teenagers lose limbs in shark attack!!!

http://news.sky.com/story/1502123/teens-injured-in-north-carolina-shark-attacks

Two teenagers are understood to have lost limbs after they were mauled in separate shark attacks within 30 minutes of each other.

Witnesses said authorities raced to get people out of the water in Oak Island, North Carolina, after a shark attacked a girl of 14, tearing part of her arm off.

A 16-year-old boy was attacked shortly afterwards and has reportedly lost his arm.

The girl, who was visiting the area with family, was airlifted to a hospital for urgent treatment, said Oak Island Mayor Betty Wallace.

"One of the things we hope we never have to hear from a beach community; the shark bite victim is a teenage girl," Ms Wallace wrote on Facebook.

my goodness that must have been terrifying...

that's awful

Will they be suing the shark?

Seriously, it is horrible, which is why I don't understand why people go in the sea where there is a possibility of sharks lurking.

They're looking for the shark - to kill it I suppose.

Raggamuffin wrote:Will they be suing the shark?

Seriously, it is horrible, which is why I don't understand why people go in the sea where there is a possibility of sharks lurking.

They're looking for the shark - to kill it I suppose.

I can understand the wanting to swim or surf it's great but there is a risk as in all things but should we let that risk stop us living??

a shark any shark will probably caught and killed...

Agreed raggs, you can't control sharks so why put themselves in that position?

Of course killing the shark is just silly, its not like its a cruel sadistic animal, its just a really big fish.,, not that that will stop them of course

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Will they be suing the shark?

Seriously, it is horrible, which is why I don't understand why people go in the sea where there is a possibility of sharks lurking.

They're looking for the shark - to kill it I suppose.

I can understand the wanting to swim or surf it's great but there is a risk as in all things but should we let that risk stop us living??

a shark any shark will probably caught and killed...

It's not clear when these attacks happened, but another kid was attacked on Thursday a few miles up the coast, so presumably the risk was known then.

If you want to risk it, it's up to you, but once that leg or arm is gone, well ...

Eilzel wrote:Agreed raggs, you can't control sharks so why put themselves in that position?

Of course killing the shark is just silly, its not like its a cruel sadistic animal, its just a really big fish.,, not that that will stop them of course

Also, is it really like Jaws where there's one big shark lurking? If there's one, won't there be others?

It's where sharks live - in the sea - so what is the point of trying to kill them all?

Not really on topic but, the Chinese and japs kill thousands of sharks for their Shark Fin Soup. They net them ,cut off their fins then chuck them back in the sea to die slowly, Bastards.

things with sharp teeth eat meat

sharks have sharp teeth

we are meat

the result is inevitable.......

I don't have any teeth,but I have a very strong "suck"

lucky Mrs nicko.......

Raggamuffin wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

I can understand the wanting to swim or surf it's great but there is a risk as in all things but should we let that risk stop us living??

a shark any shark will probably caught and killed...

It's not clear when these attacks happened, but another kid was attacked on Thursday a few miles up the coast, so presumably the risk was known then.

If you want to risk it, it's up to you, but once that leg or arm is gone, well ...

if there was a warning a little further up the coast then they were being careless but i don't know if the area is a particular problem for sharks..

nicko wrote:Not really on topic but,  the Chinese and japs   kill thousands of sharks for their Shark Fin Soup.   They net them ,cut off their fins then chuck them back in the sea to die slowly,   Bastards.

man has not been very bright with the resources he has to hand...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Agreed raggs, you can't control sharks so why put themselves in that position?

Of course killing the shark is just silly, its not like its a cruel sadistic animal, its just a really big fish.,, not that that will stop them of course

Also, is it really like Jaws where there's one big shark lurking? If there's one, won't there be others?

It's where sharks live - in the sea - so what is the point of trying to kill them all?

Actually, they are quite shy creatures. A tap on the nose and they skitter away. But they do have empty stomachs and nature has provided them with sharp teeth. Sometimes they have a good notion...

There are three major white shark beds in the world. 1) Off the coast of South Africa, from Cape Town to Durban; 2) Off the Golden Gate of San Francisco Bay in what is known as the Red Triangle; and 3) the Great Barrier Reef off Queensland.

