>>5115009
probably, but this narrative is light on evidence, only a bunch of circumstancial. regardless bob gymlan's video on sharks kinda turned me around on them.

however there's something that i don't think these guys talk about (for obvious reasons). given the official baseline of how many sharks attack/kill people, now think about how many people swim in the ocean each year. hell, think how many do it daily across the globe. it's hard to comprehend because there's so many. now assume the actual number of shark attacks is 10% higher. 20% higher. even then there's still so many more activities you engage in on a daily basis that have a higher chance of maiming you.

so while sharks are not the cute cuddly misunderstood creatures the discovery channel wants you to think, the actual risk of being attacked by one is not as high as the other side wants you to think.

Just by looking at your picture I can assure you he's just looking for attention by being the edgy anti shark guy

>>5115009
I don't care stay out of the ocean if you don't work there the why is unimportant.

>>5115056
i'm gonna write that down as a shitpost, not an attempt to troll, and we'll move on

>>5115040
I think you're overestimating the human presence in the ocean. There's a lot of people in beaches, in the shallows where large sharks largely try not to go and where their natural prey doesn't live. Large numbers of seals are generally away from human activity and their fish prey is predominantly in deeper waters. Large sharks do tend to visit beaches on occasion and there's a ton of drone footage of them just observing people before moving on, but attacks by large sharks in shallow water does happen now and then. Still the overlap of territory is mostly nonexistant, much less so than when humans venture into forests and stay in grizzly bear territories, and not just for a dip but often camping for days. If you think of it like that and compare grizzlies for example to sharks you see how much more aggressive sharks are, given the amount of attacks vs the amount of times people are directly exposed to them for prolonged periods.

>>5115066
He's right though, the guy looks like Dan Aykroyd. Schizo boomer phenotype. In a similar vein my state has a whole discussion forum where unmedicated grandpas talk about how Fish & Wildlife is introducing mountain lions to the state and covering it up.

>>5115069
>If you think of it like that and compare grizzlies for example to sharks you see how much more aggressive sharks are
people aren't staying underwater for days in shark territory. also the overhwelming majority of reported shark attacks happen in shallow waters.

>>5115009
Best YT channel about sharks, by far. I watch it religiously.

>>5115083
>people aren't staying underwater for days in shark territory
Thats what I'm saying
>the overhwelming majority of reported shark attacks happen in shallow waters
That's also what I'm saying. That's where people are. It's not generally where big sharks are, but it still happens.

>>5115075
Schizos come with every generation, anon. Your ageism is showing.

>>5115066
>unkempt weirdo wearing le cool shark attack t shirt gesturing wildly in front of a scary photo of a shark and calling them murder machines doesn't set off any red flags
ok

>>5115158
>doesnt watch the channel so doesnt get the reference
weak

>>5115009
If it is bullshit, why don't they continue the attack?
We're not a whale, so taking a chunk and leaving us to bleed out isn't necessary. Do great whites even have that hunting instinct? We're seal-size, so surely they'd just continue the attack. Some are probably investigative though, and we probably taste like shit so they don't continue. That's why tiger sharks kill and eat us more often, they eat literal shit.

>>5115069
>in the shallows where large sharks largely try not to go and where their natural prey doesn't live
Sharks absolutely enter the shallows and there is plenty of prey close to shore
>If you think of it like that and compare grizzlies for example to sharks you see how much more aggressive sharks are, given the amount of attacks vs the amount of times people are directly exposed to them for prolonged periods
It’s the opposite. Since 2025 in the US and Canada there have been 9 fatal shark attacks and 12 fatal grizzly bear attacks. Bears will chimp out and maul you just because you spooked them

In my anecdotal experience, the closest animal psychology to sharks is the boa constrictor and saltwater crocs.

There is no "mistake" when attacking humans, they don't have anywhere near the intelligence orcas do for judgement calls like that for instance. Shark vision is also piss poor. You are the same thing as a seal to small whale to them.

>>5115009
Shark attacks are like murders: It happens way more than you actually expect but it mostly happens under
>out of sight, out of mind

A lot of people who go missing are just people who get dismembered and buried under spice plants or left to rapidly decompose in a warm river, same happens at sea but it is not always a human dismembering them.

>>5115009
Full of shit and not based on fact.

