Talk:Bull shark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] vandalism
Someone should check the diet part of this wiki i think it has been messed with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.166.95 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Since undone. Thanks for the tip! Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 20:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Testosterone
I've changed the previous version which stated that the bull shark has the highest testosterone levels of all animals to read that it has one of the highest, this because I am sitting with a brief guide to elephant seals I got while visiting Año Nuevo State Reserve. It claims that Elephant Seals have the highest levels of testosterone of any animal and this is one of the reasons they were nearly hunted to extinction. Anyone with a field speciality in Sharks and Elephant Seals care to weight in? --Mecil 18:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm removing this claim from the article. The current reference does not contain the word "testosterone" (as of 3 Apr 2007). Most google hits for bull shark testosterone seem to be taken straight from wikipedia, although this full transcript contains the quote: "I guess it has the highest testosterone level of any animal." My guess is that this speculation might have turned into a "fact", Chinese whispers style. In any case, the claim is meaningless unless we know how many animals have actually had their testosterone levels measured. Adrian J. Hunter 14:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article in dire need of improvement
I don't know how much the contributors of this article read the articles on other species of sharks. Let me enlighten you. Some are top-drawer, first-class pieces of work (e.g. Oceanic Whitetip Shark & Great White Shark). Others really stink. This one really, really stinks. Let's get busy people. This is an important species - not the Spiny Dogfish. Hokeman 04:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- If your interested look at WikiProject Sharks, we are trying to get the shark articles to a good class of work.--chris_huh 15:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Solitary?
uhmm.. been to SA, seen the indian ocean.. surfed... these sharks are NOT solitary and the are NOT sluggish. They are pack hunting animals and they KNOW what you are.
-
- This puzzled me as well - bulls travel in packs, from everything I've seen - including several dives with them, feeding en-masse. "Sluggish"? No moreso than any predator out for a stroll, so hardly worth the mention. When they smell food however - be out of their way!! They are the fastest shark I've experienced thus far, and I didn't even know it was physically possible to do a 180 like they do in the water. It's amazing to witness. pterantula 15:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- OK, I have now searched all sharks books I have and used google to the best of my ability and can not find anything thrustworthy that states that they hunt in pack, I do find 2-3 resonably good references that states that they are solitary hunters. I also find the fishbase reference that staes that they can travel 'up to 180 kilometers in 24 hours', which contradicts that they are sluggísh, my guess is that they are both slow and fast, have you seen them in non feeding mode? Are they still fast? I took sluggish away from the article, and it already states 'Despite their apparent docility, they are capable of surprising bursts of speed' so I guess that states that they can be considered sluggish but also move fast, I think that is as good as we cxan get this without better references. Not sure what to do about the pack thing, does anyone have any reference for them beeing pack hunters?? Stefan 14:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- "Bull shark is a species that hunts alone." - this statement REALLY bothers me; it carries the tone of absolute fact when it is false in my personal experience, as well as that of those with whom I have dived. Bulls swarm. This can also be seen in every documentary I've ever watched (see Dr. Erich Ritter on Discovery's Shark Week, or Manny Puig's "Ultimate Predator" video).
