans don’t normally thrash around like a wounded fish to swim.
@@angelmartin7310 Hooking fish draws blood from the fish. Hopefully you cannot say the same about just swimming in the ocean.
That Shark was smart by doing a dine-and-dash, because it knew that people were going to come for it; and make it pay a heavy price for the meal it had.
There is no need for a bait to attract the shark in, fish when caught on a line or shot with a speargun tend to draw a lot of attention of nearby predators cause of nervous or prey-like behaviour. These vibrations are signal to all the animals nearby that something is going down so it might be the shark was drawn in and hungry, mr.Nellist with his black wetsuit was slashing through the water also sending off signals and white shark saw an opportunity, also might have mistaken it for a seal that feeds on fish or whatever.
Good to know how ISAF defines "provoked" vs "unprovoked". When I've seen "provoked" listed for an attack, I assume that means the victim somehow provoked the attack - like the idiots who insist on touching and handling sharks, or those isolated cases where a swimmer jumped onto one without realizing it was there. This poor guy did NOTHING to provoke the attack, so I never would've expected the attack to be listed as "provoked". For their records, how far away do the nearest fishermen have to be before they no longer consider it "provoke" factor?
probably 50-100 yards. I am told that the pulses from fish moving eratically is what attracts sharks to an area. So if fisherman are catching fish over an extended period of time, theres a good chance they will attract a hungry shark there with just the fish's eratic swimming behavior as they are bieng reeled in.
We still don't know. They are hypocrites because nearly all unprovoked attacks in florida are near a location where fishermen are. By their logic all those attacks would be provoked.
@@unqualifiedtoast700 That's kinda what I was thinking/wondering. I mean, in some places, fishermen are EVERYWHERE.
and there’s a third category as well, the attacks that may have either been provoked or unprovoked… so 2022 was 163 shark bites/attacks.
it is classed as provoked because of the fisherman, not Simon. a provoked attack doesn't have to be by the individual themselves, it can be people around provoking from fishing, chumming, boats chumming the waters nearby etc. Simon swam extremely close to where people were fishing.
Strange I think , as a fisherman, for this to be considered provoked... even with the fishing activity. This was an adult white shark I believe based on what I've read. The clips I was able to view showed a few fishermen using artificial lures, so chumming is unlikely. And a 15+ ft white shark isn't hitting lures... at least not ones like these cats were casting. You could MAYBE make the argument that the shark was there for the same fish that the fishermen were targeting, but then it's not the fault of the fishermen for those fish being there. Lures aren't an attractant in that manner. They're used to target fish already in the vicinity. Fishermen simply go and fish where the fish are. That's likely a natural congregation of fish. They love drop-offs. It would be a whole different ball game if we could just throw a lure out any old place and fish would come to that spot haha. That's not how it works, UNLESS there's some substantial chumming going on over time. This sounds an awful lot to me like passing the buck... Let's blame the fishing activity to avoid saying we had an unprovoked white shark attack 🤷♂ Good way to demonize recreational fishermen and women. Or there's some folks at the ISAF that don't have a clue how fishing works, in which case they probably ought not be writing reports that take fishing activity into account.
I don't agree with the provoked argument either. I wonder though if any fish had been caught there previous to the attack and whether struggling fish may have attracted the shark. Swimming where fishing takes place is dangerous, especially in a drop-off area like that.
As an ex-abalone diver and qualified open water diver, nothing special I just can rent stuff lol. I dunno but me and mine always knew we were taking a risk. N California down to Monterey anyway. He knew, and his number just came up. Doggy time and place to swim tho.
That's exactly what I thought. Looks like a shelf off there. prime hunting territory. Stupid imho
That is an insult to his memory and to his family, he was just swimming to say he provoked the shark is insane. I know they want to keep people from being scared of sharks but they need to tell the truth so people are aware of the small danger there is. I use to live near there and swam there often people have fished from there for years so why not more attacks if that is their excuse
You swam off Buchan point?
@@alexisc4922 little bay yes
They did not say he provoked him, they said the fisherman did.@@julieslowgrove3524
I knew it would end up like that when a day after the attack, with zero knowledge, "activists" called for Nellist being responsible. They just can't even think that a predator would kill a human for food. It's against their agenda with a fairy tale view on sharks. It's all about propaganda
Simon was swimming in very deep water off the headland and there are always large bait fish in that area which is why there are always sharks in that area...simple.
He was swimming by himself in deep water with plenty of fish around and wearing a black wetsuit.
It was the perfect recipe to make himself look like an easy target if a large shark happened to be in the area and sadly that day there was.
I grew up swimming at that bay and surrounding areas and even used to spear fish as a kid but I would NEVER have been swimming where he was.
He was an experienced diver and strong swimmer but his actions showed a little too much complacency and not enough respect for where he was.
Exactly. If he had done laps in the protected Little Bay Cove, we wouldn't be talking about him now.
