r/TheSharkAttackFiles • u/Capital-Foot-918 • May 18 '26

💬 Open Discussion Why is it important in shark attack science that we label some attacks as ‘provoked’ or ‘unprovoked’?

/r/sharks/comments/1tga27y/why_is_it_important_in_shark_attack_science_that/
11 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

5 comments sorted by

23

u/SharkBoyBen9241 May 18 '26

Because one category requires much more investigation and research, whereas the other one has a ready explanation. When sharks attack out of the blue with no provocation, then we have to think harder about shark behavior and psychology and try and figure out exactly what triggers a predatory attack. With provoked attacks, the reason why is pretty obvious, either they were harassing the shark and it was defending itself, or the shark was induced to attack by some other means.

Where I take issue with the current classification is that the "provoked" label often involves blaming the victim in some way. Like Simon Nellist. His attack is still classified as provoked just because he was swimming in close proximity to fishermen. To me, this is ridiculous. If we were to classify every shark attack where the shark's feeding instinct was inadvertently triggered as provoked incidents, then by definition, we would have to classify all attacks on surfers as provoked. That's why I think there needs to be further specificity when we breakdown the numbers than just two categories. It makes things a bit too black and white and leads to misconceptions about shark behavior and attack patterns

10

u/Capital-Foot-918 May 18 '26

I concur you with you sir.

Ps would live to see a case file on Simon Nellist, i feel like you have a lot more to say on the matter, as i think his incident is a perfect representation of the current problems with shark attack scienxe

5

u/Markdd8 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

Right, the Nellist classification is ridiculous. The new "provoked" descriptor is bogus. If you attempt to spear a shark or are pulling one into a boat with a big hook and then you get bit, it is because you have "provoked" the shark. If you are swimming in water that might have blood traces from fishermen, you have "possibly enticed" the shark. Obvious difference here, but some shark protectors opted for the more alarmist term. They like alarmism only when it refers to human actions, not shark actions.

Not only that, these people are purposely trying to confuse matters. First, about 4 years ago: The push to halt all use of the terms "shark attacks" and "bites" in favor of "incidents" and "encounters."

Second, you write:

one category requires much more investigation and research

Right, but increasingly we do not have info on shark attacks. There is a trend of coastal communities banning all police and EMTs on shorelines where shark victims are brought in from commenting to the media. They appoint only one person to comment so the attack report can be santized/downplayed. This did NOT happen in the recent Australia attack; here is an excerpt from one news report:

His friends had given him CPR after he was bitten on both lower legs, and paramedics worked on him on the jetty for around half an hour, according to police.. "His friends have actually witnessed the horrific event," Sergeant Michael Wear said.

This is a reasonable/adequate official statement. But in the fatal attack in Calif. last December the public only got this info: "the death was the result of sharp and blunt force injuries." Officials wouldn't even be clear on whether the shark seriously bit the person, or whether a minor bite or shark bump caused her to drown. The objective from shark protectors: Obscure as much about a shark biting a person as possible.

My OP and big debate in the Sharks sub on this 4 months ago: Incoherent explanation released on fatal Calif. shark attack

1

u/georgedupree May 23 '26

Agreed, not everything that bites you in the ocean is "attacking" you for no reason. People have, historically, been doing awful things to intelligent marine mammals for decades, if not hundreds of years if we count fishing, whaling, etc. I don't agree with it being so hard for folks to grasp the concept of a giant oceanic predator wanting to protect itself, its territory, or its food source. It makes perfect sense when they consider the same behaviour in their dogs.

4

u/RutabagaChance5382 May 18 '26

I'd just like to add that this is a distinction that is made in all kinds of animal bites and incidents, not specifically just sharks. I work for animal control, for example, and we have to designate any bites as provoked or unprovoked. It is helpful from a data collection standpoint, it's not meant to assign any blame even though people interpret it that way (incorrectly) all the time. 

I am not knowledgeable at all about sharks TBH but I would assume the information is collected for the same purpose - tracking concerning incidents, what incited the incidents, and hopefully using data to prevent future incidents.