- pterantula 13 June 2007
-
- I agree it is a clunky sentence. But the point is that they aren't co-operative hunters or schooling fish (like tope or basking sharks), and even if they congregate around a rich feeding ground that doesn't mean the sharks are interacting with one another beyond defining status, checking for prospective mates, etc. Speed is relative of course, and compared with swimming humans of course they are fast. But compared with, say, blue sharks, I doubt they are especially fast for their size. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- PS. Be very careful about quoting from Discovery Channel type things. As a scientist, I know within my field that TV shows often distort what I and colleagues have told the researchers. Spend any time with any bunch of zoologists or palaeontologists and you'll hear similar things. TV producers spin facts and edit comments to get the most punchy subject matter that they can. While that makes for great entertainment, don't for a second assume it is unbiased fact. Rely on published papers by scientists in the first instance and trustworthy non-fiction summaries in books second. Web sites and TV shows are a far distant third. Cheers, NEale Neale Monks 17:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Understood Neale, thanks for the input. Let me just add that I've shared the water with many sharks, and bulls are indeed FAST!.... As for "quoting" Discovery Channel, I apologize - I was not; I was referring to footage of Dr. Ritter, which has been shown in many different documentaries. On the subject of packing vs. solitary behavior, I wonder: how would/should we categorize reef whitetips, blacktip reefers, or grey reefers? I doubt it could be said that their efforts are coordinated, the way we would expect in lions or humans, so are they "solitary" hunters, even though they are known to hunt in large numbers? - pterantula 13 June 2007
-
-
-
-
- To fish scientists, aggregating, shoaling, and schooling all mean very specific things, but to non-specialists these can often all seem to be the same thing. An aggregation is merely fishes all together in one place because one or more desirable resources are there. So a bunch of whale sharks might aggregate around a particularly rich patch of plankton, like when corals spawn. A shoal is a loose association of fish that forage independently but are mutually attracted to one another for various social purposes. They're each doing their own thing, but they stay within range of one another and adjust their behaviour to keep other members of the group in view. This is the kind of behaviour you'd associate with goldfish. Finally, a school is where the fish tightly synchronise their movement with one another and forage or migrate as a swarm. I'm not aware of any sharks that do this. But among bony fish, this is like anchovies and herrings, where the school almost behaves like a single super-organism. Anyway, for a lot of sharks, I'd assume that when seen in groups they're merely aggregating, drawn together by a rich supply of prey or for breeding purposes. So, the question is, when people have reported sharks as "schooling" or "shoaling", which of these three terms did they actually mean? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- So what is the word for what of scalloped hammerheads do? shoal or school, or maybe somewehere inbetween? I would have called it school, but not sure if your definition of 'tightly synchronise their movement' is a good description? Stefan 01:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Almost certainly a shoal if the group is somewhat stable. Schooling isn't really typical of predators but of prey fish, where the school is an anti-predation behaviour. All the fish swim at the same speed in the same direction, turning simultaneously. Shoaling on the other hand allows each fish to hunt by itself and swim about, they just "stay in touch", keeping an eye on where other members of the shoal are but not actually synchronising their speed or direction. But in most cases I'd imagine sharks merely aggregate. This doesn't mean there aren't any interactions, there are, but they're social behaviours rather than swimming behaviours, and fish will swim away and forage on their own on join other aggregations whenever they want. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 13:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- So what is the word for what of scalloped hammerheads do? shoal or school, or maybe somewehere inbetween? I would have called it school, but not sure if your definition of 'tightly synchronise their movement' is a good description? Stefan 01:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- To fish scientists, aggregating, shoaling, and schooling all mean very specific things, but to non-specialists these can often all seem to be the same thing. An aggregation is merely fishes all together in one place because one or more desirable resources are there. So a bunch of whale sharks might aggregate around a particularly rich patch of plankton, like when corals spawn. A shoal is a loose association of fish that forage independently but are mutually attracted to one another for various social purposes. They're each doing their own thing, but they stay within range of one another and adjust their behaviour to keep other members of the group in view. This is the kind of behaviour you'd associate with goldfish. Finally, a school is where the fish tightly synchronise their movement with one another and forage or migrate as a swarm. I'm not aware of any sharks that do this. But among bony fish, this is like anchovies and herrings, where the school almost behaves like a single super-organism. Anyway, for a lot of sharks, I'd assume that when seen in groups they're merely aggregating, drawn together by a rich supply of prey or for breeding purposes. So, the question is, when people have reported sharks as "schooling" or "shoaling", which of these three terms did they actually mean? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] a shark attack
there was a kid that got his arm bit off by a bull shark. Then his uncle pulled the shark onshore shot it, then pryed the sharks mouth open then took the severed arm out. And then they sewed the arm on. Isn't that weird!
not really, why?Lokon40 00:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to add another section so i'll put it here. Shouldn't there be a section about bull shark attack. The great white has one yet bull sharks have a higher record of attacks.
