5 deaths out of how many ocean visits by how many people in Australia this year, engaged in what specific behaviors?

Be "fact-based," Amy! This is the ocean!

We need to keep our logic powered on, knowudimean?

A quick search found an average of 26 people in the US killed by dogs in the 2000s. So 5 dead vs 26 dead. Yep they aren't cuddly puppies.

While the three sharks described aren't known for human fatalities, they still bite and not always with provocation. The parents are indeed morons for allowing this. Just because they aren't known for killing humans, doesn't make them safe for five year old girls to play with.

While it's an oversimplification to describe all sharks as dangerous -- in fact, most aren't -- it doesn't change the fact that these three species described are predators and have attacked humans.

The two largest species of sharks (the basking and the whale shark) are harmless (unless you happen to be a plankton. It might be more interesting, given their size, to let the kids see them up close. They're impressive fish.

Joe, that's not a fair comparison. People don't keep sharks as pets and walk them down the street on leashes. Sharks aren't commonly seen in human habitats, unlike dogs.

So, to compare the number of dog attack fatalities to shark fatalities is preposterous.

> So 5 dead vs 26 dead.

"But," dogs aren't the ocean!

So the American people aren't as dead as the Aussies.

Because.

Joe is, of course, precisely on point.

Well, if you want to be picky about it...

Surfing in the area of White Sharks is incredibly stupid (maybe we should outlaw it).

White Sharks don't like humans. Not very tasty, not a lot of fat.

But seals! Well, those are nommy-nom!

So swimmers in the water tend to get left alone, because, well, they don't look like seals.

But! get on a SURFBOARD, and from below -

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/shark-attack-1.jpg

Whoops.

So, yes, paddling out in an area, and doing your best to look like a prey species is all kindsa stupid. Maybe we should pass a law.

(Would you go stand in the African savannah wearing a gazelle costume?)

And even for all that, 5 people, paddling out, looking like prey, have been killed in a year.

Damn those idiot parents for letting their kids grow up outside a safe, contained environment!

"Would you go stand in the African savannah wearing a gazelle costume?"

No. It would confuse the lions, who would wonder how a gazelle could get so paunchy. And taste like Brylcreem.

Great whites are very different than nurse sharks in behavior, prey preference, and severity of the bite. Nurse sharks like molluscs, stingrays, and fish. They have tiny mouths and are generally pretty chill. Lemon and reef sharks were also reported in the area. They also feed exclusively on fish. They aren't as chill as nurse sharks, but they're both "don't fuck with me and I won't fuck with you" species. Nurse, lemon, and reef sharks top out at about 10 feet in size.

Great whites are about 20 feet long and have a huge bite radius. Their preferred foods at that size are fat rich sea mammals. As Unix-Jedi pointed out, surfers look an awful lot like the great white's preferred prey.

Australia is home to the most shark-related fatalities because it is a place where surfers and great white sharks collide. The Bahamas averages 1 shark attack every decade and none of them have been fatal, despite the fact that they are billing shark snorkeling as a tourist activity.

Look, you can object to taking a kid swimming with sharks all you like. Apex predators and non-mammalian predators both induce some pretty strong gut reactions in humans. But *statistically* letting your five year old snorkel with nurse sharks in the Caribbean is pretty damn safe.

Patrick. WHat we would truely need is number of deaths or attacks by X over amount of time around X.
While number of deaths/attacks is known, the amount of time around X is an unknown number. But it would be the only honest comparison, if it could be done.
But that is the thing the only honest calculation of true risk can't be done. So making the judgement call is iffy at best.
This is why statistics should always be given with a control group. Or at least a comparison.
My statement is not that dogs are dangerous, or that sharks are not, it is that with the information present we can't know.

An old example, over 90% of convicted murderers have this one characteristic, easily determined by age 5. Is this usefull information? No!
Why not? there is no control group or comparison made. It is a very different stat if you also say the % of the general population which has that characteristic. If it is also over 90% it is usefull in stating, that that characteristic is useless in determining if someone is likely to be a murderer. PS the characteristic is, being 'not ambidextrous'.

