PDA

View Full Version : The Real Story of the Bahama man Eater!



Papa Bear
03-20-2008, 09:09 PM
Sharing the Truth About the Shark "Attack" in the Bahamas

Posted By Christopher Chin on 7 March 2008


Something terrible happened the weekend before last.... a man named Markus Groh died.
News of his death has appeared in newspapers and on television screens around the world. There has been a great deal of press coverage on the matter, but the vast majority of these articles and reports seem to confuse facts, exaggerate occurrences, and generally demonize sharks.

The media's response to this tragedy has been horrific. It is one thing for a reporter to cut and paste misinformation gleaned from another article... but seeing the blatant fabrication of “facts,” reports, and quotations in some stories has made me ashamed to have ever called myself a journalist. Physicians take the Hippocratic Oath when they enter practice... perhaps there should be a similar mantra for members of the media, to help guide them as they provide “truth” for the hungry eyes and ears of the world.

Truth... let's revisit that, and start from scratch.

On Sunday, February 24th, Markus Groh, an attorney visiting from Austria, was participating in an organized shark dive aboard the M/V Shear Water in the Bahamas, when he was accidentally bitten by a bull shark.

Groh was evacuated by Coast Guard helicopter to a hospital in Miami, where he later died, apparently due to blood loss from the laceration on his leg (flesh was not removed by the bite).

This man's death has sparked an amazing amount of debate. Some of those discussions have been germane, but most have been filled with misinformation, fear, and purposeful agenda.

This was a terrible and tragic accident. However, it was just that – an accident. The shark was biting at a crate of bait, when it accidentally bit Markus Groh on the calf. Realizing it had made a mistake, the shark released Mr. Groh's leg, and moved on. His leg was cut, but no flesh was removed. If the shark was desirous of human flesh, or was intent on attacking any of the people involved in this dive, it could have easily finished the job, rather than releasing Groh’s leg and moving on.

Why one newspaper claimed that Groh was bitten on the thigh, I cannot understand. I will give the reporter the benefit of the doubt and presume he was not intentionally trying to make the injury seem more substantial than it was. However, when this single, mistaken bite on the calf transforms into a report that “his leg was nearly torn off,” as reported in another article, the intent of sensationalizing the story is apparent. The reporting gets absolutely ridiculous when we see this same single bite and release translated into, as one large network put it, Mr. Groh being “mauled to death.”

Early reports stated that the shark “got away before anyone was able to identify it.” This is completely untrue -- we know it was a bull shark. Some reports have referred to tiger sharks, in an apparent attempt to stir greater fear. However, to claim the shark “got away,” suggests that it was fleeing the scene of a crime, and now has some people concerned that a killer shark is on the loose.

Adding to the media frenzy are quotations and interviews from critics and competitors of Jim Abernethy, the owner and operator of the M/V Shear Water. Abernethy's customer list reads like the Who's Who of underwater imaging, and his supporters and customers all insist that he is one of safest and most knowledgeable operators on the planet. However, the quotations that find their way into the media tend to be those laying blame for the accident, and those that call Jim irresponsible or unsafe.

It is human nature to seek a scapegoat and attempt to find someone to blame when bad things happen. However, the ultimate loser here is the shark. While the various industries involved bicker over who is right and what is safe, we are allowing the media to continue to present the public with an inappropriate view of these magnificent creatures.

Whether you are a colleague or fan of Jim Abernethy or are critical of the event, this is inarguably a time when many negative stereotypes and misconceptions about sharks come to the forefront... and into the public eye.

Whether you believe in cageless diving or oppose it...
whether or not you believe in baited diving, in chumming, or even in feed dives (there is a big difference between the three), the truth of the matter still remains: Sharks do not eat people, and sharks do not target people.

I'll repeat that: SHARKS DO NOT EAT PEOPLE .