>>5115221
>boa constrictor
Boa constrictors are harmless to humans and usually pretty docile
>saltwater crocs
Saltwater crocodiles are a million times worse than sharks, or anything else that isn’t a crocodile for that matter

>>5115009
Kinda. The idea that sharks mistake surfers/swimmers for seals and turtles specifically is bullshit. But it is true that any silhouette on the surface looks like potential prey to a shark. Most of the time the shark will reject the human as prey after the first bite, especially with great whites

>>5115009
I think some uppity cryptozoologist should stay in his lane of fantasy bullshit.

>>5115009
Yes and literally everyone has always known it.

File: 1661832518704559.png (358 KB, 349x509)

358 KB PNG

>>5115158
>Using unkempt as an insult
>On 4chan
How many kempt people do you think post on this board?

>>5115305
That's not Bob Gymlan

>>5115221
>Shark vision is also piss poor.
Not true.

>>5115221
>they don't have anywhere near the intelligence orcas do for judgement calls like that
Are you implying only mammalian predators are smart enough to choose their prey? Lots of predators from all clades specialize in hunting certain animals, and that by definition requires the ability to distinguish. Not to mention animals in general are pretty wary of anything that's unfamiliar.
>Shark vision is also piss poor
That's not their only sense, a predator in the open ocean that doesn't have good senses wouldn't last long.

The real issue here is that conservationists, who are of course completely correct in wanting to protect these animals from human-caused extinction, feel the need to be ambassadors for these animals. Sadly this includes lying "on behalf of the animals" - they consider it white lies, or "the ends justify the means" type of conservation. Sharks are enormous predators who can and will fuck people up simply because they are predators and the person is in the wrong place at the wrong time - but these marine biologists routinely depict them as babies who don't know what they're doing and claim they never ever hunt human beings for food. They fudge with numbers, get shark fatalities written up as "heart attacks" or "drownings" whenever they can get away with it, and skew the statistics by default. This is dishonest, and they know it's false, but they do it anyway. I don't know where this comes from. We can all publicly agree that polar bears will hunt human beings when the opportunity arises, but still agree that they should not go extinct and want to protect them as much as possible. If anything, the dishonesty surrounding shark reporting is what will more likely lead to a kind of public backlash rather than simply being truthful; hell, if people were more truthful about shark attacks maybe less people would enter dangerous waters and you'd have less attacks plus a better relationship between sharks and people as a result. But the world's tourism industries don't want that. The root of the evil here is in part capitalism, and its expression is bleeding heart liberalism. I think there's something to hate about this dishonesty for all sides.

>>5115246
>Most of the time the shark will reject the human as prey after the first bite, especially with great whites
great whites' feeding strategy for large mammals is taking a bite, fucking off and waiting for the prey to die of massive blood loss before coming back for the meal

almost all white shark attacks occur at beaches in populated areas where other people will fish out a bite victim asap. if you left them floating out there it's almost certain that the shark would come back to finish his food

>>5116238
>great whites' feeding strategy for large mammals is taking a bite, fucking off and waiting for the prey to die of massive blood loss before coming back for the meal
No it isn’t. That’s only a thing when the prey is too large for the shark to kill immediately. Watch any video of a shark hunting a seal. A shark that is actively feeding isn’t going to leave the prey for more than a few seconds at a time and isn’t going to move to a distance where it wouldn’t be seen by rescuers. When people get bitten by white sharks and they’re bleeding out in the water it often takes several minutes for them to be brought back to the beach yet the shark doesn’t return for more
https://youtube.com/watch/xO-jDyGqys8?si=g1TQmuFpJ3vlxPzK

>>5116238
Hal from sharks happen (OP pic) doesn't believe in the bite and wait. He believes when a white shark wants to eat you, it just does, there's plenty of examples of large white sharks just biting people in half and swallowing the remains. Non-predatory bites he theorizes are just territorial and not wanting and people in its water.

>>5116287
>Non-predatory bites he theorizes are just territorial and not wanting and people in its water
Territorial bites do happen but only account for a small number of attacks. Most believe the majority are either exploratory or low-commitment predatory bites. When white sharks feel pressed they usually just leave the area entirely and disappear

>>5115115
thus the qualification 'boomer' to narrow it down to his specific phenotype
how would you feel if you hadn't had breakfast this morning?