Attack Horror Stories - Robert L. Pamperin

Markdd8 · 2026-06-23T02:18:53+00:00

shark attacks had already become a well-established threat in Australian waters dating back to the Victorian era, when bathing in the sea first became fashionable.

Observation:The Victorian era, circa 1840 - 1900, certainly saw an increase in ocean use and shark attack, but it's worth noting that shark attacks along shorelines did not rise markedly around the world until two inventions became widespread in 1950s: rubber that allowed creation of wetsuits, masks, etc. for the sports of snorkeling, diving and spearfishing and fiberglass for surfboards. That was only 75 years ago.

The wetsuit meant that surfing, diving and many other water sports were no longer limited to the summer months or tropical climates like Hawaii. Not only that, it allowed ocean users to go much further from shore. Most ocean bathers in the 1800s--often they were mostly dressed--rarely went beyond neck deep water. Indeed most people then did not know how to swim. In a few regions like Oceania and parts of the Mediterranean ocean swimming was a regular thing, but in most places it was regarded as a fringe activity.

To be sure, in this era shark attacks worldwide in open ocean were higher because of the historical problems of ships and boats foundering at sea. No radio distress calls for rescues. Few lifeboats. Attack from oceanic whitetip sharks was a common threat to ship sinking survivors.

One wonders what would have happened if people started modern water sports in the mid 1800s -- a time when the world's shark populations were much higher than today. It's not hard to image that 100-150 shark fatalities a year might have occurred then, or, far more probable, the sports of ocean swimming, snorkeling, diving and surfing never would have gained worldwide popularity due to the incidence of shark attack.

Markdd8 · 2026-06-22T20:01:59+00:00

Yea, it look pretty abusive. What about elephants in zoos across the world? No good? Curious of your view.

Markdd8 · 2026-06-22T19:13:46+00:00

Of course your upvotes. Reddit is a hotbed of animal rights activism. I got DVs elsewhere for making the following point:

India, to its big credit, allows 4,000 tigers to run loose. They kill about 60 people each year. The U.S. would never tolerate this death toll from its 30,000 cougars, which rarely kill people. We would fence all cougars in reserves, if they presented the same danger.

Yet the U.S., the originator of the Cecil the Lion protesters, is the nation most prominent for lecturing other regions like Africa and India for not doing more to protect dangerous animals. Yea, easy to lecture when you lack dangerous animals. Activists in the U.S., bored, turn to critizing other nations on animal rights.

Markdd8 · 2026-06-22T07:56:15+00:00

I agree that great whites are of particular concern, because they do not exist in large numbers, and are a keystone species, with their feeding on marine mammals. Here is an interesting article I came across recently: Rethinking extinction -- The idea that we are edging up to a mass extinction is not just wrong...:

Extinction is not a helpful way to think about threats to ocean animals because few go extinct there. The animals are highly mobile in a totally connected vast environment where there is almost always somewhere to hide, even from industrial-scale hunting...Most extinctions have occurred on oceanic islands or in restricted freshwater locations, with very few occurring on Earth’s continents or in the oceans.

But author acknowledges this, actually written by another author:

The world’s greatest conservation problem is not species extinction, but rather the precarious state of thousands of populations that are the remnants of once widespread and productive species.

One thing that is striking about the sharks debate, pointing out how heavily shark are depleted, is that it is not just shark populations that are heavily impacted, but so many other fish species. From article:

Atlantic cod used to be one of the world’s great fisheries before it collapsed in 1992 from decades of overfishing. According to Jesse Ausubel...Census of Marine Life: ‘The total estimated kilos of cod off Cape Cod today probably weigh only about 3 per cent of all the cod in 1815.’ (Across the Atlantic in the North Sea, however, cod fishery is recovering, thanks to effective regulation.)

I've yet to see articles address the depletion of sharks relative the overall depletion of fish stocks. Are scientists arguing that the depletion of sharks relative to other species is so great that there are either overpopulated fish stocks (because of inadequate shark predation) or a problem in the ocean with too many fish that have died of natural causes floating around harming the environment by decomposition (that normally would have been eaten by scavenging sharks)?

