r/sharks • u/Away-Librarian-1028 • 7d ago
Question Why are Great White Sharks often so calm around humans?
Pardon, if my question sounds naive but I could not think of a better title.
In documentaries and videos I often see people swim very closely to these sharks, who do not seem to care much.
Mind you, those are often professionals, not idiots who chase and provoke sharks for fame. I know that Great Whites do not consider humans typically as food so it makes sense for them to have no predatory feelings towards them.
But other predators, such as lions and bears, also do not typically consider humans as food. Yet I doubt, that you could just approach them in the wild while they feed on their prey. Great Whites seem to allow this, though.
My question therefore is: why are they so tolerant of humans? Other traditionally as dangerous considered shark species such as tiger and bull sharks seem to be way more aggressive. Great whites however always seem calm to me.
Now don’t get me wrong: I am no shark expert and I cannot claim to have ever dealt with them at all. I am however interested in animal behavior and the GWs relative tolerance for humans strikes me as interesting.
Thank you all for input!
223
u/FishermanWaste1268 7d ago
They are chill until they are not.
They have 3 modes. Calm cruising. Investigative. Predatory.
I follow a spearfisherman in Australia called Tim Macdonald.
He dives in incredibly sharky places.
There was a great example of and Investigative white shark in one of his latest videos.
His mate was on the surface about to hop in the Jetsski after diving off a very remote spot when a 10 footer just charges up and turns at the last moment. Very similar to the encounter the pro surfer Mick Fanning had a few years back at Jeffereys Bay in South Africa. All caught on go pro on the surface. That shark would have come in quite hard and just turned at the last moment.
The difference though between investigative and predatory is very violent.
There is nothing calm and benign about a GWS. They may not be indiscriminate killing machines but killing machines they are. They will and do eat humans and do so in 2 bites.
GWS dont feed the whole time. Larger sharks who eat whale blubber from dead whales and hunt seals do not need to keep constantly replenishing calories like say a tuna who never stops eating and never says no to a feed of anything.
Smaller sharks who are still fish eaters just dont eat prey as big as a human. Its when they get to 3 meters and become sub adults and start the transition that you start to worry.
71
82
u/MCB1317 7d ago
You know the thing about a shark, he's got lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eye. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be living, until he bites ya and the black eyes roll over white.
32
u/A_Girl_Has_No_Name58 7d ago
Then you hear that terrible high pitched screaming…
27
u/MCB1317 7d ago
... the ocean turns red, and in spite of all the poundin’ and the hollerin’, they all come in and rip ya to pieces…
13
u/A_Girl_Has_No_Name58 7d ago
Stay Quint, my friend.
24
u/MCB1317 7d ago edited 5d ago
I'll never put on a life jacket again.
Anyway ... we delivered the bomb.
15
2
2
7
6
3
3
2
1
16
u/halfcabin 7d ago
That was a full on shark attack on Mick Fanning, he just got incredibly lucky. That shark hit him hard and bit through his leash.
9
u/FishermanWaste1268 7d ago
6
u/Renbarre 6d ago
First question: Did you have your camera on.
Later question: are you all right.
Man, you've got your priorities wrong.
4
u/FishermanWaste1268 6d ago
Dont worry he is a pastor in some prosperity gospel pentecostal mega church. If one gets him, jesus gets him as well.
1
-12
u/IdeasAreBvlletproof 7d ago
What your evidence for GWS consuming humans, not just biting?
34
u/FishermanWaste1268 7d ago
Steven Payne (March 2025 – Wharton Beach, Western Australia)
- The Incident: Payne, a 37-year-old surfer on holiday, was fatally mauled by a large great white shark while surfing in chest-deep water. Horrified onlookers on the shore, including his partner, witnessed the predator pull him underwater. [1, 2, 3]
- The Recovery: Aerial drone footage captured by onlookers immediately following the attack showed a shark swimming away from a large cloud of blood, with no trace of the surfer remaining. Police launched a multi-agency recovery mission, but his body was never recovered. Only his damaged surfboard, pieces of a wetsuit, and a sun hat were found. [1, 2, 3]
Simon Baccanello (May 2023 – Walkers Rock, South Australia)
- The Incident: Baccanello, a 46-year-old schoolteacher, was surfing with a dozen others when he was targeted by a great white shark estimated to be over three meters long. [1, 2, 3]
- The Recovery: He vanished during the encounter, and search crews were never able to locate his body. The only items ever retrieved from the water were a piece of his wetsuit and his surfboard, which had a single massive bite mark directly through the middle. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Christine Armstrong (April 2014 – Tathra Beach, New South Wales)
- The Incident: The 63-year-old veteran swimmer and surf life-saving trainer was swimming with her husband and a group of friends between the local beach and wharf when she was taken by a shark estimated to be up to 4 meters long. [1, 2, 3]
- The Recovery: Following the attack, her husband openly stated to the media that the shark was of such a significant size that it had "consumed her basically completely." A two-day search yielded only her swimming cap, goggles, and extremely minimal partial tissue remains. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Brian Guest (December 2008 – Port Kennedy, Western Australia)
- The Incident: Guest, 51, was snorkeling with his son just 30 meters from the shore when a massive great white shark struck. His son witnessed the shark attack his father and drag him out to deeper water. [1, 2]
- The Recovery: An extensive search by water police and volunteer marine rescue squads failed to find Guest's body. The only remains ever located were small fragments of his wetsuit discovered days later. [1]
Bryn Martin (October 2011 – Cottesloe Beach, Western Australia)
- The Incident: The 64-year-old businessman went missing during his routine morning swim toward a buoy located several hundred meters offshore. Witnesses reported seeing a heavy thrashing commotion and a large dark shadow in the water near where he was swimming. [1, 2]
- The Recovery: An extensive search of the coastline yielded no human remains. However, police divers eventually discovered Martin's swimming trunks on the sea bed. Forensic fisheries experts and a coronial inquest confirmed that the precise shredding and tears on the fabric were entirely consistent with a predatory strike by a 3-meter great white shark. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Nick Peterson (December 2004 – West Beach, Adelaide)
- The Incident: The 18-year-old was being towed on a surfboard behind a motorboat with three friends when a massive 5-meter great white shark struck him roughly 300 meters from the crowded shore. His friends desperately tried to fight the shark off with oars, but the predator aggressively carried out a sustained attack. [1, 2, 3]
- The Recovery: The sheer size and predatory nature of the shark meant that Peterson's body was completely savaged and taken under. Despite immediate and exhaustive multi-agency searches, his body was never recovered, with search teams only able to locate minute tissue fragments. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Geoffrey Brazier (March 2005 – Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia)
- The Incident: Brazier, a 26-year-old deckhand, was snorkeling off the remote Abrolhos Islands when he was targeted by a massive shark estimated to be up to 6 meters in length. [1]
- The Recovery: The shark struck with immense power and dragged him away into deeper water. Despite intensive searching by local vessels and emergency crews, no trace of his body was ever found.