Old RPM Daddy:

Even for Lion Mane, a Little Dab'll Do Ya!

(Pssst, Patrick? It's your turn back http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/07/13/the_dog-eat-dog.html ).

Elle: Great whites are about 20 feet long and have a huge bite radius. Their preferred foods at that size are fat rich sea mammals. As Unix-Jedi pointed out, surfers look an awful lot like the great white's preferred prey.

Thanks for a very informative post on the eating habits of reef sharks (and there are at least five varieties, so that's a broad term), lemon sharks and nurse sharks.

My only point is that all three have been known to attack without provocation. Rarely, but it does happen.

I would also object to using the term "shark" without specifying the species, as if all sharks are dangerous. As I pointed out earlier, most aren't.

Ever see that fact challenged series on Discovery and Animal Planet, "Animal Face-Off"?

They had a great white facing off against a saltwater croc. While they correctly depicted the outcome, they overlooked the obvious which made for a strange battle: great whites attack from beneath, not head on.

Here is their computer-simulated battle, silly as it is.

Elle: White Sharks don't like humans. Not very tasty, not a lot of fat.

Apparently Elle has never heard of Marlon Brando.

Patrick:

Elle didn't say that. I did. What was that about comprehension you said to me earlier? I apparently couldn't understand it.

Besides, Brando, like Charlie, don't surf.

The ocean is huge, sharks are not all ferocious, and I don't think the kid was particularly in danger. I figure the tour company probably had a pretty good idea what to expect. It's not good business if sharks are eating your clientele. Just enough potential danger to satisfy certain thrill levels.

But still, I wouldn't be comfortable with my hypothetical kid there with the sharks.

It's the difference between "let's take the kid to play at the park" and "let's take the kid to play with that group of strange dogs at the park."

Sorry, Jedi. My bad. It was an enjoyable read and informative, too. I mistakenly conflated it with Elle's, which was also entertaining and informative.

A quick search found an average of 26 people in the US killed by dogs in the 2000s. So 5 dead vs 26 dead. Yep they aren't cuddly puppies. ~ Joe

260 dog attacks in 10 years - out of how many dogs?

According to the 2009-2010 National Pet Owners Survey of the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, there are 77.5 million dogs kept as pets in the US. That figure does not count strays.

So, an average of 26 attacks annually out of 77,500,000 dogs? That's an attack rate of 0.000034%

Now, on the other side, 5 shark attacks in less than 1 year - out of how many sharks?

In order to achieve that low attack rate, Australia's surfers would have to be swimming in a pool of 14.9 million sharks.

I'll stick with puppies.

All sharks are not equally dangerous.

Australia has the highest rate of shark attacks in the world, one particular area is especially high compared to others.

So again, while I understand the gut instinctive reaction here, a cold analysis of the actual probability of danger versus the value of the experience, tells you that the actual real danger was very minimal.

Look, you can object to taking a kid swimming with sharks all you like. Apex predators and non-mammalian predators both induce some pretty strong gut reactions in humans. But *statistically* letting your five year old snorkel with nurse sharks in the Caribbean is pretty damn safe.

Agreed. Conflating nurse sharks to the shark that attacked the surfer (a Great White) isn't really fair. Nurse sharks don't attack unprovoked, while great whites are hunters. Great whites will bite you til you're dead, while nurse sharks will bite if provoked, then swim away.

Now, an argument could be made that a 5-year-old might be too young to understand that you're not supposed to touch the sharks, or too young to keep aware of where all the sharks are relative to where she is -- and might therefore provoke a nurse shark and come away missing a hand or with some serious bites. But equating a nurse shark with a great white isn't exactly accurate.

Also, if you let your kid swim in the ocean at all, they're swimming with the dang sharks anyway (just without a snorkel mask). If we are to call these parents idiots for allowing a child to snorkel with sharks, then we must call all parents who allow their child to swim at the beach in California and Florida idiots as well. Because the aggressive Bull Shark loves warm, shallow water.