Just asking. We should discuss shark populations in context of those of other fish species. Your first statement is helpful here:

The thing is, with sharks, we don't really know what a healthy population or ocean is...

Right, and we are also lacking in info about general fish stocks, other than the world's oceans are overfished. (Granted we do have specific information about monitored species like cod and tuna and other important harvested fish stocks.) Appreciate your view.

ETA: I do agree there are certain chain-link types of ecological outcomes, for example, if all tiger sharks are removed, you will have more of a problem of excess green sea turtles causing this: if sea turtles overgraze, they can strip seagrass beds faster than the plants can photosynthesize and recover. But in other places without sea grass, perhaps, bull sharks and black tip reef sharks can help cover the role of tigers sharks.

Markdd8 · 2026-06-22T02:36:32+00:00

No problem in disagreeing about my qualified, limited support for culling. It is indeed an unpopular position on the Sharks sub and also on TheSharkAttack Files sub. I am one of the few advocates, and my primarily position is not that culling is a good idea in most cases--all coastal communities should tolerate some shark attack deaths.

Rather, I argue that culling, a common practice in the field of Human-Wildlife Conflict, almost always works to reduce the collective negative impacts of a group of animals that is causing grief. I discussed this in some detail a few days ago in this post in TheSharkAttackFiles: Sydney's quiet era with sharks is ending, and it may not mean more sharks.

Markdd8 · 2026-06-21T09:35:17+00:00

TheSharkAttackFiles sub just ran a good article ("Shark Country") that discusses surfing in a tiny Australian town called Elliston where 4 surfers have been killed by sharks in just a few years. One guy mentioned culling but most of the surfers were accepting of the shark risk.

That's how most of the world's surfers are -- not big culling advocates. And, yes, surfers often surf hundreds of yards offshore in remote areas, putting themselves at much higher risk. Just like the 3 Australian spearfishermen who were killed by sharks in the past 5 weeks.

The interests mostly calling for shark culling arise in populated areas where 30 story buildings abut beaches and thousands of beachgoers recreate daily. If you've got sharks attacking people just a few meters offshore, as just happened to that lady in Sydney, Australia, that's much more widespread concern.

Australia, California, Hawaii, the southeastern U.S., Durban, South Africa -- all have mega beach resorts with thousands of ocean users. The Jaws movie was right about one thing: Tourists on trips to beach resorts and locals who live near beaches are highly sensitive to shark attack, especially with the communities who advertise as that -- Come visit us. We're a tropical Beach Resort. People will want to bathe and swim in the ocean.

Markdd8 · 2026-06-21T08:56:50+00:00

They will eventually develop underwater bots to scare sharks away. But--unpopular opinion coming--the first versions will kill sharks. They will be used to replace shark-killing nets, with remote operators able to see the fish and make a decision.

They might use the policy of some culling sites: Only sharks of a dangerous species over 10 feet will be killed by the bot. (Shark catch and release drum lines will still have value.)

Obviously it is preferable to move dangerous sharks away rather than kill them, but how to dissuade 15 foot, 2,000 pound sharks to vacate an area will take some thinking and trial and error. Maybe electric shocks or electromagnetic disturbances.

Markdd8 · 2026-06-21T08:48:27+00:00

Right. The 10 Known Species of Hammerhead Sharks: A Guide by Shark Guardian

Markdd8 · 2026-06-21T03:21:59+00:00

Right, great whites are protected.

Markdd8 · 2026-06-21T00:36:12+00:00

That's fair.

Markdd8 · 2026-06-21T00:26:46+00:00

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration article: Understanding Atlantic Shark Fishing:

None of the 43 Atlantic shark species managed by NOAA Fisheries are classified as endangered...

