Shark feeding victim? Krishna Thompson sues Our Lucaya resort for $25 million

Post by newz
Shark feeding victim? Krishna Thompson sues Our Lucaya resort for $25
million
http://www.cdnn.info/industry/i031205a/i031205a.html

Someone failed to tell this guy that there were sharks around ??
Perhaps he should name the shark-feeding operation in an additional
suit.

de Valois

2003-12-07 13:02:12 UTC

Post by newz
Shark feeding victim? Krishna Thompson sues Our Lucaya resort for $25
million
http://www.cdnn.info/industry/i031205a/i031205a.html

Someone failed to tell this guy that there were sharks around ??
Perhaps he should name the shark-feeding operation in an additional
suit.

If Scuba Booby had bothered to plagiarize a real reporter's work on the story,
it would have noted the resort, "Our Lucaya" failed to post warnings about
sharks in the area, or that shark feedings were happening twenty five feet from
the resort's beach, with no underwater barrier blocking the beach from the
feeding area.

And if I'm not mistaken, if memory serves, the lifeguards watched the attack and
did nothing until the guy struggled back to the beach once the shark cleared
out.

But you wouldn't know that, 'cause Scuba Booby is a jackass.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...Loading Image...

Dan Bracuk, CTHD

2003-12-07 14:28:06 UTC

de Valois <***@nailedandused.com> pounded away at his keyboard
resulting in:
:And if I'm not mistaken, if memory serves, the lifeguards watched the attack and
:did nothing until the guy struggled back to the beach once the shark cleared
:out.

Discretion being the better part of valour and all that stuff. If
sharks are feeding, I don't think the lifeguards should have entered
the water.

Dan Bracuk
If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure.
The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

de Valois

2003-12-08 14:03:02 UTC

Dan Bracuk, CTHD left this mess on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 09:28:06 -0500 for The Way

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
:And if I'm not mistaken, if memory serves, the lifeguards watched the attack and
:did nothing until the guy struggled back to the beach once the shark cleared
:out.
Discretion being the better part of valour and all that stuff. If
sharks are feeding, I don't think the lifeguards should have entered
the water.

I agree, but then that sort of begs the question regarding adequate warning if
the lifeguards knew, but the bathers didn't.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Chris Guynn

2003-12-08 15:54:44 UTC

Post by de Valois
Dan Bracuk, CTHD left this mess on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 09:28:06 -0500 for The Way

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
:And if I'm not mistaken, if memory serves, the lifeguards watched the

attack

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
and
:did nothing until the guy struggled back to the beach once the shark cleared
:out.
Discretion being the better part of valour and all that stuff. If
sharks are feeding, I don't think the lifeguards should have entered
the water.

I agree, but then that sort of begs the question regarding adequate warning if
the lifeguards knew, but the bathers didn't.

Ummm, the guy was just attacked by a shark... I'm pretty sure that most of
the bathers new at that point... :-)

Post by de Valois
Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003
(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Dan Bracuk, CTHD

2003-12-08 22:47:57 UTC

de Valois <***@nailedandused.com> pounded away at his keyboard
resulting in:
:I agree, but then that sort of begs the question regarding adequate warning if
:the lifeguards knew, but the bathers didn't.

Maybe the lifeguards learned about the sharks when they saw the
attack.

Dan Bracuk
If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure.
The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

de Valois

2003-12-09 14:55:02 UTC

Dan Bracuk, CTHD left this mess on Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:47:57 -0500 for The Way

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
:I agree, but then that sort of begs the question regarding adequate warning if
:the lifeguards knew, but the bathers didn't.
Maybe the lifeguards learned about the sharks when they saw the
attack.

Could be, but that would mean the shark feeding op next door to the resort just
opened that day, I think.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Salty

2003-12-07 19:12:11 UTC

Post by newz
Shark feeding victim? Krishna Thompson sues Our Lucaya resort for $25
million
http://www.cdnn.info/industry/i031205a/i031205a.html

Someone failed to tell this guy that there were sharks around ??
Perhaps he should name the shark-feeding operation in an additional
suit.

If Scuba Booby had bothered to plagiarize a real reporter's work on the story,
it would have noted the resort, "Our Lucaya" failed to post warnings about
sharks in the area, or that shark feedings were happening twenty five feet from
the resort's beach, with no underwater barrier blocking the beach from the
feeding area.
And if I'm not mistaken, if memory serves, the lifeguards watched the attack and
did nothing until the guy struggled back to the beach once the shark cleared
out.
But you wouldn't know that, 'cause Scuba Booby is a jackass.