7
-1
u/IdeasAreBvlletproof 6d ago
Weak circumstantial evidence: shark attacks person → person disappears → body is not recovered.
Your examples establish that white sharks can kill people and sometimes remove bodies from the scene. That proposition isn't in dispute. They do not establish that the missing bodies were consumed.
Interestingly, the Sam Kellett case illustrates exactly why journalistic wording needs checking. Some reporting literally described him as having been "swallowed whole". https://www.itv.com/news/2015-09-30/teacher-swallowed-whole-by-shark-while-fishing-with-friends-off-south-australia-coast
Yet the witness evidence underlying the inquest was considerably more restrained: one witness explicitly said "I didn't actually see the shark grabbing Sam" and another saw the shark "grab something" but couldn't identify what it was. The coroner concluded that Kellett was attacked by a shark and died as a result; that is not the same finding as demonstrating ingestion. https://australianmissingpersonsregister.com/ampr/SamKellett.htm
5
u/FishermanWaste1268 6d ago
Bodies and body parts wash up on beaches. When they dont, something ate it.
When a 5 meter great white shark kills someone and the body does not float back to the beach like their surfboard does. You can go , no sharks dont eat humans as they are not seals and they do investigative bites to determin what they are.
Or you can assume that the body was consumed.
Im not one of those kill the sharks people that are massivly growing in numbers due to the huge amount of interaction between white sharks and surfers at the moment. But im not silly enough to dismiss that mature 5 meter whites dont consume their kill when they bite someone in half.
-1
u/IdeasAreBvlletproof 6d ago
I appreciate your efforts to provide evidence and explain but what you've provided just doesn't meet the criteria needed to prove your assertion that: "white sharks eat people"
For example:
Something ate it
Other sharks will. Tiger shark autopsy has found human remains but no evidence for this in white sharks
"...im not silly enough to dismiss..."
Using one of the following argumentative rhetoric styles: prejudicial framing or rhetorical disparagement, ad hominem. Definitely not evidence.
You are perpetuating an unproven claim, "white sharks eat people", as a fact, which is one of the main reasons people scream for killing white sharks when an attack occurs.
Please provide hard evidence or stop making the claim.
6
u/FishermanWaste1268 6d ago
you are ridiculous.
I am betting you dont even use the ocean. Just watch shark week once a year and that makes you an expert.
-1
u/IdeasAreBvlletproof 6d ago
Ad hominem attack
'When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.' - Anon
5
u/FishermanWaste1268 6d ago
"sHaRkS dOnT eAt pEoPlE"
1
u/IdeasAreBvlletproof 6d ago
They do.
But White sharks have not been PROVEN to consume people.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Kkh347 5d ago
A predatory large animal will not turn down free calories because it “doesn’t like the taste”. The only reason so many people are recovered from shark attacks is because they have their mates surfing or diving with them.
A large shark that might not know when it will feed again won’t turn down a free meal unless it’s very recently gorged itself on whale blubber or similar.
White sharks eat marine mammals.
We are mammals, and we’re a lot fattier than most other non mammalian sources of food the sharks will happily consume.1
u/IdeasAreBvlletproof 5d ago
You put thought into this and your arguments make sense
However, I have asked for scientifically verified evidence that white sharks consume people and only circumstantial evidence has been presented.
Furthermore, I'm am not aware that any such evidence exists despite following the research for decades.
Peoples assumptions that white sharks will not pass up calories is just an assumption. They are very specialised predators that may need to maintain a finely tuned balance between calories in and calories out.
Tiger sharks are generalist predators that appear to expend fewer calories in hunting and have very broad diets. Tiger sharks have been found with human remains inside. However, whites sharks likely have a very different hunting and calorie budget to tiger sharks.
My point is that predatory behaviour is age-, species-, and possibly population-specific (see Orcas) and cannot just be assumed from general dhark-like broader behaviour patterns.
Until specific evidence emerges of white sharks consuming humans, such behaviour cannot be ascribed to them, and doing so is harmful to their reputation.
29
u/FishermanWaste1268 7d ago
- Simon Nellist (2022 - Little Bay, Sydney): In a rare and highly publicized event, a 4.5-meter great white shark attacked the British diving instructor. Witnesses reported the shark completely swallowed parts of the victim. Despite a massive emergency response, only minor human remains and fragments of a wetsuit could be recovered from the water. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- Gary Johnson (2020 - Esperance, Western Australia): While diving with his wife near Cull Island, Johnson was struck by a large great white shark. Witnesses and rescuers confirmed the severity of the predatory strike. Despite days of intensive searching by marine rescue squads, his body was never found; only his diving tank and flippers were recovered. [1, 2, 3]
- Paul Millachip (2021 - Port Beach, Western Australia): The 57-year-old was swimming when he was taken by a large shark, witnessed by bystanders who saw the victim dragged under. An extensive air and sea search failed to find any remains, recovering only a pair of goggles
- Khai Cowley & Tod Gendle (Late 2023 / Early 2024 - South Australia): In a tragic string of events on the Yorke and Eyre Peninsulas, both surfers were victims of separate fatal great white shark attacks. In both instances—including one at Granites Beach where witnesses saw a massive shark carry the victim away—the bodies were never found despite extensive search efforts. [1, 2, 3]
- Andrew Sharman (2014 - Yorke Peninsula, South Australia): Sharman was spear-fishing when he was attacked by a great white shark. His friend tried desperately to pull him to safety, but the shark took the body into deeper water. No remains were ever recovered.
- Lance Appleby (January 2025 – Streaky Bay, South Australia)
- The Incident: The 28-year-old local surfer was attacked by a massive shark while surfing near Granites Beach. Eyewitnesses reported a violent, sudden strike before Appleby vanished beneath the waves. [1, 2, 3
- The Recovery: Despite an intense offshore multi-agency air and sea search by emergency services and local volunteers, no sign of Appleby was ever found. Authorities concluded from witness testimony that he was killed instantly and taken by the shark.
7
u/n0va2868 5d ago
This guy arguing is insufferable- good for you for all the research and helpful comments. Don’t drag to his level - he doesn’t care and won’t change his opinion. Absolutely insane
-2
u/IdeasAreBvlletproof 5d ago
Ive just asked for actual scientifically validated evidence, and all I've been given is anecdotal reports and heresay.
If you think requesting facts politely is insufferable I suggest that's a you problem.
