 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / November 2006Diving on the Great Barrier reef is it considered dangerous overseas
Following a couple of incidents I am wondering if people think diving in Australia and particularly on the GBR is dangerous because of the marine life? Incident 1 I suggested to a German business colleague ( a keen holiday diver ) that while we were in Perth Western Australia that we go diving out at Rottenest Island he said he wouldn't dive in Aus because of the dangerous creatures, OK this was a month or 2 after a Great White had taken a swimmer off a Perth beach but still. Incident 2 discussing Steve Irwin on an Austin ng which had been cross posted to an Aus ng one of the posters claimed that while he was a keen diver he wouldn't dive the GBR as it was well known among divers as dangerous or an aggressive environment as he put it. I've the dived the GBR for years and don't feel particularly threatened by marine animals or the enviroment. >Following a couple of incidents I am wondering if people think diving in >Australia and particularly on the GBR is dangerous because of the marine [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I've the dived the GBR for years and don't feel particularly threatened by >marine animals or the enviroment. You should learn to use puctuation. Nevertheless, I lived in Perth for several months a long time ago. There are a lot of creatures in Oz that can kill you, but, like most animals, you have to back them into a corner or stick your hand into their nest/hole before they will fight back. Keep yer hands to yerself and I don't think you'll have any problem. --- Mike from Ottawa >>Following a couple of incidents I am wondering if people think diving in >>Australia and particularly on the GBR is dangerous because of the marine [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Keep yer hands to yerself and I don't think you'll have any problem. having dived in Australian waters for years I have never had any problems. Now back to the point of my post is there a perception that diving in Australian waters, esp the GBR is more dangerous other waters. <snip> >> Keep yer hands to yerself and I don't think you'll have any problem. > >having dived in Australian waters for years I have never had any problems. >Now back to the point of my post is there a perception that diving in >Australian waters, esp the GBR is more dangerous other waters. Going back to your original question, I would personally say "no." I wouldn't hesitate to dive there, and would certainly love to have the opportunity. --- Mike from Ottawa > <snip> >>> Keep yer hands to yerself and I don't think you'll have any problem. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > wouldn't hesitate to dive there, and would certainly love to have the > opportunity. Cool that fine. The only reason I asked was the 2 incidents I described had left me wondering about a perception that Aus was particularly dangerous for diving > --- > Mike from Ottawa > having dived in Australian waters for years I have never had any problems. > Now back to the point of my post is there a perception that diving in > Australian waters, esp the GBR is more dangerous other waters. Not a bit. There is a perception that cattleboats and coral bleaching have scarred the GBR to the point that it's certainly not worth putting up with Australians to go there when there is far superior diving elsewhere. And then there's Mike Ball's anti-American pricing scheme. Is he still getting away with that? >> having dived in Australian waters for years I have never had any problems. >> Now back to the point of my post is there a perception that diving in >> Australian waters, esp the GBR is more dangerous other waters. > > Not a bit. Of course the box jellies, the sea snakes, the lionfish, the blue ringed octopus are all in that area, along with sharks, but none of them bothered me. There is a perception that cattleboats and coral bleaching have > scarred the GBR to the point that it's certainly not worth putting up with > Australians to go there when there is far superior diving elsewhere. And > then there's Mike Ball's anti-American pricing scheme. Is he still getting > away with that? >>> having dived in Australian waters for years I have never had any >>> problems. Now back to the point of my post is there a perception that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the blue ringed octopus are all in that area, > along with sharks, but none of them bothered me. It's near impossible to get a bit from a sea snake due to their oral configuration. Lionfish keep to crevices. So, usually, do octopus. Sharks rarely attack divers and I'm probably more at risk from great whites on a local dive or a bull on a Florida dive than I would be on the GBR. The box jellies are the only scary ones as far as I'm concerned since one can blunder into a jelly in open water far easier than blundering into any of the other species you list. Some are even attracted to divers by their lights, and in that sense "attack". But their "bite" is also the only one of the species you list that can easily be defended against by a full wetsuit, hood, boots, and gloves. Besides, the other species (with the exception of the box jelly?) can also be found in many areas of the world that offer better diving. I'm far more afraid of drunken Australians and their pet kangaroos on land than I am of the beasties of the deep. >>>> having dived in Australian waters for years I have never had any >>>> problems. Now back to the point of my post is there a perception