This event was a terrible, but freak accident. Roughly 40 people die each year in parachuting accidents in the US alone. An equal number die in skiing accidents, again, just in the US. In 2007, there was only ONE shark related fatality... worldwide. Yet, we managed to kill more than 100 million of them. =(



In the news, scary and sexy sells, but manipulating this tragedy to present sharks as mindless killing machines, and striking fear into the public about diving or swimming with sharks, or reporting on misguided allegations, is completely irresponsible and inexcusable... especially at a time when many sharks are at the brink of extinction.

To my scuba and film colleagues, and to all my fellow shark geeks: Please, let us put aside any differences, at least temporarily. Let us offer our condolences, and then unite under the common goal of sharing a new and accurate view of sharks – one that allows people to see that they are beautiful, important, and endangered creatures. This is critical to the survival of sharks, to the health of the oceans, and to our planet.

To my media colleagues: Please join me in a commitment to responsible journalism: to source validation, to accurate research and fact-finding, and to presenting truth without sensationalism. ... and please join me in being the vehicle for this new view of sharks. Not only do they desperately need our help, but the world deserves to know.

To all you faithful readers: If you hear people talking about this event, or about sharks in a negative manner, please interject and help enlighten them to the truth about sharks. If you help convince even ONE person that the media hype is undeserved or sensationalized, you will have made a difference.

seasnake
03-21-2008, 03:46 PM
Sharing the Truth About the Shark "Attack" in the Bahamas

Posted By Christopher Chin on 7 March 2008


Something terrible happened

I know something I can agree with: it wasn't the sharks fault for what happened, and demonizing them is not going to help ANYBODY.

bottlefish
03-25-2008, 10:21 AM
This was a terrible and tragic accident. However, it was just that – an accident. The shark was biting at a crate of bait, when it accidentally bit Markus Groh on the calf.
I read this report a while back, couldn't helping asking myself what his leg was doing so close to the crate of bait that it could have been bitten by accident? He'd have to be incredibly close (standing on?!) the crate?

shinek
04-01-2008, 09:24 PM
I agree, the shark is not the "bad guy" in this situation and that needs to be kept clear. This is a tragic loss for the family and friends of Mr. Groh, I'm sure we all agree on that point.
I am disappointed, but certainly not surprised, but the media's sensationalist approach. Their job is to sell newspapers or ad time on TV, sometimes at the expense of truth or accuracy, a cynical view but it seems to be supported by the facts in this instance.
However, I'd be interested in hearing some of your views on "shark dives", whether it be chumming, feeding, baiting or any other means of attracting the animals to the scene.
Exciting as these creatures are to watch, I am a fan of natural, random encounters rather than the stage show I consider these dives to be. That's just my view and I know there are others. Before we go any further, no, I have not taken part in a shark dive and so I do not speak from experience, only opinion.
I do feel that the more sharks, or other potentially dangerous creatures, are artifically attracted to us, the greater the chance of an accident such as this. Doesn't mean its necessarily wrong, but all involved need to understand the risks they are taking. I have been fortunate enough to go on a safari in Africa where we got very close to animals such as lions and leopards, but our guides certainly didn't get out of the jeep with handfuls of steak.
Just interested in the general view from the crowd, who's been on one of these dives? Anyone have any direct expertise in the field?

Papa Bear
04-01-2008, 09:34 PM
I realize your newer to this, but we have had that! My contention having done many shark dives and been with hundreds of sharks is they don't know they are being chummed! 400million years has made the apex predator and scavenger of the ocean! But they have very small brains and there is NO evidence they associate man with that activity anymore than the other fish that show up! If it were not the case sharks would show up with just the boat showing up and they don't! We are just bystanders while they do what they do whether it is a kill or a clean up!

Papa Bear
04-01-2008, 09:37 PM
I read this report a while back, couldn't helping asking myself what his leg was doing so close to the crate of bait that it could have been bitten by accident? He'd have to be incredibly close (standing on?!) the crate?