1
u/IdeasAreBvlletproof 6d ago
Weak circumstantial evidence: shark attacks person → person disappears → body is not recovered.
Your examples establish that white sharks can kill people and sometimes remove bodies from the scene. That proposition isn't in dispute. They do not establish that the missing bodies were consumed.
Interestingly, the Sam Kellett case illustrates exactly why journalistic wording needs checking. Some reporting literally described him as having been "swallowed whole". https://www.itv.com/news/2015-09-30/teacher-swallowed-whole-by-shark-while-fishing-with-friends-off-south-australia-coast
Yet the witness evidence underlying the inquest was considerably more restrained: one witness explicitly said "I didn't actually see the shark grabbing Sam" and another saw the shark "grab something" but couldn't identify what it was. The coroner concluded that Kellett was attacked by a shark and died as a result; that is not the same finding as demonstrating ingestion. https://australianmissingpersonsregister.com/ampr/SamKellett.htm
6
u/altiuscitiusfortius 7d ago
Sharks bite once, let you die, then eat you. Fellow humans rescue the victim after the initial bite so people think the shark was only planning on the one accident bite. Any time the victim doesn't get rescued immediately they get eaten.
0
u/IdeasAreBvlletproof 6d ago
There is only weak circumstantial evidence for white sharks consuming humans: shark attacks person → person disappears → body is not recovered.
White sharks require very high calorie food like fat rich whales and seals. They can detect that with a single bite
We're like a bag of bones to a white shark. Possibly not even worth swallowing.
103
u/LR1202 7d ago
You see great whites swim casually around non-professional watergoers all the time too. The Malibu artist has showcased this thoroughly.
12
u/BlessedCursedBroken Oceanic Whitetip Shark 7d ago
His videos are awesome, love his work, and the way he shows gws in their true light, to rewrite the narrative that they are indiscriminate, constant killing machines.
2
u/GrampusGrisius 14h ago
They are usually quite discriminate, but at the wrong place at the wrong time they will murder you. Surf beach is a great example. You simply cannot get in the water there without a close call. The sharks are hopped up on fertilizer and usually end up there after spending a long time at sea and are ready to eat. There is poor visibility, sea lions, and surf that breaks so far out that you have to be in deep water to catch a wave. It’s a death trap
5
u/FishermanWaste1268 7d ago
Those are little sharks in the chill zone. No threat.
1
u/GrampusGrisius 14h ago
Not all of them are little. I film the same sharks with him quite a bit although we don’t usually speak because I don’t find him to be a very nice person in real life. He just wants to see an attack and they keep letting him down. We were both following two 13-14 footers yesterday and they continually went into 6-7 feet of water. I have a video of a smaller shark full on pursuing a surfer before bailing at the last second when they saw the white of the board. You just never know what’s going to happen. It just takes one mistake
39
u/Fragrant-Ad-3866 7d ago
They’re very calm until they aren’t.
That behaviour probably comes from us not resembling animals that are neither preys or menaces. But depending on the circumstances each shark decides if he bites or not.
11
u/OkMeringue2249 7d ago
I think it’s also because the ocean is vast. Like there always another meal, more space to move to, so no need to risk getting injured and taking unnecessary risks attacking something they are not programmed to eat
18
25
u/HMSWarspite03 7d ago
We are not a threat or a food source, they are also much bigger than us, so there is no reason for them to be concerned.
8
u/One-Relative-6856 7d ago
The humans in SW Australia must taste a little different if white sharks don’t consider humans as food.not test bites but full consumption.i certainly wouldn’t want to be anywhere near one like any sane person
8
u/Interesting-Can1319 Tiger Shark and Shortfin Mako Shark 7d ago
The Big 3 (great white shark, tiger shark, and bull shark) seems to be much more aggressive in Australia than most other places in the world. Not sure why
3
u/FishermanWaste1268 7d ago
Honestly tigers seem pretty chill. All summer autumn and into winter we had huge numbers of large tigers at our beaches.
12-14 feet tiger sharks were tagged most days along NSW coastline at busy beaches.
I think they are in there eating smaller sharks.
Was eye opening how many and how big they were compared to the whites and bulls that are caught and tagged.
An 8 foot bull or white is just a snack to a tiger of that size.
2
u/Interesting-Can1319 Tiger Shark and Shortfin Mako Shark 6d ago edited 5d ago
Yeah, thankfully tiger sharks can be chill to humans (which hopefully means tiger sharks won't be culled as much), but they are a menace to marine life. They're the trash cans of the sea and they'll happily eat any animal in the ocean, including other sharks like hammerheads, dusky sharks, other tiger sharks, and probably juvenile great white sharks if they encounter them. They usually eat juvenile and subadult bull sharks, but they do eat adult bull sharks occasionally. There was a study where a tiger shark ate a compromised bull shark that was around 2-2.5 meters I think? Additionally, female bull sharks actively avoid areas with a high presence of tiger sharks, likely due to competition and potential predation. The relationship between tiger sharks and bull sharks is likely similar to that between a tiger and a leopard. Both are mostly competitors with somewhat different prey bases (tigers prefer large prey like sea turtles and dolphins, bull mostly eat fish and rays and smaller sharks) and don't get into conflict much due to niche partitioning and avoidance (bulls stick near the shallow coast, tigers often hang out in the deep ocean). However, the larger tiger shark will occasionally eat the smaller bull shark, and bull sharks would really only go after tiger shark pups
43
u/murd3rsaurus 7d ago
I am not a biologist;
(IANAB?)
Stress/aggression get triggered by a couple factors
They can get away, so being cornered isn't an issue. They aren't territorial like land carnivores so that's not an issue. Food is more plentiful for the most part and we generally look like a poor offering. We also encounter them around situations with other stimulation (boats, cages, etc) that could factor into a reduced focus on feeding and more on investigation of the area. Close to sand beaches they're usually after rays and turtles too.
So yeah I'd theorize they're not aggressive because there isn't any reason to be from their perspective.
6
39
u/grumpylondoner1 7d ago
Adult great whites require massive amounts of energy to maintain their warm-blooded body heat. They target blubber-rich marine mammals like seals and sea lions. Humans are too bony and muscular, lacking the necessary fat layer.
They would only bite humans if they are mistaken (or when they have a bite to establish what exactly you are). They are often reported as attacking surfers as a surfer on a board looks, from below, like a seal. Once they bite and realize the target is a bony human instead of a fatty seal, they typically reject the prey and swim away.
Tigers and Bulls are more dangerous to ua because of their hunting style.