that [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I'm far more afraid of drunken Australians and their pet kangaroos on land > than I am of the beasties of the deep. and the drop bears ( killer koalas) that drop out of trees and attack you > and the drop bears ( killer koalas) that drop out of trees and attack you And the dingos that eat your babies. >> and the drop bears ( killer koalas) that drop out of trees and attack you > > And the dingos that eat your babies. and mad murderers on lonely roads and of course dive boat operaters who forget you. You're right far to dangerous leave it all to me > and mad murderers on lonely roads and of course dive boat operaters who > forget you. > > You're right far to dangerous leave it all to me And all the other former prisoners. You can have it. >> and mad murderers on lonely roads and of course dive boat operaters who >> forget you. >> >> You're right far to dangerous leave it all to me > > And all the other former prisoners. You can have it. I'm not a former prisoner but I will keep it, thankyou >> and the drop bears ( killer koalas) that drop out of trees and attack you > > And the dingos that eat your babies. Now that should've come after a warning! LD. >> It's near impossible to get a bit from a sea snake due to their oral >> configuration. Lionfish keep to crevices. So, usually, do octopus. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > and the drop bears ( killer koalas) that drop out of trees and attack you Stinky little bastards at that! LD. > There are a lot of creatures in Oz that can kill you, but, like most > animals, you have to back them into a corner or stick your hand into > their nest/hole before they will fight back. > > Keep yer hands to yerself and I don't think you'll have any problem. Tell that to all the juvenile box jellyfish I was diving with last night off Magnetic Island. They certainly don't have to be backed into a corner, and they long to be close to your dive light... Stan >> There are a lot of creatures in Oz that can kill you, but, like most >> animals, you have to back them into a corner or stick your hand into [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Stan Cool aren't they. > Following a couple of incidents I am wondering if people think diving in > Australia and particularly on the GBR is dangerous because of the marine > life? Personally, I think diving, in general is dangerous. Part of the danger is from marine life. Most divers, wherever they dive, learn how to avoid problems with marine life and dive safely. Others, less aware of the dangers, sometimes run into trouble. Surprisingly, Steve Irwin fell into the latter category. He fell victim to a marine animal that he did not realize was as deadly as it proved to be. Many of us probably would have made the same mistake. Australia does seem to have more than its share of dangerous creatures, some of which are commonly considered the most deadly of their type. That would seem to make Australia, in general, a more dangerous place to dive. It also makes Australia a more interesting place to dive for those willing to accept the risks and plan to avoid them. I suspect you are in a much better position to compare the relative risks of the GBR to other risks in Australia than those of us that live someplace else. Lee > Australia does seem to have more than its share of dangerous creatures, > some [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Lee I would guess 99% of the time that same sting ray would just flutter off when something got too close. obviously something pissed it off that day... maybe PMS. > I would guess 99% of the time that same sting ray would just flutter off > when something got too close. obviously something pissed it off that > day... maybe PMS. We don't know many details, but one thing we do know is that Steve Irwin was close enough to the ray to be in range of it's barb. That's closer than most divers should approach any dangerous creature and certainly closer than they should approach without preparing to deal with the creature's defensive capability. With stingrays, as with pretty much all animals, it's much safer to let the ray to the approaching. In my experience, stingrays often bury themselves in the sand with only their eyes visible above the surface. While they're easy to spot if you're looking, they're equally easy to miss if you're not. I'm sure many of us that dive in areas with large stingrays have been surprised as one we didn't even notice, took off in a cloud of sand. Indications are that Mr. Irwin was thinking about things other than stingrays at the time of the incident. It's quite possible that he was unaware of the ray until it reacted to his presence. It is my understanding is that another diver swam over the stingray first. I imagine that increased the ray's stress level. When Steve Irwin swam over it, the defensive reaction was triggered. With a diver in front, a diver behind, both close enough to be in range of the ray's barb, it's no surprise that the ray felt trapped and reacted as it did.Mr. Irwin's presence. One thing I've not paid attention to or researched. How deep was the water where this happened? Lee > it, the defensive reaction was triggered. With a diver in front, a diver > behind, both close enough to be in range of the ray's barb, it's no [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Lee i thought he was only snorkeling, which would mean no deeper than 10-12 feet at best > i thought he was only snorkeling, which would mean no deeper than 10-12 > feet at best Some of the pictures I saw