- Just add the text, there already is the behaviour section that talks mostly about attacks, if you think you can split that into two sections go ahead, be bold. Stefan 00:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason the guy was able to pull the shark onto land is that he had been surf fishing and had hooked the Bull Shark who then attacked the child. While I am not necessarily blaming the uncle for the attack, it's not a very good idea to surf fish near bathers simply because it is precisely the type of thrashing (and blood) that occurs when you hook a fish, that attract sharks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.243.36.2 (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Eye contact
I'm tempted to remove the "maintain eye contact underwater" bit. Seems unlikely to have any scientific backup. Does anybody have a source for that? Yomangani 16:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is hard to quantify scientific evidence, but I have been told numerous times as a diver that if you want to come close to shark you should not look at them direct eye-to-eye, it is bad to point a camera with a big lens directly at them since they will swim away, and if you are attacked always keep eye contact. (that was the unecientific, own research part) as for direct references do a [google search on ,eye contact shark attack] and you will get [[1]] not very sceintific but still, [[2]] see point 6, I would say very scientific and [[3]] again stating to keep eye contact but not talking about it much, none specific about bull shark though. There are many more web pages stating the same in general, most not very scientific. I tried to find a real book reference and the best I have is Shark Smart, by Richard Martin, the same authour that now calls hims self R. Aidan Martin on the elasmo-research web site above, he is a expert in sharks and have dived with sharks for 10's of years. That book also states to get close, do not look directly at a shark, but does not state that looking directly reduces the risk of attack even though it has a list of things to do to reduce the risk of attack. So I would say that this is at least not wrong (as least as good as we know now) and we should keep this, but I can not find any specific bull shark reference, therefore I will not add the reference but maybe add it as general reference ... I do not know. Stefan 01:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- In general there may be some anecdotal evidence for it (maybe it should go on the shark attack page), I was more concerned with its inclusion in this paragraph on bull shark attack patterns, especially as the preceding sentence it talks about shallow and dirty water - this would suggest you crouch down and push your face up against its eyeball. Doesn't sound a particular appealing plan to me! Yomangani 09:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, agree on that, can remove from bull shark page, I plan to write a new section on the shark attack page about how to avoid shark attacks and how to behave if you are harassed by sharks, but not much time now. Stefan 10:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- In general there may be some anecdotal evidence for it (maybe it should go on the shark attack page), I was more concerned with its inclusion in this paragraph on bull shark attack patterns, especially as the preceding sentence it talks about shallow and dirty water - this would suggest you crouch down and push your face up against its eyeball. Doesn't sound a particular appealing plan to me! Yomangani 09:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I would love to see some more scientific backup for this, since I KNOW this to be true from first, second, and third-hand experience. I dive with some hardcore shark people, and the consensus - along with my own experience - is that they know when you're watching, and will generally demur. pterantula 15:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I found one more reference for this, see [4], I used this ref in a new section in shark attack on how to avoid attacks, that I have planned to write for a long time, please read and update. Stefan 02:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would love to see some more scientific backup for this, since I KNOW this to be true from first, second, and third-hand experience. I dive with some hardcore shark people, and the consensus - along with my own experience - is that they know when you're watching, and will generally demur. pterantula 15:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
yo cody i remember when u put this on like 2 years ago. the kid got his arm bit off i found the article. but, im still wondering obout how they got the shark onshore. can any one tell me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brycepap (talk • contribs) 00:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sharks Attack Shrimping Boat, Setting it Adrift off Florida Coast
FORT MYERS BEACH, Fla. — A crew of two fishermen was stranded 100 miles off Florida's coast after a pack of bull sharks that had been following the shrimping boat for days smashed a hole into the ship's hull and broke its propeller. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250503,00.html Crocoite 23:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