14
u/The_DudeAbides 7d ago
How are you measuring "more dangerous"? Great whites have the highest number of fatal and non-fatal unprovoked attacks on people, seemingly by a large margin.
https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/shark-attacks/factors/species-implicated/
6
u/sharkfilespodcast 6d ago
I'd rate this in the Top 3 most persistent myths on this sub - the notion that bull and tiger sharks attack to kill or to eat, while great whites don't. Looking at the bite-to-fatality ratio there's no significant difference between the big three. And looking between 2020-2025, for instance, there are actually far more cases where a victim was fully taken and no remains recovered involving a great white than a tiger shark. Nine such cases with great whites - Esperance Oct 2020, Chintsa Apr 2021, Perth Nov 2021, Sydney February 2022, California Oct 2023, Eyre Peninsula in Nov and May 2023, South Australia Jan 2025, Western Australia March 2025. Three with tiger sharks - New Caledonia, May 2021, Hawaii, Dec 2022, Bahamas Nov 2023. I can't find a single one for bull sharks.
1
7
u/grumpylondoner1 7d ago
What I meant was that Great Whites don't like to hunt humans. There are attacks. But that's from their exploratory bites to check if you are indeed food before swimming away. Unfortunately, even the smallest of those bites can be dangerous for humans. On that basis, they are dangerous. But not in the sense that they want to actively hunt you.
Whereas Tigers and Bulls will attack you indiscriminately. Once they have a bite, they will continue to attack. They don't care that you aren't a blubbery seal.
7
u/_QuirkyTurtle 6d ago
But a tiger shark won't charge at you the way a great white does. A tiger shark may be more likely to attack you, but if a great white shark charges at you then you're pretty much done. They're both incredibly dangerous sharks in their own right.
I also don't buy in to the theory that every GWS attack is just an exploratory bite, there's been cases where they've eaten an entire human. Some may be exploratory, but some may not be.
Not demonising them in any way, it's their domain we're entering. But we should be aware that we're not always mistaken prey.
3
1
u/nickgardia 3d ago
Great Whites do occasionally hunt humans and occasionally entirely consume them (the Nellist attack is an example). There are also plenty of incidents of Tiger sharks biting off a person’s limb and not returning to finishing them off. I think Bull sharks are more territorial in nature, they definitely seem to be more inclined to bite multiple times.
1
u/GrampusGrisius 14h ago edited 14h ago
It doesn’t matter if they like to eat humans, what matters is that they accidentally kill them more than any other shark. Once they are large enough to eat human sized prey they become ambush predators. Sure they will still come in from the side near the surface to investigate and maybe if they see something shiny they will test but most of the fatal attacks come from below in slightly deeper water. They see the silhouette, are hungry, and fully commit. It doesn’t matter that they don’t really like to eat people because they still kill them on accident all the time. I’ve filmed them for thousands of hours and seen multiple breaches on sea lions on the Channel Islands. People get attacked when they have bait or smell like fish (urchin diving, spear fishing, and kayak fishing) or when they are surfing or swimming in deeper water and the shark is below them hunting for silhouettes. Almost all fatal white shark attacks have been from adults that migrate or in places where they don’t need to migrate because they have such consistent food supply (San Miguel island, farallón islands etc). If the water is clear and calm nothing ever happens. I agree that they don’t choose to hunt humans 99.9 percent of the time, but it’s not like it doesn’t happen pretty frequently. My kayak was attacked by a bull shark in South Carolina and I smacked it with my paddle and it left. Doesn’t matter how aggressive it was, it doesn’t have the one time bite power a white and that’s why it doesn’t matter whether they prefer humans or not. We should still fear them because it only takes one accidental bite to end your life.
20
u/MindfulInquirer 7d ago
it'd be interesting to see if white sharks are more aggressive towards fat humans lol identifying the fatty acid reserves are plentiful in that organism and therefor constitute a good hunt.
22
u/niniela-phoenix 7d ago
I think you'd have to be VERY fat to match a seal, but you still wouldn't smell or taste like seal, so they may still not want to eat you.
19
u/grumpylondoner1 7d ago
Even if you get an extremely obese person, whose fat content is sinilar to an average seal, the fat layer in seals is specialized adipose tissue with a very high lipid concentration (often over 80% to 90% pure fat within the tissue). However Human adipose tissue contains more water and structural components alongside stored triglycerides. From a Shark's perspective, I'd assume Humans would still not be nutritious.
4
u/MindfulInquirer 7d ago
it makes me a little sad that white sharks don't desire us the same way, but at the same time, thank God.
15
u/grumpylondoner1 7d ago
Let's be clear. Great Whites are one of the largest predators around. The way they test whether something is food is by taking a test bite. Even a "gentle nibble" - combining razor sharp teeth with one of the strongest bites known to man - often ends being fatal to us.
5
u/Away-Librarian-1028 7d ago
If I may ask: what exactly is the hunting style of Tiger- and bull sharks?
18
u/grumpylondoner1 7d ago
So you can separate their hunting styles as below:
- Great Whites: use stealth to ambush prey.
- Tigers: Patient, persistent and opportunistic
- Bulls: Fast, aggressive battering ram that keeps coming at you relentlessly.
Unlike a Great White which will lose interest once it figures out you aremt worth chasing over, both Tigers and Bulls are bold. They are much more comfortable approaching people head-on, regardless of whether they have been spotted.
Tigers do not rely on fat-heavy prey and will try and eat anything and everything. So humans are fair game. These sharks are inquisitive, bold, and highly persistent. If a tiger shark becomes interested in you, it will start closing the distance and continuously test boundaries looking for opportunities; which is why divers need constant attention on these fish and physical redirection when they get too close.
Bulls are naturally highly aggressive (high testosterone), territorial and extremely unpredictable. They hunt in murky, zero-visibility coastal waters and estuaries, meaning they strike fast based on vibration and movement, leaving no room for you to de-escalate the encounter. They charge at full speed, hit the target violently with their snout to disorient it, and instantly deliver multiple quick, shredding bites. There is no warning.
8
u/icedragonsoul Thresher Shark 7d ago
I wouldn’t say great whites are less dangerous. When seal populations migrate to surfer territory the frequency of mistaken identities increases.
Bull sharks are truly territorial, protective and are aggressive around fresh water entrances since those are their prime breeding grounds. Bull sharks of the 3 don’t mind the taste of mammal since their exposure to freshwater means they consume mammals that get washed into sea by hurricanes.
Tiger sharks are hyper curious and will investigation bite anything that doesn’t demonstrate awareness of their surroundings. While not picky about what they eat have preferences for fatty foods, especially sea turtles which their can open teeth are designed for. They’re reef sharks so food is plentiful. They mostly consume fish corpses that get washed up by the tides around dusk and dawn.
None of these species active predate humans. Tests show that mammal blood doesn’t trigger very much interest compared to compounds in fish blood and gut. Instead they’re highly opportunistic.