I never said anything about a "Crate of Bait" I suspected a piece of bait may have drifted in the poor viz near his leg and the shark closes his eyes and reacts!

shinek
04-01-2008, 09:43 PM
Yeah, just started reading one of the other threads related to this. Still interested in the views, but I suspect most of them have been very comprehensively put on that one.
I agree sharks don't know they are being chummed, they just know there's food in the water and they "do their thing" if your leg, arm or any other part of you gets too close, don't be surprised if you lose it.
Not saying its right or wrong, you pay your money and you take your choice! I've never tried base jumping either, but I certainly wouldn't tell someone else they can't.
I'll keep reading, there's a lot of stuff here I haven't got to yet.

acelockco
04-01-2008, 09:47 PM
FACT:

Soda Vending Machines KILL more people per year than Sharks!!!

Papa Bear
04-01-2008, 10:51 PM
But ace, where the machines baited with quarters? :confused:

seasnake
04-02-2008, 02:39 PM
I realize your newer to this, but we have had that! My contention having done many shark dives and been with hundreds of sharks is they don't know they are being chummed! 400million years has made the apex predator and scavenger of the ocean! But they have very small brains and there is NO evidence they associate man with that activity anymore than the other fish that show up! If it were not the case sharks would show up with just the boat showing up and they don't! We are just bystanders while they do what they do whether it is a kill or a clean up!

That addresses the idea of whether these staged dives affect their behaviour, but not whether the safety concerns make it conscionable. HOWEVER . . .

Papa I saw in the video you posted you have been to Bimini. You must've done the dives they call "Bull Run" or "Triple 7's"? As soon as a boat pulls up there, the reef sharks start circling. You don't even have to feed them to do a "shark dive" because they are conditioned to think that the boat motor means free food.

Papa Bear
04-02-2008, 03:05 PM
The Sharks know there will be food, but if you remember they are passive until the chum ball hits the water! They don't care that your in the water and don't associate you with the bait! If you read my posts that was my point, you are not the stimulus, just another thing at the feed! I have never said they don't react to stimuli, just that their is not the connection to humans that people fear! You know after the chum is gone you swim around the area for the rest of the dive! The sharks move on!

bottlefish
04-02-2008, 03:13 PM
I never said anything about a "Crate of Bait" I suspected a piece of bait may have drifted in the poor viz near his leg and the shark closes his eyes and reacts!

It's right there in the article Papa, read the quote again...


This was a terrible and tragic accident. However, it was just that – an accident. The shark was biting at a crate of bait, when it accidentally bit Markus Groh on the calf.

Papa Bear
04-02-2008, 03:41 PM
We must read! I posted the article! I gave credit to the writer in the opening by line! I repeat I never mentioned a crate of bait I assumed one may have been around, but I wasn't so I can't speak to its proximity to the diver, or his to it since he was a photographer he may have been very close?!!! I stand behind just what I said, otherwise I wouldn't have said it;)

bottlefish
04-02-2008, 04:13 PM
Papa, forgive me for saying this, but you're not making any sense, and also making this a much bigger deal then it needs to be.

The article you posted at the start of this thread does mention a crate of bait. The article states that the diver was bitten by mistake by a shark as it was biting at the crate of bait. I was simply suggesting that the diver would have had to have been very close to the crate to have been bitten by mistake.

There's no argument there, or accusation, just a suggestion. No need for you to defend anything, so rest easy, please ;)

Papa Bear
04-02-2008, 04:53 PM
I understand and I am not, you were crediting the statement to me, and I didn't make it! Not complicated at all, one has to wonder why you credited it to me? And then brought it up a second time? Believe me I have no problem, just letting you know I didn't make the statement;)

bottlefish
04-02-2008, 06:00 PM
Jeez Papa, where do you get off on being so argumentative all the time?

I did not, at any time, credit you with that statement, I simple quoted the article from the post you made, to clarify the statement I was making.

Do me a favour, stop, twisting my posts, putting words in my mouth and generally being a rude and grumpy bear with a sore head whenever I have anything to say.

Papa Bear
04-02-2008, 06:40 PM
Ditto! Ditto! Ditto! Read your own posts or I can go back and repost them for you? You seem to be the one beating the nail into the board? Why did you even bring the "Crate" up? You did I didn't! Try a little Zen!