💯
My mate who surfs out that way said a week before he saw some huge sharks out there and wont go out for a while
Spearfisherman around the Malabar, Maroubra and Little Bay area, couldn't agree more. Bait fish are everywhere around there and it's DEEP and DARK. I would never swim around there.
everyone does this , i have swam that area same route for 20 years no incident so all the people saying it was bound to happen, you dont realise that thousands of people do this without incident
I've read several times the _experts_ (in Aus) state it was likely mistaken identity, due to the wetsuit. This doesn't account for the sharks excellent smelling sense, and seals - comparatively - stink. Do we smell that similar?
If it was mistaken identity the shark wouldn't have eaten him. Mistaken identity means the shark made a mistake and rejected the target after realising it wasn't what it expected it to be. This shark didn't care. No mistake made.
As a shark scientist I wouldn’t be able to sit here and comfortably say this incident was mistaken identity. (I do believe mistaken identity happens, but not this situation).
@@SHARKBYTES @Lyndon CMP No, no, I agree with you entirely. Just because the experts said it, doesn't make it so. They may very well be shark experts, but they may be studying the lung as a cancer treatment - who knows 😏 The news treating us all like embeciles doesn't help with any credibility, either. Cheers mate!
@Shark bytes. Appreciate the reply. It was cool seeing you appear on Sharks Happen the other day, too! Hal's got a neat channel. He also has some funny _life_ stories he can have a giggle at while sharing, and he's funny when he gets fired up. 😂 *edit: Bugger, I meant to add, I hope the appearance bumped up your sub numbers as well. 😉
no mojo
Cheers back. 👍
That's so wrong Simon never provoked the attack he was trianning for that event he was not engaging with sharks he worked hard too protect them that what makes it so sad for this too happend 😪
I understand people don't like hearing it was provoked but by choosing to swim in a high risk area, likely to have a shark looking to feed, it was in fact provoked. When you put prey in front of a predator, whether intentional or not, that is provocation. Even though he wasn't actively looking to interact with a shark, he checked off pretty much every "don't do" for avoiding shark attacks.
Simon chose an area that had fishing occuring, ( a fish struggling on a line is like ringing a dinner bell), there was very poor visibility, add to that he was alone and wearing a wetsuit. At that point he would be indistinguishable from a seal to a shark.
Every factor that day pointed to a very high risk of being attacked.
And Simons family/friends would even argue that he DID know better as he was a huge advocate for sharks trying to protect them from being hunted and killed by people. He knew the basics of shark attack prevention.
It's the sharks domain at the end of the day and our responsibilities as swimmers, divers, etc. are to be vigilant in taking every safety measure known to lower our risk of being bitten.
Dream on, that's an asinine and idiotic statement
@@ThejoshrandallHow so? Seems pretty solid to me. Don’t go swimming alone in heavy fishing area with low visibility that is frequented by sharks. What’s not to get?
Maybe the ISAF should have a more balanced opinion instead of looking for any possible excuse that they can think of to blame the victim of provocation. And the bleepin’ weather is not provocation.
I know, human’s bad, I get it….
I think in this case the problem is one of termonology, we hear "provoked" and we think "the guy asked for it" they say provoked and the ISAF means "this shark attack occured for reasons we know, as the proable result of human activity" and the line isn;t there to say "this guy deserved it, this guy didn't" but rather "ok, we';re pretty sure we know why this happened, but THIS event needs to be studied because.... we're not quite sure"
I don't think Nellis was a provoked attack.
And why is that?
Kris, it does not matter if bait was in the water. When a fish is on a line it will thrash and send that sound pulse that attracts the sharks and you being a scientist probably know the frequency of vibration, but I think it is 25 to 100 Hz and most likely 40Hz is the sound of a fish struggling on a line that brought that shark in. Simon's attack was very fast and very brutal and that shark was hunting, not coming in to inspect blood trails left by bait.
As far as it being classified as a provoked attack, I can see where ISAF is coming from and it is going to make a lot of people angry.
Absolutely, but the question would also be - were the fish even biting that day? Only the fishers who were there will know for sure
@@SHARKBYTES Oh, that is for sure the question. I'm not too sure how willing the few of those that saw the predation event up close are going to be to talk about that day again, but they might if questioned again.
@@SHARKBYTES Why didn't you show us the vid?🍿
@@DJones476 I’m sure you can find it online somewhere if you’d like to watch
@@SHARKBYTES I was just messing about, Kris. I've already seen it, as I'm sure you have. Most of us here have repeatedly watched, and even enjoyed (at least on some level) the now infamous footage. _Homo sapiens_ hasn't changed one bit since the days of the Roman Colosseum.
I can understand why they classified Simons attack as provoked and my thoughts are these
Location of the attack, this area is a well known deep water area deep drop off
Food , healthy marine food chain including seals and dolphins and sharks
Time, prime current movement for fish activity and feeding
Clarity , Well below average due to turbulence and current perfect for ambush
Activity , swimming slowly , splashing , top of the water no vigilance and alone
Fishing activity , struggling fish , possible burley / oil possible fish cleaning
Natural Habitat ,, marine predators yes humans no
These are just a small list of things on the day that he rolled the dice on in the domain of a brilliant marine predator that don't live by human rules or thinking .
. .
Hal is going to rip the isaf for this lol
ISAF seems to be more into framing attacks a certain way for some reason. Like Kristian says but in a nicer way...they're sketchy.