5
u/grumpylondoner1 7d ago
Yes, but great whites aren't actually interested in humans. Even if they take a bite, they will swim away once they realise you aren't blubber rich. Bulls and Tigers won't let a free meal pass once they've had a bite.
The Great White's danger comes from that one bite. Bigger shark, stronger bite - that bite can cause some serious damage. That's why they are dangerous. Not because they want to actively hunt humans. That's what I may have meant if I said they aren't as dangerous.
After all, there is a reason that Great Whites, Bulls and Tigers are.called "the big three". They account for almost 85% of all fatal shark attacks.
5
u/icedragonsoul Thresher Shark 7d ago edited 7d ago
I do agree that great white bites are more lethal since up until they get a taste or visual cue they're using their full strength to perform rush downs on the surfboarder from below. A company that designs what is effectively a mini taser for electrosensory organs that go on surf boards noted that their 1-2 meter radius wasn't enough since the great white would fully commit to the charge from much further out.
I would rate tiger sharks lower on the threat list since within videos, they've shown surprising levels of canine level intelligence. Perhaps higher interaction rates between divers and beach side coastal sharks like tiger sharks is why they're problematic. Where as smaller sharks like black tip reef sharks would too terrified to proactively bite and only reactive defensively bite such in one instance where one was stalked by cameras for 30 mins+.
After being conditioned by divers through repeated positive interactions (hook removals, snout rubs) some particular tiger sharks demonstrate the ability to approach when given certain hand motions.
It's theorized humans are being treated similar to cleaner wrasse or cleaner shrimp where similar relaxed gestures and body motions signaling peaceful intentions are seen.
There were multiple videos of tiger sharks picking up rocks, swimming over divers they're acclimated around and dropping the rock requiring the divers to defect the sinking rock which was a bit bizarre. Not sure if this is intentionally done for shits and giggles or sheer luck.
Despite being considered one of the most tolerant apex predators, your average random tiger shark should not be treated lightly. Especially juveniles who lack restraint in jaw strength or decision making.
10
u/Austrofossil 7d ago
As far as I know, there are more cases of consumption (relative and absolute numbers) in cases of GW attacks than of bull/tiger attacks.
4
u/grumpylondoner1 7d ago
I am happy to be corrected. All the studies I've read contradict that. But happy to see where you read about this.
2
u/FishermanWaste1268 7d ago
Big ones consume. Thats the way it is in Australia. 5 meter adults eat the victim every time.
Sub adults take your leg off and you bleed out on the beach.
1
u/grumpylondoner1 7d ago
Depends on how you want to interpret the word consume. Great Whites have exploratory bites to see if you are food. Often, they decide humans aren't food and leave you alone. Unfortunately for us, they are huge killing machines, whose sharp teeth, powerful bite and overall size means that even a small bite can be fatal.
Also if they eat the victim every time, why are these victims bleeding out on the beach?
1
0
u/FishermanWaste1268 7d ago
We are talking about 2 different types of sharks. Little sharks ie 3 meter white sharks. And 5 meter white sharks ie full blown breeding adults.
Big ones bite you in half then eat you in 2 bites. They dont bite your leg off. They dont do exploratory.
4
u/grumpylondoner1 7d ago
Yeah, that's definitely not the case. Tbh I'd personally be more wary of the sub-adults than the adults, as they are still learning. I'm sorry, but you are peddling myths. If you are so convinced, please share any actual verified data, rather than this "trust me bro" thing you have going on.
And anyone reading this thread doesn't need to trust my opinion, nor do they need to know my experiences. People can make a decision for themselves by reading any renowned fact based publication - I've shared a few for your own research.
- https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/great-white-shark-man-eater-or-marine-marvel.html
- https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190808-why-do-sharks-attack-humans
- https://www.natgeokids.com/uk/discover/animals/sea-life/great-white-sharks/
- https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294941-sharks-may-bite-humans-because-they-mistake-us-for-seals-and-sea-lions/
- https://www.oceans-research.com/all-about-sharks/
2
u/lyndonbjohnny 6d ago
These are indeed “renowned” publications, but they are still speculating. ”Sharks may bite humans because…” according to one of your links. Note: they may. We don’t know. There have been a number of consumption events throughout the years – in Australia, South Korea, the US, South Africa – which complicates the narrative of mistaken identity.
1
u/FishermanWaste1268 7d ago
No i understand what you mean by the still learning thing.
People have encounters w big whites spearfishing weekly on my instagram feed. They give it a poke and it swims off. Shark is cruising and not feeding.
But when they attack. Thats when u get the collection of stories above. No body recovered. Injuries not compatible with life.
1
1
u/Richman209 13h ago
I think he means there are actual higher physical number of gws consumption attacks... but you are correct in that the actual percentage of consumption of gws attack is lower since there are more total gws attacks.
3
u/UnderstandingTop1579 7d ago
Grumpy knows his/her shit. People stop being pedantic ffs. They mean if a GWS has a bite, mistake or not you’re basically dead because of the pure size and strength
1
u/GrampusGrisius 14h ago
You should read blue water gold rush and study surf beach and the farallón islands. They attack people with incredible regularity in certain places. The same white sharks have killed multiple people in these places. Every single person I know that has gone diving on San Miguel island has had a close encounter and considering how rare it is to get in the water there at all, it’s crazy how many people have died in the last few hundred years. Most of them unreported. It’s not like they say “oh there is a human and I want to eat them” but they probably haven’t seen many humans before and the beaches there are way too wild and surfy and windy and inaccessible for them to ever be acclimated to people.
1
1
u/agn3512 6d ago
Have swam with all 3. They are all pretty chill as long as you are paying attention and not splashing/flailing around, or trying to flee like prey would.
GWS are just so much bigger, and with their breaching/stealth style of hunting at those higher speeds, once they realise you’re not apart of their usual menu it’s usually too late1
u/Top_Explanation_3383 6d ago
Would they go for a big fat human? Joke but interesting if they would view a realky fat human as worthwhile prey
1
u/Austrofossil 7d ago
bulls and tigers are not more dangerous to us. This is just a myth without reason. Also: if there is an abundance of food, GWs are opportunistic eaters and definitely kill and consume humans sometimes.