Papa Bear
04-02-2008, 06:51 PM
#3 & #12 You posted that it was my quote and it wasn't MINE it was in the article and there is a difference! Please quote the writer of the article not me! That's pretty simple because I didn't write anything about a crate as I stated, but it was the author of the story who related what he was told! Now, as photographers we do get close to get the shot! I have been very close to the bait by my choice, even though you are warned to stay well away from the bait! So I hope this puts an end to you nit picking me for something I never said! Simple and to the point with no malaise just forethought!

bottlefish
04-03-2008, 08:28 AM
Papa, it is the way the forum works. If you press the quote button under a post, it quotes that post. This can assist other people, let them know what it is you are referrring to. The fact is the snippet came from your post, hence I was quoting from your post. There is nothing incorrect about that. If you don't like the way it is written, then ask someone to reprogram the bulletin board code.

In addition, I even stated in my post #3, I had read the same article, and in post #12, stated again, it's right there in the article.

It was clear to everyone else except you that I was referring to the article referenced in your post. If you don't want information referenced to you as the source, then don't post it.

Besides which, who cares? Who actually stated that has got nothing to do with the question I phrased, that question wasn't directed at you, it wasn't an accusation, it was a general question to all.

It is you that has been nit picking, on a point that is not worth bothering about, and, yet again, the whole thread has now been corrupted to a petty squable between you and I, the rest of the forum has diverted their attention elsewhere and left us to it.

Anyway, I've said enough on this now, you've made me defend myself on something that didn't need defending. PLease, feel free to corrupt the thread further if you wish, however I think the damage on this one, as with so many others of late, has been well and truly done.

Papa Bear
04-03-2008, 03:36 PM
You can click on the text between the quote signs and edit text to be more accurate or insert "In the article posted by" it would have clear and easy! No misunderstandings on insinuations, simple and straight forward! We can only judge what your saying by what you post, reading between the lines is not always possible! Given I not sure why you posted those quotes in the first place seeing it wasn't my article and I wasn't there to tell you how close he was to the bait or if the bait pieces drifted close to his leg? So when you post superfluous information one has to wonder to what purpose? If it were not a n exchange forum it would not bother to respond, but feel it is important to address issue of crediting statements to those who made them!

seasnake
04-05-2008, 01:26 AM
I have never said they don't react to stimuli . . .

But ... but before you said:


But they have very small brains and there is NO evidence they associate man with that activity anymore than the other fish that show up! If it were not the case sharks would show up with just the boat showing up and they don't!

My point was they DO show up with just the sound of the boat. So they are being conditioned to that behaviour by the intervention and introduction of stimulus by man.

Papa Bear
04-05-2008, 03:04 AM
Not always and just the more curious, but there still is no association with us! Stand by what I said! I have seen sharks show up just because there was a boat and I have not seen them in the same place the next time, otherwise chum would only be required for a little while not the 20 years they have been doing it!

Conrad
04-05-2008, 06:42 AM
I am sure I, would have something to say. Except after all the back and forth of who said what. I forgot what was said.:)

seasnake
04-05-2008, 06:52 PM
Not always and just the more curious, but there still is no association with us! Stand by what I said! I have seen sharks show up just because there was a boat and I have not seen them in the same place the next time, otherwise chum would only be required for a little while not the 20 years they have been doing it!

Yes, always. That is why some outfits do "shark dives" on those sites without doing "feeding" dives. They can guarantee their customers will see sharks because the sharks are so conditioned they ALWAYS begin circling when the boat arrives. They continue to do so at least until the boat leaves!

You say that you "stand by what you said", which was that if conditioning were the case "sharks would show up with just the boat showing up and they don't!". Then you agree "Not always and just the more curious", and I know that they always do. The case I'm making is that right or wrong, the feeding by humans conditions their behaviour, like it does in other species of animals on both land and sea all over the world. I don't think you can just dogmatically say otherwise when the evidence supports this fact. But I think the real discussion is what are the pros and cons of it? What are the safety concerns and how can they be mitigated? Does it increase the danger and is it to a level that is unacceptable?