I am waiting for studies to show that the sharks doing the biting in US waters were tracked to be in Chinese waters before swimming over.
The map showed that most of the unprovoked shark attacks in America were on the East Coast.
The fact that the shark came back to finish the job proves it wasn’t mistaken identity. I think it had a taste of human before
Okay now I find that one hard to believe .
The Nellist incident was pretty gruesome 😬
It’s the one fatal attack we saw. You think all the ones we didn’t see weren’t also gruesome? White shark is the third fastest animal in the ocean and also one of the biggest. That combination of size and speed doesn’t go well for whatever they attack
@@pontius2000 true but not every victim gets bitten in half by the torso. Then the shark comes back finishes off the rest that’s pretty gruesome. Has it happened before in other Great White attacks it has. However there are many times a Great White will attack the thigh leg arm etc take one bite swim off realize I don’t like this and swim off. This attack was different this shark wasn’t just coming for one bite it devoured all of Simon Nellist and May Simon rip very tragic!
@@stevenciesiel777 Great Whites will move in take one bite and then move away circling waiting for their victim to bleed out and then they will move back in.
I think it makes sense that it is considered a provoked attack because of the fishing. Even if they weren't using bait, fishing causes fish to swim in unusual ways (when caught) which would absolutely attract sharks due to electrical impulses. There may have been other factors but I can understand the reasoning.
Let me know when you're going swimming in the ocean...so I can fish.
@@beerthug You're a toddler.
@@LKnivesGaming Agreed.
Just because you're fishing , doesn't mean that you're catching.
Even if that were the reason he got attacked, it doesn't explain why the shark came back for the rest of him. This shark liked the taste of human.
The people fishing is actually quite a salient point, regardless of the bait being used for catching the fish, the moment a fish is hooked it becomes distressed and automatically shows behaviour that will attract sharks. vibrations in the water, perhaps a very small amount of blood. these are bound to at least provide some attraction for larger predators. Arguably however people fish from the shore the world over so is a common interaction and therefore not an activity that would need to be taken into account. An interesting point of view for sure.
I dunno man, makes me think that the horrific video that exists makes these shark-people want to deny that sharks do that without provocation.
I agree
Exactly what’s happening. A blatant narrative they’re pressing
Hmm. Reminds me of a certain breed of dog.
@@walkawaycat431 those dogs are social, raised by humans, and if not. Provoked. Isn’t nearly the same.
Regardless, they are of massive importance to the eco system... your comment makes it seem as if numbers should be culled, which they really don't. I'm not a "shark person", I think they're fascinating but they scare the hell out of me, but anyone swimming in locations where there are known species take a risk, whether it is the time they swim, conditions etc all increase that risk...
They have evolved to predate on specific animals, they test bite many times, resulting in horrific injuries, that doesn't mean they're hunting. Again, these things do happen and sometimes people are targeted, if you go for a walk on the african savanna, expect to be targeted by something eventually...
My question is: was Simon even aware of the men fishing? My understanding is he was training at the time of the attack which suggests he had been swimming for a while along the coast. If he was unaware he was treading into an area with active fishing how can it be considered "provoked" any more than a swimmer accidentally wading into an area where a school of fish have congregated. The term "provoked" implies the victim knowingly engaged in behavior that increased their likelihood of attack. I just don't know about this one. Also, it makes sense for Florida to lead in US attacks just due to the length of its coastline. Minus Alaska, Florida has the longest coast of any state in the US- over 8400 miles (13500 km)
According to Simon’s dive buddy (who’s a friend of mine), Simon did not know fishers were fishing there
@@SHARKBYTES I think it would horrify Simon not only that he'd be recorded to posterity as provoking his attack (although we understand, future people won't necessarily) but I think he'd also hate the idea of causing a controversy about an organisation that's ostensibly set up to help understand sealife.
@SHARK BYTES Of course he knew. They are there every day, and he frequently swam that route. He must have come close to their fishing hooks at times.
@Conway Twitter agree, he was just unlucky. You could swim
That same stretch every day for the next 10 years and not even come close to being taken by a shark .
@Conway Twitter oh wow I never thought of it like that, but I guess it’s one way of making sense out of the provokes status, cheers
Whether provoked or not, swimming, diving or surfing near a fishing boat is not smart. It’s one of the points to avoid on the list of enjoying the ocean safely.
If they're going to take that broad a read on "provoke," ANY human activity would be "provoking" the attack. Because if you're in the water and the shark bites you, your existence in the water is a human activity that's changed a natural behavior. This is all nonsense.