But climate change is altering that drastically. As water warms, fish move north and the predatory sharks move with them in order to eat. Hence, we're seeing more sharks in northern waters.

Eilzel wrote:Agreed raggs, you can't control sharks so why put themselves in that position?

Of course killing the shark is just silly, its not like its a cruel sadistic animal, its just a really big fish.,, not that that will stop them of course

actually as silly as it seems there is a reason,
it is a big fish but it is not stupid it is naturally inquisitive in search of easy food sources, if one successful feeds on humans at the beach the concern is that it will view beaches as feeding grounds and humans as prey items. Personally I'd leave it until you get multiple attacks.

A bigger concern in this case is once the first girl was attacked there were no warning given to other swimmers that there were sharks in the area. you cant control sharks but you can control shark human interaction, the fact it was swimmers(not surfers, which do go crazy far out) at a busy beach in shallow water to me says the life guards weren't doing their jobs very well.

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Agreed raggs, you can't control sharks so why put themselves in that position?

Of course killing the shark is just silly, its not like its a cruel sadistic animal, its just a really big fish.,, not that that will stop them of course

actually as silly as it seems there is a reason,
it is a big fish but it is not stupid it is naturally inquisitive in search of easy food sources, if one successful feeds on humans at the beach the concern is that it will view beaches as feeding grounds and humans as prey items. Personally I'd leave it until you get multiple attacks.

Actually, humans are not their preferred food for white sharks.  Humans are far too boney.  They like nice, fat pinnipeds.  The reason why humans so often survive white shark attacks, is because the animal is so shy.  It takes exploratory bites first, to see if they want to finish the meal.  So often a human is left with a big bite, or no arm or leg, but alive.

veya_victaous wrote:A bigger concern in this case is once the first girl was attacked there were no warning given to other swimmers that there were sharks in the area. you cant control sharks but you can control shark human interaction, the fact it was swimmers(not surfers, which do go crazy far out) at a busy beach in shallow water to me says the life guards weren't doing their jobs very well.

Agreed.  But this is North Carolina.  Despite Jaws, the Atlantic coast is not white shark territory.  They haven't gotten the memo about what to do, I guess.

that is old and not necessarily longer correct.
they will take humans for food now largely due to lack of options, they are increasingly hunting in shallow water a behaviors not often seen until recently.
we have seen a 400% increase in shark attacks in the last 2 years.
Almost all signs point to the combination of shark protection yet overfishing their food sources (tuna in particular) there is only the same number of sharks but there is less for them to eat and increasing co-habituation with surfers
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/science-environment/2015/02/are-shark-attacks-increasing

They do not think it is a white shark based on the small wounds in this attack, I don't think it is either. If it were down here(not sure on the sharks local to that coast) I'd say a bull shark based on the wounds and attack location, white shark do not hunt in waist deep water but that is the primary feeding zone of bull sharks. also Amputation is more common with bull shark bites because although a smaller wound the bite mechanic is more 'shake and rip' while whites are bites are clean cut and easier to sew up

Both victims were thought to have been in waist-deep water around 20ft from the shore when they were attacked. It was unclear what type of shark or how many were involved in the attacks.

Vic, best thing about it, I don't get those irritating little hairs stuck in my teeth!

Veya, the bull shark is most common on the east coast, from Florida to southern New Jersey.

White sharks commonly hunt in 3-feet of water.

The reason why white sharks use the investigatory bite tactic is owing to the sensitive perceptive apparatus in their nose--a kind of radar. They cannot afford to put it at risk. So they use a quick bite and then stand off and watch, using all of their sensory apparatus to determine if there is a threat. Incidentally, that is why a sharp strike on the nose, or even splashing water, will ward of a white shark attack.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/02/25/4186776.htm

White sharks are ambush predators. They prowl below the surface of the ocean, looking for prey above. Using its enormously powerful tail for a burst of speed, a white shark will shoot up and bite its prey while slamming it up and out of the sea.