suggested it was even shallower than that. I just don't know for sure. I'll look around when I get a chance. Lee > > i thought he was only snorkeling, which would mean no deeper than 10-12 > > feet at best > > Some of the pictures I saw suggested it was even shallower than that. I > just don't know for sure. I'll look around when I get a chance. The news reports stated that Steve Irwin was snorkelling in 2m of water with a "bull ray" that "probably weighed" 220lb (100kg). The problem with these reports is that as per published species information for the Australian Bull Ray, the weight claim is not scientifically supportable: <http://filaman.ifm-geomar.de/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=8687> The above states a maximum size for the Australian Bull Ray is 120 cm (4ft) and a maximum published weight of 56.5 kg (124 lbs). This means that the 100kg claim exceeds the known maximum for this species by nearly 50%. There are Australian rays large enough to be in this 100kg weight class, such as the Short-tail stingray (Dasyatis brevicaudata) and various Eagle Rays, but particularly when you have video footage to repeatedly review, distinguishing of salient characteristics such as no spots and a triangular vs "bovine" head shape is quite straightforward. Overall, I suspect that it probably was properly identified as a Bull Ray, but simply not as large as was claimed: Irwin was done in by a critter that probably weighed only 100lbs ... not 100kg ... ie, something smaller than he was. FWIW, had he been in the Caribbean, the Southern Stingray (Dasyatis Americana), found at Stingray City and elsewhere, can grow to a max size of 200cm (approx 6' 6") and has a maximum published weight of 135.6 kg (~300lbs), so it would have been big enough as claimed: < http://filaman.ifm-geomar.de/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=1247> As such, one can argue that at least for accidents with "big rays" that commonly frequent shallow water to cavort with tourist snorkelers, the Caribbean grows 'em bigger than Oz. -hh Update: Hardly an official release, but I've heard from a source that it may have been a Smooth Stingray (Dasyatis brevicaudata), which would grow large enough; <http://filaman.ifm-geomar.de/Summary/speciesSummary.php?ID=6381&genusname=Dasyat is&speciesname=brevicaudata> -hh > > > i thought he was only snorkeling, which would mean no deeper than 10-12 > > > feet at best [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > -hh > Update: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > <http://filaman.ifm-geomar.de/Summary/speciesSummary.php?ID=6381&genusname=Dasyat is&speciesname=brevicaudata> Dasyatis brevicaudata is often called a bull ray in Australia, having said that it was a long way north for Dasyatis brevicaudata. They talk about being found in from Southern Queensland and south. What they call the Australian Bull Ray is what I would call an eagle ray and is far to small >> I would guess 99% of the time that same sting ray would just flutter off >> when something got too close. obviously something pissed it off that [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > One thing I've not paid attention to or researched. How deep was the > water where this happened? 2 metres and he had dived down to look at it. PS he was snorkelling > Lee I don't live anywhere near the GBR - the danger in UK waters is the water itself, in its lack of visibility and warmth. But I believe that a lot of divers/snorkellers the world over make the mistake of 'humanising' creatures. Lets face it - we have NO IDEA what that stingray 'thought' when Steve Irwin swam close to it. It may have just 'decided' to go for a swim and kicked its tail out for some propulsion - heaven knows I've been kicked in the face by enough diver fins to know that happens! Or, it may have decided that those poor old crocs had been subjected to enough embarrassment, and took the chance to get one over on humans! I 'held' a stingray in Grand Cayman, they are apparently docile and harmless. But no creature should be judged by our own standards. Cows in a field have stampeded people to death - does that mean we shouldn't walk in the countryside? I would jump at the chance to dive on the Great Barrier Reef, and accept its 'dangers' as I do any other. > Lets face it - we have NO IDEA what that stingray 'thought' when Steve > Irwin swam close to it. Actually, we do. Stingrays do not use their barbs except defensively. > It may have just 'decided' to go for a swim and kicked its tail out for > some propulsion - heaven knows I've been kicked in the face by enough > diver fins to know that happens! You don't much about the physiology of stingrays, do you? Lee >>Australia does seem to have more than its share of dangerous creatures, >>some [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > when something got too close. obviously something pissed it off that day... > maybe PMS. Huh. You don't swim that small distance over a marine animal, let alone a shark or a ray. That is a question of politeness to beginn with, then one of common sense. Matthias >>> Australia does seem to have more than its share of dangerous >>> creatures, some [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > a shark or a ray. > That is a question of politeness to beginn with, then one of common sense. Agreed. Divers with "common sense" would give the animal it's space. But Steve was on to interact with the animals or get far closer than most people would. Knowing the animal and what it is capable of is more than enough for me to give it it's space. >>>> Australia