Just a small correction. Nurse sharks have been recorded as attacking unprovoked. Though I do concede that it's rare.

Sofar makes a valid point regarding bull sharks, which are aggressive and make their home in warm shallow water. It's responsible for more attacks on humans than any other species. Moreover, there's actually somewhat shorter than the nurse, reef and lemon sharks. Would a five year old child make the mistaken assumption that a bull shark is harmless because after all, she's snorkeled with sharks bigger than the bull shark?

Bears and mountain lions can jump out of the woods and maul people. Better not step outdoors.

Sharks have mouths, eat other animals, and as such will occasionally bite a human in the ocean. Better not ever go in the ocean.

Tribal people in south america and other places are occasionally killed by large freshwater fish. Better not ever go in a lake.

Bull sharks go up rivers and kill people. better not ever go in a river.

Snakes can hide damn near ANYWHERE! DEATH SURROUNDS US!! EEEEK!!

And yet I'd take my chances in any of the above environments over a place crowded with humans. You know, humans? Who kill other humans in the millions each year?

Amy, I know you've seen the video of the 2 spear fishermen who jumped in on top of a large great white. A great white who didn't attack and eat them. You are sensationalizing a VERY rare occurrence. I don't know how many people surf in Australia each year, but I'm betting it's a LOT. Sharks don't like people to eat. No species of shark does.

Australia has one of the longest coasts, over 16000 miles. Which puts it at about 900 sharks per square mile. Probably a bit high, but by how much? 90 in a square mile?
But it would only put sharks as 10 times more dangerous than a domesticated dog.
But hardly in the range of the reaction.

A Pomeranian killed a 6 month old back in 2000. You really ought to get rid of Lucy, she's a menace to infants everywhere. In fact let's ban all pet ownership, as well as leaving the house.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/oct/09/local/me-34015

M4's right! Lucy's a Death Dog... An impulsive, twitchy, shrieking kill-beast from the realm of the untamed, just waiting for that perfect moment to pounce on some defenseless, unsuspecting child.

How dare you, Amy. How dare you.

Conan the Grammarian: "260 dog attacks in 10 years - out of how many dogs?"

That would be about 260 fatal dog attacks.

There are about 77.5 million dogs in the U.S.

About 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs annually.

Around 750,000 require medical care for dog bites.

Around 330,000 are treated in hospital emergency rooms for dog bites annually. (368,245 in 2001; 316,200 in 2008).

Around 9,500 people are admitted for hospital stays for dog bites annually.

Maybe some politician will propose a law prohibiting people from living in or passing through areas inhabited by dogs.

But Ken... Please... Try to understand...

This is the ocean!

Gun Deaths Exceed Motor Vehicle Deaths in 10 States:

Each day, how many motor vehicles do you see or actually use?

You probably couldn't keep track.

Now, how about guns. How many do you see or actually use during the same period?

For most people, not that many. If any at all.

And yet, in 10 states gun deaths actually outpace motor vehicle deaths.

Please contemplate those statements before reading the rest of my post. If you don't agree at the end please tell me.

==============================================
Now he is comparing gun deaths to car deaths.

Let me rephrase the headline to an honest head line:

Accidental Gun Deaths Are Miniscule Compared to Accidental Motor Vehicle Deaths in all States

The number of fatal firearms accidents for the last six years of record are:
2002 - 762
2003 - 730
2004 - 649
2005 - 630
2006 - 680
2007 - 613

Sorry that I don't have more recent statistics on the accidental deaths by fire arms.

Accidental Car deaths (www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx)

2010 30,196
2009 30,797
2008 34,172
2007 37,435
2006 38,648
2005 39,252
2004 38,444
2003 38,477
2003 38,477
2002 38,491
2001 37,862
2000 37,526

Now the Accidental car deaths compared to the accidental gun deaths is a comparison.

The deliberate gun deaths to deliberate car deaths would probably be in the same ratios. Basically when a gun is used it is a deliberate act.

Now, compare the X number of deaths from known shark attacks to the number of people on the road on any given year, and the number of attacks, let alone deaths is miniscule.