💯%
Not really. If you decide to swim in an area where there's a lot of people fishing, sharks will associate boats with food because they are used to snatching the fish that those fishermen have on their line. If you jump into the water especially from a boat the shark will associate it with food because of its experience with the fishing boats. Some people even purposefully lure sharks to their boat to take a look and bait the shark to think it's going to get some food but instead they won't actually give the shark the fish. So if you jump into that water it is provoked, same with surfing, your making yourself look like a seal to a shark and it will attack, spearfishing obviously also provokes because of blood in the water and swimmers being attacked are taken as unprovoked but honestly 95% of those bites are actually provoked. Because those people spot the shark and they try to swim away from the shark and the shark starts attacking, that's again a provoked attack in my eyes, if you don't act like a prey the shark won't attack you but these swimmers freak out thinking they can outswim a shark or something when it's pretty much like outrunning a cheetah on land and they end up getting bitten, sometimes dead if it's a tiger shark, because when a tiger shark attacks it probably won't stop until you're dead. If they had the information about every attack on a swimmer and they knew how exactly it happened, then those "unprovoked" attacks would suddenly turn into provoked, if you saw the real number of the shark attacks that were truly unprovoked the number would probably hit 0 or close to it each year. If you don't provoke the attack, it won't happen. It's still a wild animal so sometimes an unprovoked attack might happen but that would be very rare.
humans have been evolved to swim and fish in the water since we became a species. swimming boating and diving are key elements for many island and coastal peoples source of food and survival. the idea we are ocean invaders is overly simple. we are just a species that moves between land and water as an ecological niche. we have to study water apex predators to avoid being killed by them when doing water activities which are natural for us. personally i think it's stupid to simplify our relationship with oceans to just "human stupidity". we are all animals here. as long as we aren't over-hunting sharks it's natural to learn more about them and how to avoid becoming meals for them.
unprovoked simply means the shark attack is food or territory motivated. rather than a person getting killed by an animal they were actively trying to interact with. we need to know if an animal sees us as a food source or not or if they attack out of territorial aggression or not for good public safety. some animal species tend to ignore humans and fatal encounters are more accidental or a human initiated encounter or an anomaly ie due to rabies. again it's natural for humans to study these behaviors and know how to live and do activities in the wild and in nature, where we ALSO belong, without being eaten if possible
''Provoked'' is a loaded word in Simon Nellist's case. Yes, he swam where fish had gathered, apparently attracted by fish bait used by anglers but using that word conjures up images of someone deliberately asking for trouble. I imagine that while swimming, it's pretty hard to see what people are doing on shore. Perhaps swimmers should check whether fishing/baiting is ongoing in an area before passing through, but it seems it was a regular course taken by him in training for his ocean swim.
I live a few beaches up from where the nellis attack happened and I can tell you nothing unusual "drew" that shark in, they are simply always there and have always been there, to blame fishermen or el ninia seems a bit weird to me.
Also regarding shark attacks being down due to better safety protocols is a bit puzzling as I think this summer has been very bad for beach drownings and near enough every one has happened at unpatrolled beaches....
Quality vid as usual, buddy 😀I quite like the ISAF as they are one of the few orgs to provide global data on animal attacks and it's good that you got a response to your query. Feels like they shot themselves in the foot with this one, though - most strange to label this as a provoked attack.
ISAF is well known to classify things questionably. Their tendency to not "blame" the shark results in things like this. Same thing with the "mistaken identity," honestly I'd only use ISAF for the event description and even that with a pinch of salt.
Came here from Sharks happen. Subscribed because Hal told me to .
Oh you’re good aren’t you
Welcome to Shark Bytes!
I’m not buying the Simon Nellist attack was provoked. I could be wrong but I’d have expected the fishers to be using lures.
Nellist hugged the coast when he swam. The fishos cast further out than Nellist was. They would have needed to stop reeling/refrain from casting to let him through.
If that was the Sharks Territory and Simon was Intruding then that Could of Trigger the attack as well as the Heavy Splashes being caused by the his swimming. Either way it was Truly a Tragic Incident
Seeing you question the ISAF on the 2022 shark attacks was nice. The fishers are a commonly used way to make attacks go away. If a location or industry does not want an attack to show up, they only have to suggest to the ISAF that some type of fishing is involved somewhere at sometime near the location, and the attack goes away. What’s terrible is all the shark experts that visit the site and use ISAF figures that leave Simon Nellist and many other attack victims as if it never happened. The ISAF reported nine incidents in Australia, yet the Australian file lists twenty. Simon is listed in the Australian file but not the ISAF, so who do you believe?
Interesting to look at the Australian database - but I think the difference in numbers is because the Australian database includes all attacks, while the ISAF number is unprovoked attacks. So, not a fair comparison.
@@factchecker472 The Australian file has fifteen shark attacks determined to be unprovoked in 2022 with the ISAF at nine. That is a fair comparison.
@@sharkattacksurvivors 16 I think if you consider Nellist, too? Certainly interesting to see this discrepancy and ask questions about it.
As someone with first hand knowledge in this attack.
That shark was spotted chasing a seal 1 day earlier. Warnings were given to all in that area.
Swimming where schools of Kingfish were being fished as Burleying by fisherman attracted them .
Late arvo , black wetsuit in deep area all added to the chances of being attacked.
Sad but true.
He also survived the initial attack as shark took his legs ( as they do to disable seals)
The fact he remained Conscious and tried to swim then sealed his fate. Usually WP let their prey bleed out prior to consuming . Not a nice way to die.
this is not true at all i was on the rocks and you are spreading false info,
Mixed feelings about Simon’s case. I guess I can see how fishing might have provoked the shark to attack but that would be the same kind of “provocation” as idk, splashing when swimming. That’s absolutely incomparable to incidents where people touch or feed a shark to get its attention. I guess this kind of stuff is hard to define.