does seem to have more than its share of dangerous >>>> creatures, some [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >people would. Knowing the animal and what it is capable of is more than >enough for me to give it it's space. Seeing Steve on his shows, he was probably fuckin' with the thing. But, you'll never know unless either you see the video or the cameraman talks. >>Agreed. Divers with "common sense" would give the animal it's space. But >> Steve was on to interact with the animals or get far closer than most [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >But, you'll never know unless either you see the video or the >cameraman talks. Which makes one wonder why the producer (John Stainton) is so keen to have the video destroyed. I'm thinking that may be a mistake on his part. I know he may genuinely want it destroyed because it's too painful for him and perhaps for the family to look at (or he perceives it that way for Steve's fans), but if they do that, they run the risk of being accused of a "cover up" (ie. not wanting to show Steve in a bad light for potentially pursing the animal and causing it to go "defensive." ____________________________________________ Regards, Arnold > Which makes one wonder why the producer (John Stainton) is so keen to > have the video destroyed. I'm thinking that may be a mistake on his part. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and > causing it to go "defensive." And that would be wrong of him how? Lee >> Which makes one wonder why the producer (John Stainton) is so keen to >> have the video destroyed. I'm thinking that may be a mistake on his part. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Lee Well, it wouldn't, assuming they can accept and live with the potential "cover up" criticism. But if, for the greater good of Steve's legacy, they want no "clouds of suspsicion" hanging around, I think it better for them to release it with the appropriate spin (ie. Be very carefull when dealing with wild animals - Steve was an expert/professional and look what happened to him). Furthermore,and unrelated to the previous point, I recall Steve being quoted as saying, "If I die, I want it on film!" If he was being serious, then I would think the tape should be released in honor of that quote. But I can see where the family might feel diferently. ____________________________________________ Regards, Arnold >>>>> Australia does seem to have more than its share of dangerous >>>>> creatures, some [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >But, you'll never know unless either you see the video or the >cameraman talks. The Aussie government has the tape and it will be part of the inquest records.  Signaturedillon If you can't figure out how to unmunge my address, email me and I'll explain it. >>>> Australia does seem to have more than its share of dangerous >>>> creatures, some [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > people would. Knowing the animal and what it is capable of is more than > enough for me to give it it's space. I have seen the yellow in the eye of 8ft diameter leopard sting rays. No big deal, just move slowly, and stay beside it. Then you may hover down and watch, when it prepares for a getaway by squishing water under its body. When you stay calm, it will lay down again. Matthias >> Following a couple of incidents I am wondering if people think diving in >> Australia and particularly on the GBR is dangerous because of the marine [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > realize was as deadly as it proved to be. Many of us probably would have > made the same mistake. Do you really think so Lee? I'm surprised by that. I don't, not in a million years. LD. >> He fell victim to a marine animal that he did not realize was as deadly >> as it proved to be. Many of us probably would have made the same >> mistake. > Do you really think so Lee? I'm surprised by that. I don't, not in a > million years. I don't think the results are likely, but the circumstances that allowed them are, in my opinion, pretty common. I'd bet that I've been surprised by a large stingray a dozen times over the years. The only difference is that they didn't wait for me to be directly above them before doing something about the threat. I wonder how many divers have accidentally put their hands on a spotted scorpion fish or run into a Portuguese Man O War they didn't notice until it was too late. Fire coral stings are a pretty common event, just as encounters with spiny sea urchins used to be back when they were everywhere. A few years ago, on a Blackbeard's cruise, half a dozen people swam into sea wasps (the Florida kind that sting like blazes, but don't kill most people), one right after the other. We're not careless all the time, but we're not all that careful all the time either. Lee >>> He fell victim to a marine animal that he did not realize was as deadly >>> as it proved to be. Many of us probably would have made the same [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > We're not careless all the time, but we're not all that careful all the > time either. Ok, I thought of his accident as less of an accident than you did. I assume he knew the thing was there, in fact he did from all accounts I've read. To be close enough, and to swim right on top of, intentionally is nothing close to what you mentioned. LD. > I've the dived the GBR for years and don't feel particularly threatened by > marine animals or the enviroment. xept when you get lost at sea. Matthias |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.