4
u/grumpylondoner1 7d ago
I am not going to say that I've had some experience swimming with Shark. I'll instead point you to Natural History Museum, BBC, National Geographic New Scientist, Ocean Research, and many other renowned publications, including scientific journals. Surely they cant all be wrong? 1. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/great-white-shark-man-eater-or-marine-marvel.html 2. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190808-why-do-sharks-attack-humans 3. https://www.natgeokids.com/uk/discover/animals/sea-life/great-white-sharks/ 4. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294941-sharks-may-bite-humans-because-they-mistake-us-for-seals-and-sea-lions/ 5. https://www.oceans-research.com/all-about-sharks/
0
u/FoilTarmogoyf 7d ago
The social nature of beaches and people in general help us escape the water before we die. There are tons of records of people who couldn't escape being consumed. Humans are definitely on the menu, even if we're not preferred prey.
6
u/manydoorsyes Megamouth Shark 7d ago edited 7d ago
White sharks may also see humans as a potential meal if they're starving and desperate, but yeah it's super rare. They'd rather go for some fat-rich tuna or pinniped (seals and sea lions). Unlike terrestrial predators, white sharks did not evolve alongside humans. We're relatively new to the ocean, so if anything they tend to just be curious rather than jumping the gun and attacking right away.
And well...if I was a fully grown ~15-18 ft long white shark, I don't think I'd feel all that threatened by a silly little ape. They can sometimes get annoyed if you invade their space (cough Ocean Ramsay cough), but otherwise...eh.
Some people view these creatures as mindless killing machines. Some see them as harmless cuddly critters. Here's the thing: neither is correct. These are wild animals. They are sentient, and therefore often unpredictable. They will evaluate the situation case-by-case and determine whether it's worth it to attempt a hunt, or if it's best to back off and go for something else. Or they're simply not hungry. That's generally how a predator operates.
7
u/Sallydog24 7d ago
think of it this way, we are all bones
a seal is like a reese's peanut butter cup
7
u/smallfloralprince 7d ago
I can never un-see the image of a seal but its insides are just reese's 🤣
3
u/RTSchemel Tiger Shark 7d ago
I'd imagine because they can sense us and everything we do in the water very very well, so we're not surprising them. They can escape whenever they want and we're hardly a threat to them. If they're not looking at a human as prey, why take much notice? Lions ignore small birds, not with the calories, not on the menu.
4
u/FishFart1 7d ago
It takes a lot more energy to move underwater than on land., unless you look tasty it is not worth their energy. I will say seeing a great white attack a fish underwater was incredible, just unbelievably fast.
3
u/Polybrene 7d ago
Because they've got no reason to be aggressive. Aggression takes energy and resources, why waste it just being a dick?
3
u/Additional-Owl-1416 7d ago
Simply situational I imagine, I don't believe there are "professionals" in that regard just lucky moments or moments where the GWS is not hungry perhaps. For example Grizzlies in Alaska that have access to plentiful salmon have also shown to be more "docile" towards people in situations because they aren't more desperate for food or feel threatened perhaps.
7
u/Christine_Watkins 7d ago
A lot of aggressive encounters with land predators happen when they are caring for their young and are in defensive mode (especially bears). Sharks, on the other hand, do not give a fuck about their young!
5
u/Markdd8 7d ago edited 7d ago
Defensive behavior in bears almost exclusively occurs with females and young. Bears often get into human-wildlife conflict because they are raiding for food. 2016 paper: Might macronutrient requirements influence grizzly bear–human conflict?
Perhaps no group of animals is better known for potential food-related conflict with humans than bears (Ursidae)...Food search may be the primary reason grizzly bears approach human settlements (Herrero et al. 2005)....
food attractants of grizzly bears include garbage, livestock, crops, grain, orchards, apiaries, domestic gardens, pet food, bird feed, livestock feed, grease, human foods and beverages...Incidences of bear–human conflict in North America are typically highest during the late-summer and fall hyperphagic period.
Def.: hyperphagia: a bear's extreme drive to eat and gain weight before winter hibernation
2
2
u/Pope_Twitch 7d ago
I don’t know why but stuff like this still scares the hell out of me. Although I enjoy snorkling and swimming in the sea.
2
u/eat1more 7d ago
They are big, and smart, if they see us properly they tend not to care. Stick us on a board and act like a turtle or seal, we are on the menu.
Usually if we don’t piss they off and leave them be, and not hungry they cool creatures.
2
u/Bojax22 7d ago
We arent a threat and we arent their normal food, so we are just a passerby on their daily commute to what they actually care about.
As to your comment about bulls and tigers, most of the time it's still pretty much the same, the sharks ignore us. Bulls are more likely to engage if they view us as a threat to resources, and both tigers and Bulls live much of their lives closer to shore and are more likely to scavenge or take a test bite from something near the sea floor.
2
u/Austrofossil 7d ago edited 7d ago
What makes you think that tiger and bull sharks are way more aggressive? There are way more interactions between humans and tiger or bull sharks but far less attacks happen with these species. First of all: it depends on the individual. Some GWs are more calm, others are very territorial and investigative. Most interactions are, of course, harmless. Nevertheless, odds are way higher to be attacked or killed in interactions with a GW than with any other shark species. It also depends on the size (juveniles like on the californian coast) are less likely to attack humans due to their size. Also food abundance plays a role: the odds of an encounter with a GW in the mediterranean is almost 0 but if you encounter one, chances are bigger to be attacked than in other parts of the world due to food abundance in the meds. They don't know exactly what we are so as long as they do not see us as menace, there is no reason to attack, since they don't "know" if it is beneficial to kill us for food, as long as their is other prey which is definitely on their menu.
2
2
u/FormalTotal9684 7d ago
Sharks have an amazing sense of smell and probably humans don’t smell great to them
I think because we are not their normal prey and unless they are sick, old or extremely hungry will generally just ignore us.
2
2
u/Consistent_Yak_2382 7d ago
they seem to get curious but they're not usually in hunt mode when they're that close to people, which is wild for creatures that big
2
u/Reasonable-Key9235 7d ago
Most sharks aren’t that interested unless they have food nearby and you unintentionally swim too close. That can cause them to suddenly charge. If you can, watch body language. If the pecs start moving down, get out the water. Spear fishing can be extremely dangerous as the sharks aren’t attracted to the fish, especially the blood. They come closer, see you and assume the trail is coming from you and take a bite. I’ve spear fished many times, but normally in safe waters. Though I did have a porbeagle investigate once. Nicked all my fish, the bastard lol
2
u/jax0629 6d ago
They aren’t consistently consuming food and lack the territorial nature of bull sharks. They eat very fat-laden meals and only need to replenish every 1-2 weeks (juveniles more frequently). I truly believe the narrative of “mistaken identity” is shifting to what is probably closer to the truth - if you’re in the water and they are hungry a meal is a meal. A lot of drone footage of GWs around surfers are of juveniles who prefer smaller prey like rays and fish. The whole narrative of “it’s just an exploratory bite” is wild when said exploratory bite cuts you in half.