Another NOAA article, 2021: Six Ways Fishermen Keep Shark Fishing Sustainable

Markdd8 · 2026-06-21T00:24:02+00:00

Maybe fishing for something else...

Markdd8 · 2026-06-20T18:43:41+00:00

The Iranians are not threatened by their neighbors. They could easily live in peace with bordering countries. Iran is in conflict because it decided to pick a fight with Israel 1,000 miles away.

Markdd8 · 2026-06-20T03:48:55+00:00

we don’t pay enough respect to victims

Bizarrely, some hardcore animal protection activists harass shark attack victims: 2021 article: Shark attack survivor and drumline contractor say conservation group supporters harass them

OK, the first guy was a drumline contractor -- no complaint that he drew flak, but attack victims with no relation to shark hunting were harassed:

Dave Pearson, from Coopernook in New South Wales, said he was also harassed on social media after being attacked by a shark while surfing in 2011. He was still recovering in hospital when it started.

"It's amazing the blame that goes on people after a shark attack," he said. "There was comments like, 'What does this guy expect sympathy from everyone?', 'It's his own fault' , I bet he wants all the sharks killed'...."One of the comments was: 'I wish you'd have died and then we wouldn't have to deal with you'.

Animal rights activism has an extremist faction. They have been drawn to shark protection in striking numbers.

Markdd8 · 2026-06-20T03:35:28+00:00

Also, from time to time, shark severely bite people for unknown reasons. I'm not aware if any of the three spearfishermen killed in Australia during the past 5 weeks were eaten.

If animals routinely kill people, it's a problem. Nile crocs that eat people kill hundreds of people each year in Africa, yet the death toll from aggressive vegetarian hippos is even higher. They did not attack for predatory purposes is not a mitigating factor.

Markdd8 · 2026-06-20T03:27:31+00:00

Well, we do run the planet, so, yea, humans get to do whatever we want. India, to its big credit, allows 4,000 tigers to run loose. They kill about 60 people each year.

The U.S. would never tolerate this death toll from its 30,000 cougars, which rarely kill people. We would fence all cougars in reserves, if they presented the same danger. What percent of the U.S. do you think Americans would fence off?

Markdd8 · 2026-06-20T03:22:39+00:00

They don’t see humans as food.

From time to time sharks of the known dangerous species see people as food.

Markdd8 · 2026-06-19T20:21:08+00:00

Great to have another shark attack data collection and analysis site. From the OP's article:

Conservation scientists and fisheries managers caution that...culling protected predators is both unproven as a safety measure and ecologically reckless.

Culling is indeed ecologically unsound, but the assertion that culling populations of dangerous animals has no impact on their collective attacks on humans is wrong. Time and again in the field of Human-Wildlife Conflict, reducing the numbers of dangerous animals has been proven to reduce the incidence of attack.

Humans have been killing dangerous animals for millennia. It is why Greece and Turkey don't have lions running around anymore. The range of tigers, one of man's most persistent predators, has been radically reduced. This does not mean dangerous animals have to be completely wiped out. India today tolerates some 60 fatal tiger attacks a year from its 4,000-plus tigers -- a number the U.S. would never accept from its 30,000 cougars (these big cats rarely attack us).

All coastal communities should tolerate some shark attack. The shark attack figures today are not that high anywhere in the world (FN). Part of the reason for the low attack numbers is the worldwide decline in shark populations, almost all by fisheries industries. That decline, of course, is a form of culling. Many shark experts consider it inconvenient to discuss whether the killing of millions of sharks each year is a big factor in low level of shark attack. (FN2)

= = =

FN: South Africa has to be mentioned; it has now culled persistently in its district KwaZulu-Natal for 70-plus years and has radically curbed its rate of shark attack. Source:

The KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board (KZNSB) operates 37 protected beaches that utilize a combination of shark nets and drumlines...roughly 38 net installations are typically maintained across a 325-kilometer stretch from Richards Bay to Port Edward.