Amy,

I'm sorry, on this one you need to ignore the lame stream media and pull your head out of your ass. If you refuse to believe us, please ask Lenore to run the numbers for you. Would you let a 10 year old go across L.A. on a bus? Then would you let a 10 tear old swim in the ocean with about 50 other adults around?

Paradigm shift.

See also... Ours is a world of horrible fates!

I don't have a strong opinion about this either way, but comparing sharks to dogs is unreasonable.

Dogs have evolved beside us to be our servants and companions. We have a level of mutual understanding. A well-trained dog will rarely become vicious unless provoked, and I can be reasonably certain I know what provokes a dog. If I stay away from it while it's eating and taking care of its young, I'll probably be fine.

The average person has no idea what a shark considers provocative. We didn't evolve beside them, so they aren't as used to us as dogs are.

Question: How many of the reported dog bites (fatal and nonfatal) were intentional? I mean, we train dogs to protect our lives and property. How many of these dogs were doing just that when they attacked?

Amy hates the outdoors. She's clear about that. Therefor dangers of the outdoors are in comprehensible to her. It doesn't mean others are idiots for wanting to sport in the ocean, and it doesn't mean we ought to eliminate all sharks from them.

No one has said they are cuddly, or puppies, or appropriate pets (actually, I have a Bala shark swimming in my aquarium right now, so scratch that). We're saying the actual risk from sharks is low and doesn't call for any hysteria. And being scared of dogs would make much more sense than a fear of sharks. Heck, being scared of blue ice crashing your house probably makes more sense.

Amy:

There, you're surrounded by the French.

And you say that swimming with sharks is stupid?

> There, you're surrounded by the French.

Comment of the Week.

I realize that sharks attacks are relatively rare, and that they are usually considered a case of mistaken identity (i.e. shark thinks person is seal or similar). That said, I have no intention of winning that lottery, so I stay the fuck out of the ocean as well as rivers with ocean access. I guess I'm another Jaws casualty, but I'm okay with that.

I read the following article several days ago. Donut. Donut. Donut donut donut donut....(I stole that from a toddler).

http://www.khq.com/story/18981001/kayaker-trailed-by-shark-i-just-turned-and-paddled

The average person has no idea what a shark considers provocative. We didn't evolve beside them, so they aren't as used to us as dogs are.

But there are, in general, less than 150 attacks from sharks in any given year, worldwide. The number of death is less than 1 per year. I don't have the numbers but there are probably 150 bites per month, in the U.S. alone.

Question: How many of the reported dog bites (fatal and nonfatal) were intentional? I mean, we train dogs to protect our lives and property. How many of these dogs were doing just that when they attacked? -- MonicaP at July 17, 2012 6:58 AM

How many of the reported shark bites (fatal and nonfatal) were intentional?

Again -- apples to apples comparison is not even in the ballpark. Please see my post above about comparing car deaths to gun deaths.

Everyone needs to remember life is an STD with a 100% mortality rate.

How many of the reported shark bites (fatal and nonfatal) were intentional?

I bet none. Unless people are training sharks to protect life and property, in which case I will take that back.

But there are, in general, less than 150 attacks from sharks in any given year, worldwide. The number of death is less than 1 per year. I don't have the numbers but there are probably 150 bites per month, in the U.S. alone.

Again, this is the reason why comparing sharks to dogs is silly. We just have far more exposure to dogs than sharks. I'm unlikely to pass a shark on my way home from the grocery store. If my friends have sharks, they stay safely in their tanks.

I'm not saying sharks are more or less dangerous. I don't know, nor do I care very much. But sharks and dogs are nothing alike, so why compare the attack rates? It makes about as much sense as comparing shark attacks to choking deaths. Compare sharks to comparable creatures of the sea.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2174700/Crazed-beaver-attacks-girls-swimming-lake-leaving-injuries.html#ixzz20uLfJPck

DAMN THOSE PARENTS! Didn't they know there might be ANIMALS IN THE LAKE?