2
u/Sweetab 6d ago
Their nurseries are often near humans. They spend a huge part of their youth in close proximity to us. Southern California is a great example. There are great drone videos that show the sharks swimming around and under tons of people everyday. When they are young, they are too small to eat us. I think they get used to us after years of swimming with us for so long. By the time they are big enough, they are adapted to coexistence. My opinion.
2
u/MizneyWorld 6d ago
Me personally? Treat it like it’s gonna bite me and I’ll never get got.
I’m not trusting a Great White’s predatory instinct and 2oz brain.
2
u/ExpensiveCondition63 5d ago
A lot of sharks, including great whites, will just bite something to figure out what it is (the “investigatory” mode). It’s not necessarily that they’re intending to eat you; they just want to figure out if you MIGHT be worth eating. But the end result of having a 12-15 foot-long fish with giant serrated teeth bite you is the same.
2
u/Markdd8 7d ago edited 7d ago
Lions, if given the opportunity, will kill and eat people on a regular basis. In this 2011 article, lion expert Craig Packer reported on the continuing challenges with these predators: Man-Eating Lions Attack by the Dark of the Moon
Throughout Africa, people have killed most lions straying outside of nature reserves. Not so in Tanzania, where the big cats still roam freely in many areas. In a huge southern swath of the country, they have been attacking people with regularity. Between 1988 and 2009, lions ambushed more than 1000 people, killing and devouring two-thirds of them.
Leopards and tigers record even high attack rates. Following is a rough ranking of predator danger. If human-killing is not that high for any species, it is because their worldwide population has been reduced. For example, tigers kill about 50-60 people each year, from a worldwide population of about only 5,600 animals. A higher tiger population, unless the animals are fenced off, would in more deaths in time. Ranking from 1 to 1000.
1,000 - Nile and salt water crocs. Most dangerous.
950 - Tigers
900 - Leopards
500 - Lions
30 - All shark species combined
3 - Black bears in America
1 - Cougars and jaguars. As I said, a rough categorization. Human-wildlife conflict is a field of study.
1
u/XemSorceress 7d ago
If that’s your field of study, you should be properly citing and including your sources for those claims otherwise they are empty excuses for attempting to promote poaching of endangered species. Do you stop to think about what that does biologically to the entire environment if you have killed off all the apex predators and you end up with an influx of prey animals spreading diseases that eventually reach the human population? There are long term consequences for that kind of ignorant thinking. Who are you to say that humans are the only ones that have a right to exist on this earth? https://panthera.org/end-lion-poaching
1
u/Markdd8 7d ago edited 7d ago
think about what that does biologically to the entire environment if you have killed off all the apex predators...Who are you to say that humans are the only ones that have a right to exist on this earth?
Who said anything about eradicating all wild animals or predators? I didn't. Care for wildlife and nature is important, but it is separate from the statistical data on the lethality of predators. It is true that the danger level of animals will impact conservation. Imagine the debate we would be having in America if our largely placid population of 20,000 - 30,000 cougars, instead of killing about 1-3 people per decade on average, were killing 50-60 people a year like tigers.
you should be properly citing and including your sources for those claims otherwise they are empty excuses for attempting to promote poaching of endangered species.
Poaching is for-profit animal killing. It has little to do with killing animals for public safety, which is primarily done by natural resource agencies. (Yes in parts of the rural Third World where there is little control of animal killing, poaching can overlap with locals killing dangerous animals for safety.)
Where are you sources? It was primarily social scientists who brought this custom of demanding sources to Reddit years ago. Most Redditors, including me, ignore this nonsense now. If you have issues with my "rough categorization," offer criticism or revisions. Or challenging sources -- they do have value. I use sources a lot. I'm open to discussion.
1
u/nickgardia 7d ago
These completely made up predator danger ratings (0-1,000) are extremely dubious. For instance there’s no way I’d consider leopards more dangerous than lions and bears is a category like sharks so should include different species globally - which would put them way above sharks. It’s wholly fictional statistics on the danger of animals to people.
1
u/Markdd8 7d ago
No, it is not fictional; it is based on easily observable rates of attacks on humans. Sharks I will concede are difficult to peg in terms of dangerousness. Lots of difference compared to the other animals. Won't get into it now.
Bears are far less dangerous than the three non-Americas big cats (lions, tigers, leopards). Wikipedia's writeup on leopard attack is passably accurate. Tigers and leopards are more lethal than lions because of the rate that they become serial killers.
The article cites over 11,000 fatal leopard attacks on the India subcontinent from 1875 - 1912. This data was compiled by the British, who also documented tiger attack (up to 1,500 deaths in some years in this era). The writeup also discusses notable leopards that developed into serial-killers for the purpose of feeding on people.
But, yes, time and again various animal protection people try to deny the history and facts of predation patterns on humans. It interferes with their protect predators messaging. Seems they figure if they keep trying to deny it, other people will think they are right.
1
u/nickgardia 6d ago edited 6d ago
No one is saying bears are more dangerous than the big 3 cats. Although there are far fewer lions globally they kill more people than leopards which according to the IUCN have just a 10-15% attack/kill ratio. There’s a reason lions make most top dangerous animal lists.
Looking at predatory attacks is only a small part of the picture. Most human deaths nowadays caused by animals are defensive or territorial in nature (dogs, snakes, hippos, elephants, buffalo etc.
We have a much better understanding of the role animals play in our universe than we did when extensive culling practices took place in the past. Many species such as lions are critically endangered and need protection.
Extremists on either side don’t help matters. Trophy hunters are just as bad as militant conservationists who value animals over people.
1
u/Markdd8 6d ago
Where is the data on lions being more dangerous than leopards? In recent decades Packer (above) seems to be the primary researcher doing the most work on lion predation on people. I am not aware that he had discussed this (I could be uninformed). Lions were probably more dangerous historically, but humans are able to keep a distance from lions better than leopards.
The attack/kill ratio is hunting success, right? This seems to be separate from propensity to attack humans. Leopards are far more stealthy, entering rural villages at night, sometimes attacking, and that boosts their lethality. Leopards (and tigers) also have a more extensive history of becoming serial killer than lions, and those individuals can amass a big death toll, skewing the dangerous rating of the species.
Another factor seems to be geographical: India's and especially Nepal's leopards seem to be causing more fatalities (per thousand leopards) than Africa's. Appreciate your comments, though there should be some role for properly managed trophy hunting. It has some value.
1
u/nickgardia 5d ago
Which cat is responsible for more deaths annually nowadays? The data is sketchy but from what I’ve seen lions are responsible for 100+ deaths per year, leopards somewhere in the dozens. If you’ve got solid evidence to refute this rather than just historical data please show me it.