Maybe they should take a look at their wording. Using the word "provoked" is so, well, provocative. It sort of implies that Simon was joyriding on the sharks back, tickling it's ... erm ... feet? Grabbing it's fin and slapping it in the face whilst saying "stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself". Not simply swimming past a group of fishermen. I don't like this sort of thing because we humans are part of the environment too and whether or not fishermen attracted the shark to the area, correct me if I'm wrong, Simon was not a fish and he was the one bitten. It would be like of I were walking down the street and, as I walked past a pub, some guy just chins me for no apparent reason but, when the rozzers show up they say "sorry mate, you provoked him by walking past a Pub which attracted him to the area because of the alcohol on sale there" ... seriously?
Fishing happens all over the ocean. That’s a joke the fisherman were using hardbaits lures ! Not live bait
I’m a skydiver and a scuba diver. I’ve dived in many of the world's oceans, including the Red Sea, Great Barrier Reef , Mediterranean and Caribbean and I’ve swum with sharks. I’ve done plenty of snorkeling, and I even went cage diving in False Bay, South Africa, just to observe these incredible animals. In other words, I’m not risk-averse-but I wouldn’t dream of swimming in these waters! The idea of swimming in these waters , knowing it’s full of great whites, or in False bay South Africa ? Absolutely not! Scuba diving minimizes the risk, but splashing around on the surface in shark-infested waters is just madness! I can’t understand it.
I wonder if a seal can cause an unprovoked attack on itself...Maybe human divers were in the area.?
Great video as always Kristian. I would put my thoughts down to the Simon Nellist reasoning here, however before I do one way or the other, I feel I need to read the ISAF report for myself and do some extra reading myself.
I will say that my current thought structure is the same as yours at the moment. I do feel that it is strange the ISAF have listed it as provoked rather than unprovoked and, having seen the footage of the actual attack for myself, I cannot see it truly being a provoked attack, however I shall, as aforementioned, have a read up myself and then add my thoughts to a reply below.
Also, congrats on hitting 20K... 21K in fact! Wish you success to 50K!
EDIT: Just went to site to find the report but couldn't see it listed. Do you have a link to it?
Here you go Adam: www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/shark-attacks/yearly-worldwide-summary/
There’s also a press release somewhere on that page as well that you can read too
@@SHARKBYTES Okay, so I've had a read of the link you sent (thanks again for it!) and after consideration, I feel that the ISAF have really got it wrong with Mr. Nellest's attack, and that it considering their own definitions of what they consider a provoked attack.
Paraphrasing what the ISAF define as a "provoked attack", they say that it will occur when "a human initiates interaction with a shark in some way." In this case, going swimming anywhere or performing any activity where there are sharks known to be in the area could be considered initiating activity.
It goes on to say that "these include instances where people are bitten after harassing or trying to touch sharks", two factors I would consider provoking a shark. The person in question has, theoretically, poked the bear, and now the bear has given a swipe in return. They add the shark is acting in "defensive behaviour". I would argue that the shark is also acting in p****d off behaviour too.
They add that provoking behaviour includes spearfishing, hand feeding, removing hooks and removing from fishing nets, adding that "all these events involve food". I would imagine that the email they sent to you regarding the activity of the fishermen would be considered here.
This, however, is where my problem lies with their definition of classing Mr. Nellist's attack as provoked.
They continue: "The sharks may bite a person by mistake during the frenzy for food, and habitually fed wildlife may become aggressive towards humans if food is not available."
My issue is with the use of "by mistake". Mr. Nellist's attack was no mistake.
That shark knew what it was doing. That shark was hunting. That shark was in predation mode. Had that shark made a "mistake", it would have let Nellist go after the first bite and not consumed him.
(EDIT: There is a video here [DISCLAIMER: GRAPHIC CONTENT] of a GW shark attacking and predating on an Elephant Seal in its natural habitat ua-cam.com/video/wxvE6CP1AJQ/v-deo.html The nature of the attack and the behaviour of the shark is almost identical to how the shark behaved around Nellist, suggesting to me that Nellist's attack was an "unprovoked" predation, as if the shark were hunting Nellist like it would do a seal.)
I think, as well, I call into question the idea that either Mr. Nellist or the fishermen in question provoked the shark, whether intentionally or not. The fishermen did not know that Mr. Nellist would be swimming through their area, neither could it be assumed that Mr. Nellist would have known that there were fishermen fishing from that rock when he began swimming further up the coast. We do not even know whether Mr. Nellist has swam amongst fishermen before this incident in other areas.
Has it been recorded whether or not Mr. Nellist has swam that portion of the coat before? Has anybody else swam that portion of the coast before, or even since, either solo or in groups?
Another problem I have with this is the factor of Nellist's death. It was the first shark attack, indeed the first fatal attack in that area in 60+ years (?). As such, it can be safe to assume that neither Mr. Nellist nor the fishermen could have imagined in a thousand years that there would have been an attack that day at that moment.