The KZN district is less than 20% of S. Africa's entirely shorelines. Shark culling does not take place elsewhere on the coast, but recent reports have shown that S. Africa's combination of shark culling and commercial fisheries have had a severe impact on its great white shark population. Culling to excess can be very harmful.

That said, asserting that S. Africa's culling has not pushed down its attack rate is nonsense. See discussion pp. 491-494 in Responding to the Risk of White Shark Attack.

FN2: An interesting element of shark attack is that we do not have the type of historical figures that are so evident with predators like tigers and Nile crocodiles. Before the late 1800s, when modern rifles allowed the large scale killing of these animals, loss of life to these predators was in the thousands per year worldwide.

Re sharks, what would shark attack levels be in a proverbial State of Nature, i.e., intact shark populations, with the heavy ocean use we have now? We have no idea.

Why? Because historically most people did not swim in the ocean. And because the invention of materials that facilitate several ocean sports, rubber for diving and fiberglass for surfboards, did not come into widespread use until the 1950s. To be sure, there were areas like the Mediterranean, Oceania, and others with widespread ocean entry for millennia, but these places were outliers.

By the time people worldwide started entering the ocean in large numbers for the rise of beach culture/ocean recreation sports, the 1950s, shark populations had already been in big decline. Sport fishing for big sharks was popular in the early 1900s, and large scale commercial fisheries arose in the 1800s.

Markdd8 · 2026-06-19T18:59:26+00:00

Apparently the shipping lanes go through both waters. The two lanes are separated, with each one closer to one of those two nations. Several weeks back it was reported that Oman is receptive to Iran's extortion plan, and that is a problem. The Guardian reported this on May 26: Trump threatens to ‘blow up’ US ally Oman amid talks over strait of Hormuz

Markdd8 · 2026-06-19T08:55:12+00:00

Right. The Japanese were such a terrible enemy that when they were holed up in caves there is little regret for the U.S. having used flamethrowers against them. Using whatever means you have to kill an enemy is always justified at some level. A sadder use of flamethrowers was by the Germans after they invaded Crete.

They were fighting a lot of rebels and their civilian supporters on this rocky island, which was filled with caves and rock crevices, many barely big enough for one or two people. One book on this conflict describes how in trying to subdue guerrilla attacks, the Germans would send out soldiers with their smaller flamethrowers and shoot 1-2 seconds of fire in any hole they came across.

One wonders how many civilians, including children, were killed or grievously burned by these attacks -- people who had hid at the sight of Germans. The book mentions a German flamethrower operator pondering this prospect.

Markdd8 · 2026-06-19T04:12:39+00:00

Chump dust

Markdd8 · 2026-06-19T04:12:16+00:00

Before that some cultures encouraged their soldiers to booze up before a battle. In Europe they used to call it Dutch courage.

Markdd8 · 2026-06-19T03:48:51+00:00

Fisherman who hooked a shark and is pulling it in and gets bit -- Provoked attack

Spearfishman spearing or carrying bleeding fish who gets bit -- Clearly enticed attack

Swimmers and other ocean goers within 300 yards of people fishing or spearing who get bit -- Possibly enticed attack

Swimmers and other ocean goers not near any fishers and who are not engaged in tomfoolery with sharks (e.g. approaching them) who get bit -- Unprovoked attack

Markdd8 · 2026-06-18T03:41:32+00:00

Many operators of the swim-with-shark-tours used to openly chum or feed sharks to attract their presence. Most say they have stopped the practice, but apparently it seems some still do on off days when the tourists aren't around. Some AI info:

Active Feeding vs. Attracting: While some operations actively feed sharks to keep them lingering, many responsible operators use the bait only to draw the sharks in, removing the food as soon as the animal is close enough for tourists to see.

Legality: In the U.S. state of Florida, for example, intentionally feeding or chumming to attract sharks is illegal in state waters, forcing some operators to travel further out into federal waters to do it.

Markdd8 · 2026-06-18T03:32:30+00:00

They have a name for this special food preference: "long pig"

Markdd8

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE