Reports of Third Shark Attack in Russia

Another shark attack reported in Russia’s Far East

VLADIVOSTOK, August 27 (RIA Novosti)

Rescuers in Russia’s Far Eastern region of Primorye are checking a report of another shark attack a day after the swimming ban was lifted, a spokesman for the region’s rescue service said on Saturday.

“We received information that a man was attacked by a shark near the town of Slavyanka. The report is currently being verified,” the spokesman said.

He added that only doctors could establish whether the man, who had been injured in the leg and other body parts, was indeed attacked by a shark.

This incident, if confirmed, will be the third attack of a shark recorded in Far East in less than two weeks. One of the victims, a 16-year-old boy suffered leg injuries, while the other, a 25-year-old man, lost both his hands.

Source: RIA Novosti

 

 

Bookmark and Share

31 Comments

  1. avatar Jack Trevally

    As there have been no recorded attacks in the area prior to the ones in the past couple of weeks, it seems logical that there must be increased shark activity in the area. Climate change has altered ecosystems and habitats for other animals, and sharks are probably affected by warming trends as well. Rather than hunt down the “rogue” shark(s) responsible, authorities in the area would be better off educating citizens of the threat, and encouraging them to avoid situations where risk of shark contact would be elevated. It is important to remember that when you enter the ocean, you enter the food chain. Of course, loss of human life is a tragedy, but it is a risk that can be avoided by simply by staying out of the water.

  2. avatar Lana

    Where would they get the attack educational information from? The main source of shark attack information in the US talks more about bees, lighting, car accidents than sharks. Sure more people might die from bee stings rather than sharks, but not while they are in the water. Not all people are as stupid as those in the US.

    • avatar Jack Trevally

      The source I am referring to is the International Shark Attack File, which, yes is curated by Americans in Florida. But the ISAF is international in scope, as much as possible for a single institution to be. Because shark attacks occur all over the globe, anywhere there is a water habitat suitable for sharks, the ISAF must, by default, compile attacks reported to it or to government records. It is not just American attacks in the database.

      Second point is that the ISAF is handled professionally and with discretion for the people involved in all shark bite incidents. There are sources out there (other SAF’s) that print names and other personal information and allow public access to such info. ISAF does not. If you want ghoulish details, keep looking, you have a computer, right?

      Third point is that there are untold millions, even billions of water entries each year. Some people work in the sea, some play. The fact that in 2010 only 79 unprovoked shark attacks occurred with only 6 fatalities proves that sharks aren’t as dangerous as the media would have you believe. Even if that number was off by a factor of 10, it still would be relatively safe to swim in the ocean. Cold comfort if you are eaten by a shark, I know, but the RISK of having this happen is very, very low indeed. I wouldn’t wish a shark attack on anybody, and it is a terrifying thought when in the ocean, but it doesn’t stop me from swimming in the sea. Driving to the beach is riskier, and I still do that too!

      • avatar Lana

        Well we were both referring to the same source and that’s why I wondered where they would get the information. The ISAF only reports on people who were properly killed or attacked and those in the US are stupid enough to believe it. To most of the world either you were attacked or killed by a shark or you were not. The ISAF tries to tell us that someone totally consumed by sharks was not properly killed. Those persons killed by a shark while in a kayak or boat weren’t properly killed. If you get in a boating accident and are attacked or killed while floating in the water it is not a proper attack. Markus Groth was on a shark diving trip with the boats crew throwing chum in the water. He was killed by a shark, but not properly.
        These stupid sharks need to learn how to properly attack and kill people and we will have to wait until next February to find out if these people were properly bitten or not.

        • avatar Jack Trevally

          Are you referring to provoked vs. unprovoked? If somebody is in a baited situation like Groth was, then sharks are being provoked to eat. Groth was bitten and died from his wounds. But he was in a situation where sharks were drawn in and fed.

          Boat attacks are a different story. Sharks are attracted to floating objects, boats included. If a boat is attacked, but people are not injured, it is considered a ‘boat attack’ as only the boat was attacked. It is still different if air/sea disasters are considered. Boats sinking or planes going down in the sea are disasters regardless of whether or not sharks are involved. Moreover, sharks are attracted to the sounds of explosions, commotion (like a sinking ship) and smells, like blood, vomit, urine, and oil, all of which would be commonplace in a large sea disaster. This adds unreasonable bias to the numbers. It isn’t that the crash survivors weren’t attacked, it is that the disaster itself acts as a ‘provocation’.

          If a fisherman catches a shark and gets bitten, it is their own fault (they wouldn’t have been bitten had they not caught the shark). It isn’t counted. Nor is it counted if some bozo pulls a sharks tail, spearfishes (are you just asking for trouble?), hand feeds sharks or other provocative acts such as these. This is all explained on their website if you would bother to read it.

          • avatar Lana

            No not trying to start trouble. Just feel governments trying to protect it’s visitors need to know about ever case. People going in the water should also know about ever case, not just those that are proper. Shark diving operators can say according to the ISAF there has never been a shark attack or shark attack death while on a shark dive. The Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI) pays the ISAF to dictate how a diver can die while diving when a shark is involved. That’s bull.

          • avatar Tidus

            The I.S.A.F. still counts it under “provoked”.

            Quote
            “This is all explained on their website if you would bother to read it.

            p.s. You should rephrase that so it isn’t so insulting.

            Why bother to read it when it doesn’t tell the truth?

      • avatar Tidus

        “Second point is that the ISAF is handled professionally and with discretion for the people involved in all shark bite incidents. There are sources out there (other SAF’s) that print names and other personal information and allow public access to such info. ISAF does not.”

        Unless you buy their books. Then you get the names of the victims.

      • avatar Tidus

        ‘”The fact that in 2010 only 79 unprovoked shark attacks occurred with only 6 fatalities ” I have 11 fatalities for 2010, not counting sea disasters. The point is, the I.S.A.F.’s stat’s are not correct.

        • avatar Jack Trevally

          First of all, I never said, nor did I imply that the stats are 100% correct. But at least an attempt is being made to gather and analyze the information.

          Second, you claim you have 11 fatalities. What is your source? Please share the source.

          Third, I am sure that not all attacks are reported

          Fourth, there may have been 11 fatalities, but do they fit the criteria of an attack or were they provoked somehow or was the body scavenged? it is a very different story.

          • avatar Tidus

            I have multiple sources. Shark Attack Survivors and Shark Attack Monitor, just to name 2. Others are via private email. As far as scavanged only 2 were listed as “possible” drowning, no proof. But none the less, a shark attacked a human body. Still an attack. Fair & honest statistics will list all attacks. They will list each one and classify it as, unprovoked, provoked, scavange, sea-disaster, etc.

            To refuse to list any of these is not reporting accurate statistics.

        • avatar Jack Trevally

          Dive boats feeding sharks should definitely be counted as provoked attacks. But again I ask you, do you have a solution to the problem, or are you just complaining.

          I for one want to know as much about sharks and shark attacks as possible. That way, when I do go for a swim or a dive in the ocean, I am at least aware of the risks. I read all the SAFs not just the ISAF and although there are differences, they basically concur.

          As far as sharks sense of taste goes, I don’t think that anyone actually knows what sharks perceive when they eat something. I agree with you in that this is preposterous. But with what little information we actually have, a general picture of shark attack is painted by the stats. Some people are actually consumed. Most are not. Most shark attacks are bite and release. And most people who are attacked DO survive. It is cold comfort to anyone actually being attacked by a shark, but stats don’t prevent attacks unless they keep you out of the water entirely.

          Richard Snead’s case was and still is highly controversial. The medical examiner reversed their findings, twice. First they said shark attack, then they said drowning, then they said shark attack again. That was in 2009. See the Shark Attack Survivors website for more info. It is very possible for a shark to cause a drowning, as it is possible for a drowning victim to be eaten by sharks, post mortem. Snead’s body was badly decomposed at the time of examination, so even forensic experts had trouble. The final ruling, was however, shark attack.

    • avatar Jack Trevally

      Furthermore you miss the point. Rather than attacking the ISAF, perhaps you should read what I said in my first comment. Stay out of the water. If you enter the water you enter the food chain. If you can’t handle that fact, and are afraid of sharks, don’t go swimming in the ocean!

      If you still want to get in the sea, perhaps you should try scuba. Statistically it is much safer than surface swimming, when it comes to shark attacks. Very few divers get bitten, much less killed by sharks.

      Sharks are not safe and cuddly like kittens, but they are not monsters to be destroyed either. The oceans need sharks. Without them, trophic collapse occurs. In other words the food chain collapses and the ocean dies. At the rate that sharks are being killed, you won’t have long to worry about shark attack. Then you can enjoy a nice fetid swim through a nearly lifeless sea. Watch out for jellyfish in there. It’s about all you’ll have left!

    • avatar Jack Trevally

      Lana, where did you hear that PADI pays ISAF to dictate how a diving death is recorded? It is absurd, if you think about it. Dive organizations are in general, opposed to the feeding of sharks. Are sharks fed off the Russian coast? Did these attacks occur due to close proximity to a shark dive feeding site? If so, then that is irresponsible diving, otherwise the attacks had another cause.

      • avatar Lana

        Who pays for the diver stats at the ISAF? PADI. Who dropped their “hunting and collecting” specialty course? PADI. Then who adjusted the ISAF diver stats to only list those that were following PADI’s Recreational Sport Diving practices? Burgess/ISAF.

        When the US Navy funded the ISAF sailors, hard hat divers, spear-fishers, abalone divers, navy divers were all included.

        PADI funds the ISAF they all go away with the signature on a check.

        The scary part is now PADI and the Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation fund the ISAF. In a few years no-one will be bitten properly.

        • avatar Jack Trevally

          I’ve tried now for 2 days to substantiate what you have said. Guy Harvey and PADI both grant money to ISAF, it is true. They also give grants to dozens of scientists who work on trying to understand sharks, thereby making ocean entry safer. Although it may appear to you that the numbers are fudged or finagled, I can find no evidence of such a conspiracy. And I tell you, there are plenty of conspiracies to go around. Have you ever considered that the ISAF, PADI and GHOF could all be conspiring to tell the TRUTH? Not counting the stupid lone fisherman who bare handed tries to remove a hook from a sharks mouth only makes sense. It isn’t a shark attack. Nor is it an ‘attack’ if some idiot pulls on a sharks tail. It doesn’t count, because it isn’t UNPROVOKED.

          There is always the GSAF or Global Shark Attack File, should the ISAF prove to be too politically incorrect for you. They update their publicly available database with every verified attack. Then there is the Shark Attack Survivors site that even publishes shark sightings!

        • avatar Tidus

          “When the US Navy funded the ISAF sailors, hard hat divers, spear-fishers, abalone divers, navy divers were all included”

          This is so true.

          • avatar Jack Trevally

            I quote from Killers of the Seas, by Edward R. Ricciuti, 1973: “The nearest approach to a central shark attack information file was made by the Shark Research Panel of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. The panel expired in 1970 when it was no longer funded by the Office of Naval Research. Formed in 1958 The Shark Research Panel brought together the world’s leading authorities on sharks in an attempt to coordinate various shark research programs. The panel conducted a lengthy analysis of shark attacks on a world wide basis and enabled experts in the field to pool their information, and in some cases, their resources. By the time it’s funding was cut off, the panel appeared to be making major contributions to its field of endevor .
            The panel was only three years old when, in the journal Science, a team of panel members published a significant analysis of 790 shark attacks from the year 1580 to December 31 1960. The researchers concluded that of the total, 599 attacks were provoked, 42 were provoked, and 30 followed air or sea disasters.”

            Of course there have been more than 30 air/sea disaster attacks, but attacks during wartime are obviously different as that is man vs. man as well as shark vs. man. The sharks would not have even entered the picture had the ship not been deliberately sunk.

            Anyway, the data are the same.

          • avatar Jack Trevally

            Sorry, that was supposed to read 599 unprovoked. The point is that even then, in the dark ages, provocation was an issue, as it should be.

          • avatar Jack Trevally

            The USS Indianapolis was a wartime tragedy, first and foremost. If you don’t believe me look at the museum website. Sharks ate a lot of victims of the sunk ship. But the ship had been torpedoed twice in an effort to kill the men aboard and destroy the ship as well. Had this been a land vehicle, the results desired by the Japanese soldiers would have been the same, to kill US soldiers. Don’t forget that the USS Indianapolis had carried parts for the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. You can include these shark attacks if you so choose, but what if the ship hadn’t been sunk. No shark attacks would have occurred. Wartime events, thus, should be and are excluded from the stats as they are an unnatural wartime event.

          • avatar Jack Trevally

            The attacks last December at Sharm el Sheikh Egypt should be counted as provoked as dead sheep had been dumped near the swimming site. It should also be noted that the gently sloping beach drops off precipitously into deep ocean. The sharks ‘responsible’ were caught: a shortfin mako and an oceanic whitetip, both dangerous pelagic species rarely found inshore. Neither shark contained human remains from the reports that I have read. Dive boats were also blamed inciting further controversy..

      • avatar Lana

        Provoked or un provoked bear attacks do not exist, the same for lighting, car accidents, dog attacks. Either you died or didn’t die you were bitten or not bitten. If you want other governments to protect sharks then get rid of all the bull provoked – un provoked. Very few countries/ people can comprehend someone dying in the mouth of a shark, but the shark didn’t eat them properly, only in the US can they get away with this stuff. As far as telling people to stay out of the water that is up to the tourism industry. Like that is going to fly . There is no conspiracy it is described plainly that the ISAF only counts/reports on a portion of the actual attacks so why would someone with a brain think what the ISAF says covers all attacks when they don’t. It is the people trying to be so called experts that say that.. It is simple for those who think the ISAF statistics include all known attacks are fools. Leaders of other governments are not fools. The shark diving industry dusted the ISAF as a source of shark attacks when they found out exactly how the ISAF works, Funding, funding, funding.

  3. avatar Ralph

    No that is the Shark Research Committee where we record shark sitings. You may think this is stupid, but the amount of valuable information collected on a sharks activities prior that day, week, month when a attack takes places is what your friend at the ISAF wishes he could have. The ISAF is a joke…

  4. avatar Jack Trevally

    I guess you guys think I work for the ISAF, but I don’t. If the ISAF sucks so bad, what is the solution?

  5. avatar Juna

    @Jack: I do understand what you mean to say and I´m conform with your statements.

    @Lana: Of course there are dozens of unregistered shark attacks. Just think of african/phillipine aso. people who live in poverty, without modern communication , earning by fishing and stuff.

    RIP to the russian victims.

  6. avatar Lana

    Telling people about bee stings, lighting, rabbit bites sure doesn’t do anything about educating people about shark behavior. Sure telling people this stuff gets them in the water so we can then say how stupid they were for going in the water if bitten.

    • avatar Jack Trevally

      Nobody is claiming that a shark attack victim is stupid. It is a tragedy. I don’t wish it upon anybody, ever. It must be a terrible thing to have happen to you or your loved ones.

      However, comparisons can be made to other dangerous animals and other risks such as lightening. What this means, is that based on available reported attacks, lightening is more dangerous than shark attack. In other words, the chances of being struck by lightening are greater that the chances of being bitten by a shark. (Both of these are tragic accidents and are certainly NOT stupid).

      To clarify this point, look at the shark attack statistics for Florida. There are more reported shark attacks in the US state of Florida than any other state or country in the world. Anywhere. But even in Florida, you have a greater chance of being struck by lightening than of being bitten by a shark, much less killed by one. And this is where the ISAF is located. It would be difficult for them to cover this up, nay, impossible.

      If there was a conspiracy around the death of Mr. Groth, it is a different problem entirely. Let’s compare apples to apples, rather than apples to oranges here.

      And I agree with you that not all shark attacks are reported. I am sure that there are some that occur in Africa, Southeast Asia and South America every year, that go unreported. Probably quite a few around the world. But collating statistics about known shark attacks is different from knowing every possible shark attack that occurs, whether witnessed or not, or whether reported or not. If a shark eats somebody, and that attack is not witnessed or reported, it is recorded as a missing person, not a shark attack, because there is simply no evidence if no body is found. The ocean is very powerful and thousands of people drown every year. Many more recorded drowning fatalities than shark bite incidents.

      If a body is found, forensic experts can tell if the body was bitten after death or while the person was still alive. If the person was still alive, then it is a shark attack. If not, then it was a scavenging, and doesn’t count as an attack.