Papa Bear
04-05-2008, 07:31 PM
And sometimes they don't show up! A condition based on curiosity of a noise that they may associate with possible food posses no threat to man (Divers) that I can see or has been documented! The mere fact that sharks are in the ocean is not a threat even with a food source in the area. Years of Shark Diving and feeding bares this out! Your just another "Thing" Showing up!

acelockco
04-05-2008, 07:52 PM
But I think the real discussion is what are the pros and cons of it? What are the safety concerns and how can they be mitigated? Does it increase the danger and is it to a level that is unacceptable?

I agree with you, that is the real question.

As far as the sharks are concerned, it is probably a REALLY good thing for so many reasons. The biggest reason in my opinion is that these feeding dives raise awareness of sharks as something other than a danger to us and bring travelers to see them which stimulates the local economy for much longer than shark finning can. In those areas they have more value alive than they do dead.

bottlefish
04-06-2008, 12:35 PM
I agree with you, that is the real question.

As far as the sharks are concerned, it is probably a REALLY good thing for so many reasons. The biggest reason in my opinion is that these feeding dives raise awareness of sharks as something other than a danger to us and bring travelers to see them which stimulates the local economy for much longer than shark finning can. In those areas they have more value alive than they do dead.
The benefits of diving with sharks (wether with or withouth shark feeds), in terms of tourism, longevity and sustainability, are IMHO undeniable, especially when compared with shark fishing or finnning.

However I do have a question on this (and before any hot heads start spouting, it is a question, I'd be very interested to know what people feel).

Tourism etc will potentially bring in extra money to the local economy, but does this extra money reach the right pockets?

The initial operations are generally set up by foreigners with the investment potential and the know how, one would hope that they employ local help and also that the local economy is stimulated and has an overall benefit. So all being as we'd hope, no prob there.

But what about the fishermen, i.e. people who would otherwise potentially be involved in shark finning or fishing. Are they encouraged/helped to move across, is there enough work to provide for them too? If they are and there is, then this would have obvious benefits for the fight against shark finning, however a recent event in South Africa started making me think about it there.

Aliwal Shoals in South Africa has a thriving shark dive industry, reknown, in the UK at least, as one of the best spots in the world - you can get to see black tips, raggy tooths, coppers, duskies, bulls, tigers, as well as regular whale and dolphin sitings. This brings in loads of tourists and loads of money (quick plug, a good friend of mine, Craig, runs excellent tours around there, including an anual to participate in the sardine run, and also shark feeds if that's your thing. PM me if you're interested).

Despite this, a fishermen went out and caught 3 tiger sharks in February, landed them in broad day light and sold them. His reason, apparently he was up against the wall, fish stocks were low and he couldn't find another way to feed his familly, he received no direct benefot from the shark diving industry - fishing for the sharks, known regulars to the area, was an easy and obvious option to him with a good rate of return.

acelockco
04-06-2008, 03:29 PM
Unfortunately that is what happens when a species (humans) overpopulate. We are using up all of our natural resources at an alarming rate. I feel bad for the poor fisherman, but in reality they are the ones that have fished the ocean clean. There have been many rules set into place to help protect these animals, but the fishermen don't follow the rules and do what they want anyway, then they wonder why there are no fish left.

I know it is harsh, but remember we are not the ones going extinct.....well not yet that is.

seasnake
04-07-2008, 03:39 PM
And sometimes they don't show up!


. . . . . . . . wow . . . . :eek:

Papa Bear
04-07-2008, 05:35 PM
As with most things in life there is an associated risk! We need to stop and think and then be free to decide for ourselves if that risk is worth it! No one, and I mean no one should be made to go on a shark dive! ;) The benefit is to the local economy for sure, but the bigger benefit is to the understanding of the fish and that fish as a sustainable resource! Many third world counties never thought of their reef systems that way until the dive industry moved in and showed the local government that it was better to bring tourist dollars into the country than fish the reef out and see it's destruction! Risk assessment in life is front line for man to expand his world and has always been their even when the Vikings set sail for the new world! I am glade all explorers understand this concept!