I also want to make mention to an actual provoked attack, which involved rather similar circumstances. That was the Manhattan Pier Beach attack in 2014, where a group of fishermen had hooked a GW shark and intentionally reeled it in towards some swimmers to see what would happen. Naturally, the shark bit one of the swimmers, but did not try to predate or consume them. This attack fills the criteria of a provoked attack as outlined by the ISAF. The fishermen in question knew they had a shark, or that a shark was in the area; they saw the swimmers approach; they lured the shark to the swimmers; the shark bit one of the swimmers.
(EDIT: here is the video in question of the provoked attack [DISCLAIMER DISTRESSING CONTENT] which shows the behaviour of the fishermen in question, a complete distinction to the behaviour of the fishermen at Little Bay. ua-cam.com/video/ESzXLQhMMlo/v-deo.html The shark here bit the person in question before being unhooked and swam away. It did not return to predate on the same individual afterwards)
None of the fishermen at Little Bay knew the shark was there. None of them appeared to have anything on their lines at the time when the video was shot. Few, if any, of them must have been aware that Mr. Nellist was in the area at the time. None of them would have known that a shark was in the area, despite people later saying that the area was "sharky".
To me, and this does sound unfortunate, but it seems as if the ISAF have deliberately labelled the Nellist attack as a provoked attack to skew the idea that a shark would predate on a human being without some form of justification. It stinks of bad, indeed, false science for the sake of bias.
Mr. Nellist's attack was, as per the ISAF's definition of an unprovoked attack, an "incident in which a bite on a live human occurs in the shark's natural habitat." Backing this, from ISAF themselves; "These events include; mistaken identity hit and run during low visibility conditions, investigation, and on infrequent occasions predation." This final sentence sums up Mr. Nellist's attack to a tee. He was attacked in "sharky" waters, possibly in low visibility water, and the case may well have been "mistaken identity" (although I disagree with such ideas). In any case, I feel that this sums up, in my eyes anyway, that Mr. Nellist's attack was unprovoked, and to suggest that either he or the fishermen in question provoked his attack and, therefore, they are culpable, is a terrible thing to suggest.
Again, thanks for the link Kristian! Ver informative video as always and I love that you take an unbiased view on things like this. It is so refreshing to see someone who takes the middle ground and considers both sides of the argument before making a decision.
A couple of additional points I'd like to make upon some more reflecting.
I also believe that listing Mr. Nellist's attack as "provoked" rather than "unprovoked" is also very careless and also dangerous of ISAF to do given the circumstances of his attack.
By stating Mr. Nellist's attack was provoked, it is to suggest that given any other situation, a person could go swimming along the same length of coast and not trigger an attack by a shark - a length of coast mind which numerous people have commented in various forums, news articles, and even on this video as a place which is "crazy to swim in" and "looks very sharky".
Just now I have watched some videos of people diving around the Little Bay area. Mind they are not swimming in the spot where Mr. Nellist was attacked and are in the bay itself, it does however certainly look like an area where a GW shark would frequent. The drop offs were not featured in these vids but I would not hesitate that that spot is a place GW sharks hunt.
For ISAF to consider the attack "provoked", it is therefore suggesting that should I go swimming in the same stretch, perhaps choosing a day when there are no fishermen operating in the area, that I should be safe from an attack. My question is; would I choose to go swimming in that spot? Would anybody consider swimming in that spot?
My second point is regards to the press release. I find it quite revealing and also disrespectful that the ISAF did not once mention Mr. Nellist's attack in their press release.
Considering that Mr. Nellist's attack was a global news story and was the first predation of a person ever captured on film, you would imagine that the ISAF would have made some mention of Mr. Nellist's attack and would have given some kind of public justification as to why they listed it as "provoked attack".
I, for one, since having seen Mr. Nellist's horrific attack last year, have never managed to get it out of my head. I don't think there has been a month the whole of last year where I have not once stopped to consider it. It was a terrible tragedy which I feel that ISAF have just decided to gloss over.
Those are my thoughts anyway.
Thanks again Kristian!
I really appreciate all the info & details VERY MUCH, & completely agree!!!! …Personally, I also think that it is TERRIBLE that they are implying the FISHERMEN are responsible for Simon’s attack being classified as ‘provoked’--!!!! WTF??!! I, too, have seen the video, & it is 100% NOT provoked. Like you mentioned, & thank you for doing so, the REAL example of a provoked attack is the one where the fishermen knowingly & EAGERLY bring a hooked White shark into contact with swimmers, where it of course attacks someone… THIS video is a clear cut case OF PROVOKED attack. Simon’s video is 100% a clear cut case OF •UN• provoked attack- I mean, there are literally 2 videos to look at & compare…I mean, SERIOUSLY??? It is RIDICULOUS to say Simon’s case WAS provoked, when it is literally on video tape!!!