      I am not asking you to love the ISAF. But please tell me, what does constitute ‘educating people about shark behavior’ to you? What is a better option than the ISAF. Do we continue to live in fear, believing the Jaws Myth, or do we at least try to find some sort of scientific basis for the attacks that we actually do know about. It is pretty hard to describe an event that nobody saw or heard or even knows about.

  7. avatar Lana

    When one chooses to enter the water one should know about all the dangers that exist. Bees and all these other things have nothing to do with the dangers you are faced with while in the water. Where any of these bee caused deaths provoked? Of course they were but are they counted in your compressions while provoked shark deaths are not… Not very scientific..
    In the case of Richard Sneed it was determined by the medical examiner he was alive when bitten. Then after some shenanigans and no proof what so ever it was determined he must have drowned and a minute or so after he stopped breathing he was bitten right before his heart stopped beating. No lung was ever found to even prove he drowned.
    This provoked stuff Katrina Tipio snorkeling in the Red Sea gets ripped apart. There was a illegally shark feeding dive boat at the location earlier that day she gets in the water and dies but it was a provoked attack by the earlier dive boat. And here we have people believing as long as they don’t grab a shark tail they can’t provoke a attack.
    The ISAF may explain why their figures are what they are, but the problem mostly rest in these so called experts – aquarium experts, a person who dove with a shark once and whatever new expert is born that day and they don’t even know what the figures they are repeating actually mean.
    Like the experts with their sharks don’t like the taste of humans. Mind you they come up with this after all scavenged bodies found are eliminated which absolutely prove sharks don’t mind the taste of humans also all those eaten after a boating accident or a provoked attack. Try telling the survivors of the USS Indianapolis sharks don’t like the taste of humans!!!

  8. avatar Jack Trevally

    @ tidus Thank you for listing sources.

    I agree that all attacks should be listed.

    Sorry if my posts came off sounding insulting. It wasn’t my intention to insult anybody.

  9. Thank you all for the inputs and different points of views.. I know it is a bit late for this topic. Almost 16 months later I read it. ISAF, good or bad is the only real scientific source for the attacks. You may like it or not. They may well make mistakes but I personally do not think bad will is involved. The listed number of attacks are less than the actual number for many reasons. Mainly a lot of attacks are not reported. And an establishment like IASF can not list it unless it is reported. Not from word of month at least. The attack this topic is based on may not be the first in that area. Maybe for the past decades, there were many attacks. We do not know. Normally if you talk to locals, they give you many old stories. Fisherman tells you even more. None of them is to be found in any report or list. ISAF started something good. I hope some other organizations take it further. Make it better But I truly agree with Jack here. This is the best we have and not many alternatives are there for us to refrence. People like us who want to know more and details of sharks and attacks are few compared to the ones who like to watch Jaws stories. We all know that these are wild animals that may harm humans. The damage is far less than what they can do if they wanted to. Only a few of them attacked to humans comparing the millions of sharks in sea. So in a sense, we are lucky that they actually not harm us comparing to the numbers of sharks out there. It jsut really does not matter how ISAF lsys the attacks. Provoked or not. It is how we want to percieve it. Only in shark diving tourism tens of thousands of people dive with them every year. Not much is happeneing there in terms of attacks. Fishing should be considered as provoked. I think we all agree to that. Mass disasters are another story.It is very unfortunate. War disasters should be considered as casualties of war. Think about Titanic. Do we have any info if anyone in water was attacked by sharks ? No, but if there were some people would be talk about it as a shark killing ? No. It was a part of a disaster. After such a tragedy, it just does not matter.

  10. avatar Angel

    Questionable reports

    A final (and always a very difficult) category in the MEDSAF Databank is found under the title “Encounters which need further confirmation”. This category currently includes 10 cases, four of which ended “fatally”. Most of them happened before 1980. With the assistance of scientists stationed around the Mediterranean, these cases are currently being investigated to prove or disprove their correctness. With the rich maritime inheritance of the region and the long history of local and regional population segments, the oral accounts of shark attacks is an expected and normal component of later science. As long as these events are not substantiated by reliable and verifiable statements from witnesses, newspaper reports, police reports or other form, most of them cannot be considered for statistical purposes.

    Copied from Medsaf. Med Sea shark attack file

Leave a Reply