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/shark-week/videos/swimming-with-a-baby-great-white/
white sharks are rarely less than 3 foot in height, they are 4 to 5 foot long when born, you can see above what they call shallow water for a white shark, it is still several metres

it is generally considered odd for them to be in less than 5 metres (or 15 feet) of water.
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2027804/great-white-shark-nursery-off-hunter-coast/


There is no reason to think this is a white shark attack

Raggamuffin wrote:
Will they be suing the shark?

Seriously, it is horrible, which is why I don't understand why people go in the sea where there is a possibility of sharks lurking.

They're looking for the shark - to kill it I suppose.

YOU certainly wouldn't want to live around here, then !!!

NOT ONLY do we have sharks aplenty, but also jellyfish, octopussies, stonefish, eels, leeches, bullrout, conefish, sea snakes, puffer fish..

AND that's just down in the creek !  

P.S.  I have a kayak.   And next year i intend to build a canoe..

AND I'VE been surfing, sailing, rafting, skin diving [snorkelling..] and body surfing/open water swimming over the years...
AROUND 80% of Australia's population lives within 30 km of the coastline..    

Original Quill wrote:
Veya, the bull shark is most common on the east coast, from Florida to southern New Jersey.

.................................

BULL SHARKS (aka "River Sharks", as they can tolerate some freshwater, and are able to move further upstream then your average sharks ~ often being seen in rivers, lakes and creeks that connect to the sea..] are the #1 killer shark in the more populated parts of Australia, the USA and Brazil...

IT IS now often considered that some attacks blamed on other shark spp. over the years on the eastern seaboard in Australia were more possibly Bull Sharks. With Tiger Sharks, White Pointers and others in a distant 2nd place..

WHITE POINTERS rarely, if ever, attack people on the East Coast of Oz, for some odd reason. Maybe because their breeding areas are over here ?   MOST of the White Pointer attacks that you see over here are occurring in Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria..

(NOTE that the term "Great White" never really existed in the common vernacular before the Jaws movies back in the 1970s !   The proper name has always been 'White Pointers"..).

WHILE there are several shark attacks every year, the average number of  recorded deaths since the early 20th Century has only been around 5 or so a year ~ with an average of just over 1 a year in ONLY four countries ~ Australia, Japan, South Africa, and the USA..

(NO DOUBT a few of the people listed as 'missing at sea' or 'bodies never found' off beaches and harbours have ended up as shark or fish food, however there are NO official records or remains to confirm or deny that possibility either way..).

AUTHORITIES attempting to "hunt down" killer sharks is usually a waste of time, as they rarely find the 'guilty party'..
THE main reason that we see local councils, tourism operators, police, and sometimes and psycho' "shark hunters", looking for the shark (even though it might be miles away before they even start !), is most likely for them to show the tourists and local shop owners that at least  they are doing something about it.      

veya_victaous wrote:
..................................

A bigger concern in this case is once the first girl was attacked there were no warning given to other swimmers that there were sharks in the area. you cant control sharks but you can control shark human interaction, the fact it was swimmers(not surfers, which do go crazy far out) at a busy beach in shallow water to me says the life guards weren't doing their jobs very well.

MOST US Lifeguards are incapable of doing their job very well, rarely do they get anywhere near the expected standards that we are used to...

WHILE over 95% of Aussie lifeguards/surf lifesavers are volunteers, they are still the best in the world..

IN COMPARISON, less than 10% of America's surf lifeguards are volunteers, with most of their surf lifesavers/lifeguards expecting to be paid for their work.  (AND even then, many of their so called "professional" lifesavers are apparently only poorly-trained and inexperienced students chasing a few weeks holiday work..).    

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:
Agreed raggs, you can't control sharks so why put themselves in that position?

Of course killing the shark is just silly, its not like its a cruel sadistic animal, its just a really big fish.,, not that that will stop them of course

Also, is it really like Jaws where there's one big shark lurking? If there's one, won't there be others?

It's where sharks live - in the sea - so what is the point of trying to kill them all?

NOTHING in the real world is actually anything like the fantasies portrayed in the Jaws movies...

WHILE at the time of the movie franchises' releases back in the 1970s and '80s the producers liked to claim that they consulted some mysterious shark experts, once the movies were opened that was shown to be a total crock..

Lone Wolf wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:
..................................

