It seems many of them have been fatal. Very sad. Great waves but scary.
http://www.surfline.com/surf-news/26...island_145525/
Printable View
It seems many of them have been fatal. Very sad. Great waves but scary.
http://www.surfline.com/surf-news/26...island_145525/
I saw this and that Kelly said there needs to be a shark cull. I guess there are tons of bull sharks there?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ull-on-reunion
that's lame as shit from Kelly.
Yeah. Fuck him. Kill off some wild life so an elite few can enjoy some waves without concern for being bitten. Go surf some other awesome wave. Besides, if we cull them, that lowers the chance of kingdung gettin eatin. Isn't he yawning himself somewhere out there these days?
It is pretty scary, but culling is the wrong thing to do. I wonder if there is something specifically about Reunion which causes this. 20 attacks since 2011 is not actually THAT many when you consider how many people use the water. It is a lot when you consider how small the coastline is, but your odds are still really good.
My last trip to Macaronis, one of the guests caught the same flight and he was from Reunion. He told me he totally quit surfing at home about three years prior due to the high incident rate. I forget what he said they attributed the attacks to.
Sharks like fresh meat.Quote:
Originally Posted by robnow
Feeding zone!
It should just be considered "Extreme" just like the avi ratings.
Reunion is permanently posted "High" and frequently "Extreme" throughout the mornings and evenings?
Another attack:
http://www.surfline.com/surf-news/bo...island_147041/
RIP.
Interesting perspective.
http://www.theinertia.com/environmen...lly-justified/
I would like to see more depth in his numbers. It would be nice to know surf days per year in California vs. Reunion to get a handle in if his numbers are accurate. If what he is saying is true than things are much scarier than I thought. I have always assumed Reunion had a large population of surfers per capita, it is known for localism. The article talk about number of surfers, not a great measure because it does not define how often one has to be in the water to be a surfer, when what we really need is number of total days spent in the ocean. Scary stuff regardless.
Actually, measuring in hours in water makes more sense than days in water. I tend to surf in a sharks zone, but my hours are limited by life, work and cold. A pro visiting Reunion might spend 8 hours in the water per day. I usually surf for an hour and a half. My session on Saturday was forty minutes.
probably just me as a non-surfer but that article is convincing about some statistics not being relevant in shark attack hotspots, but accusing people and institutions of being disrespectful to victims for propagating inaccurate information seems a little whiny. if you life in a zone with a lot of shark attacks, maybe you should stay out of the water. it's not the sharks fault you're in his space and look like food. i don't have to "side with the shark" to think it's idiotic to surf where there have been 9 fatal attacks and several maimings in a short period.
Certainly hours is better, it is just a question of how far we want to go. My academic and professional background is in statistics and actuarial mathematics and hours is certainly superior, but hard to get. It is probably easier to get information on how many times a year someone surfs than how many hours they spend, although for some that is not that bad. My sessions are about 2 hours usually, I don't get quick ones in. I'm just saying that telling me there are 3.1 million surfers does nothing because it does not define what a surfer actually is. Surfer days is much better, and certainly surfer hours is much better than that. I just think there are diminishing returns after a certain level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottime
The vast majority of people are not spending 8 hours a day in the water, if they are they should be seriously pumped. I would say that for most people a 'surf day' is about 2 hours. If we could break it down into hours that would be even better, but I think days would probably be enough to get at the information we are searching for. I think it is a small percentage of surf days that are really more than about 3 hours. But here is the thing to think about: How is this distributed on Reunion? Like you said, a visiting pro might surf for 8 hours, and someone on a surf trip might surf for 5 hours. I know on my surf trips I typically surf for about 5 or 6 hours if surfing is the purpose of the trip. What percentage of the people in the water on Reunion are either on surf trips or are pros on surf trips? I don't know. In Newport I think it would be pretty safe to say that the vast majority of people out there are not on surf trips. On Reunion it might be different. Of course, with all the press are people really taking surf trips to Reunion anymore? I wouldn't. It takes a very long time to get there, and there are other places with great waves that are not so sharky. Mauritius has insane waves and is not too far away, yet you never hear about shark attacks there. I would not bother with a surf trip to Reunion. Do the pros still go there? It has been a long time since I saw a video part from there. While shark attack is always a tiny risk, something seems to be going on at Reunion. It is a tiny island and they have a staggering number of attacks. I am just wondering how much time is being spent in the water there. The author is not really giving me enough information to truly make an evaluation. He might be correct in extrapolating that there would be thousands of attacks a year in socal, or he could be off. Without thoroughly explaining his methodology I can't make a decision. Having a background in statistics is truly frustrating, people butcher it all the time. News networks make me rip my eyes out all the time, they say things an undergrad stats major could refute. One network in particular makes me absolutely crazy. No points in figuring out which one that is, I might post it in the political forum but not here.
Anyway, I wish the guy would go into better details, as this does intrigue me. Even if he is not doing good analysis it is still pretty clear that Reunion is scary. It is possible that something is going on. Recife had some changes which resulted in a spate of attacks. Maybe something similar is going on with Reunion. I don't know of any building of docks or anything like that, but something might have changed. Reunion has always been sharky, it just seems to have gotten much worse.
Is St. Leu still crowded? It looks like a sick place to get with only a few people in the water, as long as you don't get chomped. If you are brave enough to get in the water there you might get sick waves without many people out.
Here is some info on Recife:
http://www.businessinsider.com/no-on...attacks-2015-6
Just read the article. Holy shit it reads like it was written by a butthurt high school freshmen. How do people get this stuff published. I think you learn in 8th grade to not begin your conclusion with "To conclude...". And his article just ends. No conclusion. But I guess he did bring it to an end, so he did conclude. Whatever. So they have a shark problem. Stay out of the water. Simple.
I agree that it has a very whiny tone to it. My English teacher wife would give it no more than a C as a persuasion essay.
We should remember that English is not the native language on Reunion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottime
I understand that it would be frustrating to not be able to use the ocean without fear. But the ocean is not our amusement park. Years ago when the toll road issue was going on with Trestles I remember seeing some simple minded idiot interviewed. He said something like "what is the point of having beautiful beaches if you can't use them because of traffic." What is amazing is this assumption that the purpose of these beaches is to amuse humans. Trestles is one of the few remaining coastal wetlands in socal, and preserving that wetland is more important than alleviating traffic. This guy has the same tone, this idea that the ocean needs to be made pleasant for humans.
He is correct in stating that Reunion does seem to have a much more serious problem than even other sharky spots, but that does not justify the killing. And like I said before, I question his statistical methodology.
Then I blame the editor.
Good persuasion essay writing does not change from language to language. Just the words. I'll cut him some slack, but it hurt my brain to read through that piece.
That aside, it is still a whiny piece about how others' opinions are not valid. He sure sounds like an American.
It must suck to be in a tropical paradise with excellent surf but live in fear of the ocean. But it is the fucking ocean, and one should have a healthy fear of it.