To me, it is disgusting for them to imply the fishermen provoked the shark- (clearly Simon did not provoke it.) It stinks of all kinds of shady, sleazy, dishonest corruption on their end & seems like there is some sort of legal reasoning for them to classify it this way; maybe to DENY a financial payout (life insurance, etc?), or to set up some sleazy lawsuit against someone (wrongful death lawsuit against one of them?), or to maybe ultimately sue a company for responsibility -(like maybe sue the company that manufactured their fishing poles or lures, etc.?)- it is super revolting to think about, but I wouldn’t be surprised if someone there is secretly putting pieces like this together to catch that almighty DOLLAR.
@@turtlejeepjen314 Thank you for your kind response :)
If I was to speculate a reason why the ISAF chose to list is as "provoked" rather than "unprovoked", my personal belief is the following:
I feel that the ISAF fears that listing Nellist's death as unprovoked will somehow foster up the "Jaws" image of the GW shark which shark scientists have been desperate to try and erase for years, most certainly since around the mid 90s onwards.
Since that time you will hear countless of times in documentaries from both the narrator and the scientists say those off quoted remarks: "Sharks aren't interested in humans"; "Sharks won't hunt people"; "A shark attack on a person is extremely rare" etc.
There is, of course, an element of truth to these soundbites. Shark attacks are rare and I would argue that, 9 times out of 10, a shark will not hunt a person if it encounters them in the water. There is plenty of research to prove this, and videos as well, including Malibu Artist's drone footage of sharks in the water.
This, however, does not mean that an attack on a person will not occur, neither that a shark would not predate on a human if it wanted to.
When Simon Nellist's attack occurred, and the fact that its brutality was captured on camera, I think certain groups were very worried about what image this could create in the eyes of the general public surrounding sharks, particularly the GW shark. I can understand their reasoning, as there are news segments out there of people who wanted a culling of sharks after the Nellist attack, something which I am wholly opposed to as it will solve nothing.
In turn, however, for ISAD to just ignore the facts and even their own criteria of what an "unprovoked attack" and deciding to list Nellist's attack as "provoked" is a dangerous precedent in my eyes. Not only was it emotional rather than scientific, but it also just keeps projecting this image of sharks like the GW shark being "misunderstood creatures" who would not attack humans.
I would argue that this is a dangerous precedent to set as it will lead to some people who will mistakenly believe this and will wind up either getting injured or killed as a result. My mind goes straight to three people with regards to this foolish mindset; that diver in that glass cage who was almost hit by that Great White; Erich Ritter and the bull sharks (who went on to blame his spotter, then the cameraman and also Nigel Marvin for the attack, not himself) and Ocean Ramsey, who is, in my personal belief, playing with fire. One day someone of this ilk is going to realise that sharks are not some kind of animal that can be "tamed" for the cameras. They are animals. The same goes for that UA-camr who owns, swims with and kisses alligators. It is foolish and dangerous behaviour.
It is the reason why I respect Kristian's and support his videos and work as he does not appear to hold, in my opinion anyway, any bias viewpoint. He takes his interest and looks at it objectively. Like in this video, he has taken a step back and allowed us all to comment our thoughts and opinions and I believe, no doubt, will be reading each and every one and getting his own, informed opinion over the matter.
Thanks again for the comment and reply
Dude! Wrong about Simon. That was a predator eating prey.
Lures or bait you will have distressed fish in the water, I’m going with the assumption that a hook and a line in your lip or worse is going to be highly distressing as you are pulled in an unnatural way, so even if you try to put out that old nugget that fish don’t feel pain, they sure as shit feel some kind of way about being dragged onto the boat because if they didn’t they would be jumping right up on to the deck not pulling with all their might against you. They are flapping and bleeding and you can bet your left arm the sharks know what that means or you would never get the old half eaten tuna on a line and sad eyed fisherman photos. Yes I am extremely sorry for what happened to Mr Nellist and the pain this brought to his family, but also YES I think fishing constitutes provocation towards the sharks and we need to exercise a great deal of caution when entering the waters anywhere near fishing areas.
Even if there was no bait in the area, there would be fish struggling and that can attract sharks right? Still I think it's a bit fishy to call it a provoked attack.
Idk if I would say it provoked or not hard to say giving the info kinda leaning toward unprovoked as I dont see any evidence of Simon doing anything to provoke it besides tragically being in the wrong place at the wrong time. My heart goes out to his family and friends. But about the fishermen not using live bait I would argue that even fishing with lures can and dose lure sharks to areas as most lure bates mimic injured fish vibrations and still stimulate sharks senses and attracts them to areas to search out a food source.
I think Ocean temperatures definitely make a difference. Ive heard of other attacks that have subsequently been found to happen when bate fish are closer to shore due to weather conditions and Ocean temps so I tend to agree with the angler. Having said that it was obviously a place larger sharks feed, because if anglers where fishing there obviously prey species are there, too. This would be true whether the anglers were there or not. So although they didn't "affect" the sharks natural behaviour it probably wasn't a great place to swim.
OK, no offence intended, wrong place wrong time. The sharks allegedly had been seen before the Fisherman.
I’d be interested to find out how much effect drones are having by sighting more sharks to enable clearing beaches.
I think the drone shark spotting is a great non lethal method
@@SHARKBYTES I think it also has another benifit, since the advent of drones we're seeing people, safely, swimming with sharks much more, that's priceless in arguing that "sharks attacking people are rare because sharks simply don't do it much"
I’m no expert but it occurred to me that even if fishermen are using plastic lures instead of live and smell laden bait they will still hook fish which will then struggle and bleed. Could this attract sharks?
That’s if the fish were biting that day, we all know how hit and miss that can be
Kimon “Kiki” Bisogno was 100% a white shark and it was a vicious territorial attack. Only a few days later a massive 16ft Great White was filmed swimming in the exact same spot she was bitten, and only a week later drone footage showed dozens of sub-adult and adult Great Whites up and down that stretch of coastline swimming around looking for meals. It is very chilling though and I can imagine seeing that huge submarine shape cruising the waters where she was bitten and thinking how horrible of a way to die.
I would think a struggling fish on a line would be a good attractor for the sharks, bait or no bait. Also, depending on how the hook goes in there could be blood involved too. Not saying provoked or unprovoked because I don't know enough to make a judgment on that. I just think swimming around people fishing could be something people consider.
Just watched the vid about the misinformation in the video of the ‘8 great whites hunting the 2 boys’.
Would love to see you do more debunking of content farm channels deliberately making disinformation videos - How to Cook That’s, food scientist creator Ann Reardon has a hugely successful series doing that. It’s great getting a scientist’s take on it, while also working towards undoing the damage they cause just so they can get clicks.
Tbf, he did a whole video debunking the information in this particular video. Strange how he never seems to question Sharks Happen content, though.
@@factchecker472 that’s just the content of the video - Ann’s series also highlights the channels (who owns them, how they break UA-cam guidelines) and how they’re content farms and the damage the disinformation and the misinformation can have.
@@Ineddiblehulk Ok, thanks - never heard of content farms before but now I'll check it out.
@@factchecker472 Sharks Happen appear to go off available information and research. Hard to discredit that.
@@jesuslovesus4002 No, lots of mistakes in his re-telling of the stories + a dodgy right wing agenda.
If swimming around fishermen and being in baited situations is classed as "Provoked", why is the blue shark bite on a shark tour in Cornwall last year classified as "Unprovoked" on the ISAF website?
The majority of florida attacks should be recorded as provoked according to them. Nearly every swimming spot has fishermen somewhere around. I feel like there must be a self beneficial reason to them recording it as a provoked attack but I don't know enough about who they are to be sure.
As a fisherman I can say from firsthand experience that it doesn't matter if you're fishing with lures or bait. If there are sharks in the area there's a good chance they'll come to check it out. I've personally had sharks chase and attack fish that I had hooked and was in the process of reeling in. So while I don't know that Simon was doing anything himself to provoke an attack and I don't necessarily agree with the ISAFs decision for how to classify it, I can understand how this would be considered a provoked attack by the criteria they use. That said I don't necessarily lay blame on the fishermen either. Having seen footage of the event it's unclear (at least from the footage that I saw) whether the fishermen were on site before Simon. Additionally even if Simon had been on site before any fishermen the fishermen may not have known he was there until just before or just after the attack. If you're partaking of any activity in nature it's important to remember that you've entered the habitat of other creatures and they may act or react in unexpected ways, however they are just doing what is natural to them.
I'm thinking that the train of thought for the fishers, even if using lures, is that fish in distress would attract a shark. But sadly there is no information that they had been getting bites.
Yeah it’s unknown if they were biting that day!
Since I can remember, I think it has become common knowledge to not swim where people are fishing. It doesn't matter what type of bait used, if a fish gets hooked it becomes stressed, signals etc etc....
I found the pie chart of American attacks interesting. I've lived in both California and New York and it's strange that California, which has 840 miles of coastline had half as many attacks as New York which has very little coastline except for NYC and Long Island. Unless, of course, some bull sharks got into Lake Ontario.
I have lived in the northeast and California. The water on the east coast is much warmer. I could spend hours in the water in New Jersey in a swim suit and not get cold. The water temperature in San Diego felt similar to Maine and I only lasted 15 minutes.
There are many more sandy swimming beaches per mile of coastline in the northeast. A lot of the California coast is rocky cliffs.
Fisherman here. It's not the bait or lures that draws sharks in, it's the floundering of the fish being caught, which I'd have thought would be obvious. Sharks are drawn to splashing near the surface, which is of course exactly what Simon was doing too.
It was unprovoked and he was virtually eaten. And of course, our chances of an attack are low - there are only a few thousand (possibly only a few hundred at any given time) in Eastern Australia (Tasman and the Coral Sea), that anyone is attacked by a pelagic creature over millions of square kilometers of ocean is astonishing. People make these ridiculous comparisons with mosquitoes and wasps, etc. But their numbers are billions fold the prevalence of sharks and we share space with them. Suggests to me the GWS is extremely dangerous.
You are correct about ONE thing. The odds of me being bitten by a shark is infinitesimal. In fact, until sharks grow feet, figure out how to navigate Google maps, attain my address, and learn how to drive...it's actually ZERO! 😁
ua-cam.com/video/MnfX466iVEU/v-deo.html
Too bad there was no way to measure how many people sharks save from drowning by keeping them closer to shore
Common unbiased informing Shark Bytes W