A bigger concern in this case is once the first girl was attacked there were no warning given to other swimmers that there were sharks in the area. you cant control sharks but you can control shark human interaction, the fact it was swimmers(not surfers, which do go crazy far out) at a busy beach in shallow water to me says the life guards weren't doing their jobs very well.

MOST US Lifeguards are incapable of doing their job very well, rarely do they get anywhere near the expected standards that we are used to...

WHILE over 95% of Aussie lifeguards/surf lifesavers are volunteers, they are still the best in the world..

IN COMPARISON, less than 10% of America's surf lifeguards are volunteers, with most of their surf lifesavers/lifeguards expecting to be paid for their work.  (AND even then, many of their so called "professional" lifesavers are apparently only poorly-trained and inexperienced students chasing a few weeks holiday work..).    

Adding to that, the attack on the young man on the same beach took place about an hour later.  When you figure it probably took first responders 20-minutes to reach the female victim, and another hour to stabilize her...one can imagine that the holy committee to close the beaches probably didn't meet but hours later.

Original Quill wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:


MOST US Lifeguards are incapable of doing their job very well, rarely do they get anywhere near the expected standards that we are used to...

WHILE over 95% of Aussie lifeguards/surf lifesavers are volunteers, they are still the best in the world..

IN COMPARISON, less than 10% of America's surf lifeguards are volunteers, with most of their surf lifesavers/lifeguards expecting to be paid for their work.  (AND even then, many of their so called "professional" lifesavers are apparently only poorly-trained and inexperienced students chasing a few weeks holiday work..).    

Adding to that, the attack on the young man on the same beach took place about an hour later.  When you figure it probably took first responders 20-minutes to reach the female victim, and another hour to stabilize her...one can imagine that the holy committee to close the beaches probably didn't meet but hours later.

I think there was another girl attacked a few days previously - got bitten on her foot.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Adding to that, the attack on the young man on the same beach took place about an hour later.  When you figure it probably took first responders 20-minutes to reach the female victim, and another hour to stabilize her...one can imagine that the holy committee to close the beaches probably didn't meet but hours later.

I think there was another girl attacked a few days previously - got bitten on her foot.

I think that was not on Oak Island. On a beach in North Carolina, tbs...but these two incidents took place a mere mile apart.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think there was another girl attacked a few days previously - got bitten on her foot.

I think that was not on Oak Island.  On a beach in North Carolina, tbs...but these two incidents took place a mere mile apart.

Two miles apart, according to the article.

The previous girl was attacked on the same stretch of the coast.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think that was not on Oak Island.  On a beach in North Carolina, tbs...but these two incidents took place a mere mile apart.

Two miles apart, according to the article.

The previous girl was attacked on the same stretch of the coast.

Yes, not on Oak Island. North Carolina is a very popular coastal region of the Atlantic seaboard. There are several beaches:

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Two miles apart, according to the article.

The previous girl was attacked on the same stretch of the coast.

Yes, not on Oak Island.  North Carolina is a very popular coastal region of the Atlantic seaboard.  There are several beaches:

So?

I don't suppose sharks can read the sign that says "Oak Island".

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, not on Oak Island.  North Carolina is a very popular coastal region of the Atlantic seaboard.  There are several beaches:

So?

I don't suppose sharks can read the sign that says "Oak Island".

I think we were discussing veya's criticism of the human response.  Veya had mentioned that the advisory to stay out of the water due to sharks was slow to reach other bathers.

Humans divide territory into jurisdictions, and sometimes cross-jurisdictional communication is slow, particularly when one of them is busy saving a life.  Nevertheless, veya's point is well taken. There should be a warning system already in place.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So?

I don't suppose sharks can read the sign that says "Oak Island".

I think we were discussing veya's criticism of the human response.  Veya had mentioned that the advisory to stay out of the water due to sharks was slow to reach other bathers.

Humans divide territory into jurisdictions, and sometimes cross-jurisdictional communication is slow, particularly when one of them is busy saving a life.  Nevertheless, veya's point is well taken.  There should be a warning system already in place.  

Exactly. It's the same stretch of coast, so if there was a shark in one bit, there's a high probability that there will be a shark or sharks in another bit. Don't these different jurisdications communicate with each other?