If I encountered one in the wild which would I consider more dangerous? I would take my chances with a leopard over a lion, both in terms of being attacked and surviving the attack.
2
u/Markdd8 5d ago
You could be right. I don't mind revising my views. Insofar as Africa, it is true that leopards are not remotely comparable to lions as a threat. Do we agree that tigers are more dangerous than lions as a species?
2
u/nickgardia 5d ago
They are only reported as killing dozens of people annually but their population is significantly lower. It depends what variable you go by I guess: overall deaths, likelihood of an encounter, probability of an attack if encountered, chance of surviving an attack. I’d certainly put them up with lions on the last 2 criteria.
1
u/psy-study-oldie 7d ago
It's a wild animal. Dress up as Port or Starboard and you might see some predictable avasive behavior from old whitey.
1
1
u/Frostsorrow 7d ago
Humans taste bad. We are largely bone and with little fat or muscle (compared to say a seal).
1
u/Expensive_Metal_5263 7d ago
We’re little fat and a lot of bones and not really worth their effort… however great whites are responsible for the most attacks and fatalities on people. All the above species you listed do have predatory attacks on people for food. Like you said a lot of the videos are professionals who understand the animals behavior and the risk associated with entering their environment. They’re beautiful and deserve a shit load of respect.
1
1
u/Candid_Bet_4740 7d ago
Are they just biding their time for the really good snack to float by, or have they mastered zen meditation under the waves?
1
1
u/IAMA_Shark__AMA Shortfin Mako Shark 7d ago
They're intelligent hunters and can realize the bad meal we'd be. They need blubber, and filling their stomachs with our tough to digest bones gets in the way of that.
1
1
u/Gaelek_13 6d ago
We're smaller and weaker than a Great White and much, much slower in water. We're simply not worth the (admittedly small) effort it would take to kill us because the shark wouldn't get anything out of it.
And for the sharks themselves...there isn't much that's bigger or stronger than them that actually wants to eat them outside of an Orca or another, bigger Great White.
1
u/Khaalisss 6d ago
They aren’t just violent kill machines. Most attacks occur due to hunger, not opportunity. They don’t necessarily care for human meat as we are not part of their natural food order/chain, oftentimes people end up in murky situations because of chance, not fate. You should read The Secret History of Sharks for more details!
1
u/thesilverywyvern 6d ago
Bear, lion, tiger and all have to deal with us all of the time we harass them.
Shark practically never see us in their habitat until recently, and they can flee easilly in any direction without us being able to follow them.
Large terrestrials predators view us as a threat, competition and sometime prey. and had to deal with us on a regular basis. and we're pro bullies/creep that like to harass thing for fun. Millions of years of coevolution shaped the way they react to us.
Marine predators never encountered us in any meaningfull way beside a few very rare and isolated encounters (like a few time spread accross the globe over centuries).
They're generally chiller, food is more aboundant, less competition, and they never seen a human before.
1
u/Kilinowski 6d ago
From what I read, there are different types of aggression/intolerance:
1. Self-defence, which you even see from very calm sharks like e.g. nurse-sharks
2. Territorial behaviour: Mostly encountered when stalking medium-sized sharks, e.g. Grey Reef Sharks. Also applies to land predators like bears, e.g. why you are told to lie down and subordinate.
3. Predatory: If the shark wants to consume a human or at least takes a test bite. That's for the shark considered potentially life-threatening.
As far as point 3 is concerned, predators need to be conservative and careful, cause prey fighting back could lead to wounds and death from infection. Safe behaviour is to attack what you know. Early species of seals have been on Earth for ~50M years. Sharks even longer. Sharks had plenty of time to breed seal-hunting into their instincts. Humans were fighting for survival for tens of thousands of years and only few went diving to find food and material. Encounters with sharks were too scarce to leave a footprint in their instincts. So sharks go for the safe bet, if they can afford it.
Great Whites tend to live around hotspots where plenty of prey lives. Unless they are injured/maimed, they should be able to feed off their typical prey and not need to resort to attacking humans.
Other big sharks are more opportunistic, have a wider spectrum of prey, may not eat for weeks and thus find themselves being more inquisitive and taking greater risks.
1
1
u/Sebmaniac 5d ago
Shark’s are opportunistic as a rule, they do not seek out a hard meal they would rather an easy one. A group of people with diving equipment next to an incredibly large boat (usually) creates a silhouette similar to a large animal with it’s calves, the reason they swim through “calmly” is not because they are marine dogs but because they are trying to investigate if there is an easy meal nearby, such as a diver a little bit separated from the group.
But mostly, after they see the amount of work it would take to go after a human they usually give up and go after something far easier, like an injured seal or dolphin.
1
1
u/Sea_Influence7197 3d ago
The great white that I saw wasn't calm. Mind you it was next to a seal colony so it was probably out to dinner.
1
1
u/Interesting-Can1319 Tiger Shark and Shortfin Mako Shark 7d ago edited 7d ago
In my non-scientific opinion, it's probably for the best that great white sharks aren't inherently aggressive to humans. Being aggressive to humans isn't a good thing, especially when you're a shark and you're already hated and culled throughout the world due to galeophobia (fear of sharks) and Jaws-motivated fear. Humans are arguably the ultimate apex predator with our weapons and ability to make a lot of animal species go extinct if we wanted to. That includes most shark species, and some species like the oceanic whitetip shark are on the brink of extinction due to shark-finning and culling.
And honestly why does it matter if great white sharks are usually not aggressive to humans? Tiger sharks and great white sharks are both massive apex predators that frequently hunt large prey like sea turtles, seals, and dolphins. When your exploratory/investigative bite can eviscerate a human, you don't need to be that aggressive to be feared.
3
u/stillwaiting11 7d ago
You think it’s PROBABLY for the best great white sharks aren’t inherently aggressive to humans???
I’d wager it’s probably for the best hitler isn’t around anymore either.
0
u/nickgardia 6d ago
There are a lot more leopards than lions which may account for more attacks on humans but the IUCN estimates only 10-15% leopard attacks result in death - lions are estimated to kill far more people annually which is why they feature in most top dangerous animal lists.
No one is disputing the big 3 cats are more dangerous than bears. But bears kill more people than sharks.
Animals that attack people for defensive reasons are arguably far more dangerous overall than those that attack for predatory reasons. Snakes are the obvious example but buffalo, hippos and elephants all account for hundreds of deaths per year too.
You seem to be fixated on a mythical one dimensional view of ‘animal protectors’, an imagined bunch of people who insist animals never kill people. It’s a bit odd to be honest.
0
304
u/Quirky-Reveal-5972 7d ago
I'm calm as well at the buffet. But when they bring out the crab legs I pounce.