Hmmm ?? Did you read the same article that I did ?? Everything that
you mention was in the article that I read from the website posted.
Regardless, when I dive in the ocean, I expect that I'll encounter
some fish. Some of those fish could be man-eaters. That's the risk I
take. The bizarre stuff in the article/charges about the
shark-feeding within the beach, etc is just that. Bizarre. No one
complains about how uncool it is for divers to feed sharks until
someone gets bit. Hey, maybe this should be a freaking wake up call
!! And as far as the lifeguards not jumping into the water to save
him, well DUH !! was that *really* part of their employment contract
?? I mean I find it hard to believe that their job description
read... "If you witness a guest being torn up by a shark, you will
haul your sorry ass into the water anyway and either beat that shark
off of the guest or else act as a decoy."

Lee Bell

2003-12-07 20:35:01 UTC

Post by Salty
The bizarre stuff in the article/charges about the
shark-feeding within the beach, etc is just that. Bizarre. No one
complains about how uncool it is for divers to feed sharks until
someone gets bit.

Funny, I seem to remember quite a bit being said about it right here on
rec.scuba back when Florida was still debating a fish/shark feeding ban.
What I find really funny is that somebody is now claiming that shark feeding
near the beach contributed to the attack that occurred. That, of course, is
something that the shark feeders claimed would not happen. Anybody want to
bet on whether the shark feeder in question was one of the people that
testified about how safe it was when the Florida debates were going on?

Post by Salty
Hey, maybe this should be a freaking wake up call
!! And as far as the lifeguards not jumping into the water to save
him, well DUH !! was that *really* part of their employment contract
?? I mean I find it hard to believe that their job description
read... "If you witness a guest being torn up by a shark, you will
haul your sorry ass into the water anyway and either beat that shark
off of the guest or else act as a decoy."

Interesting question. The answer seems obvious, but on the other hand,
lifeguards are paid and do agree to put their lives at risk to save those in
trouble in the water. What use are they if they decline to help any time
doing so would risk their own lives?

Lee

Chris Guynn

2003-12-07 21:48:45 UTC

Interesting take on the situation. During my lifeguard training, I was
taught that you should do everything in your power to save the drowning
victim while minimizing your own risk. This training even went so far as to
say (basically) that if the person is thrashing, leave them alone (at least
until they either calm down or go unconscious). We were trained in
avoidance as well as (in water) escape tactics. We were taught to perceive
that the person who was drowning was already dead and we had the ability to
bring them back to life. If we killed ourselves in the process, it would
mean that there were now 2 people dead instead of 1.

C Guynn

Mike from Ottawa

2003-12-07 22:27:26 UTC

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:48:45 GMT, "Chris Guynn"
<snip>

Interesting question. The answer seems obvious, but on the other hand,
lifeguards are paid and do agree to put their lives at risk to save those

Post by Lee Bell
trouble in the water. What use are they if they decline to help any time
doing so would risk their own lives?

That rings true for me. I took a NAUI Rescue Diver course a couple of
years ago, and we learned avoidance techniques, too.

All through the scuba courses, we were instructed to avoid putting our
own lives at risk while, of course, you always try to help, but not if
you put your own life at immediate risk.

During the Rescue Diver course, you approach a diver on the bottom and
prod them to see if they're conscious and analyse the situation. You
then apply a technique to take them from the rear, around the tanks,
and use their power inflator to bring them to the surface. Everything
was about hazard avoidance.

---
Mike from Ottawa

rnf2

2003-12-07 23:11:58 UTC

Post by Mike from Ottawa
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:48:45 GMT, "Chris Guynn"
<snip>

Interesting question. The answer seems obvious, but on the other hand,
lifeguards are paid and do agree to put their lives at risk to save those

Post by Lee Bell
trouble in the water. What use are they if they decline to help any time
doing so would risk their own lives?

That rings true for me. I took a NAUI Rescue Diver course a couple of
years ago, and we learned avoidance techniques, too.
All through the scuba courses, we were instructed to avoid putting our
own lives at risk while, of course, you always try to help, but not if
you put your own life at immediate risk.
During the Rescue Diver course, you approach a diver on the bottom and
prod them to see if they're conscious and analyse the situation. You
then apply a technique to take them from the rear, around the tanks,
and use their power inflator to bring them to the surface. Everything
was about hazard avoidance.
---
Mike from Ottawa

Same with PADI rescue diver. id they're thrashing panicked and don't calm
when you talk to them, do a duck dive and come up behind, holding solidly to
the tank or BCD so they couldn't reach you, and inflate them, then there are
a number of tows to get them to shore/boat without getting into their reach.

If they do get hold of you theres always clubbing them uncounsious.

interesting course.

rhys

Mike from Ottawa

2003-12-08 00:58:59 UTC

Post by Mike from Ottawa
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:48:45 GMT, "Chris Guynn"

<snip>

Post by rnf2
Same with PADI rescue diver. id they're thrashing panicked and don't calm
when you talk to them, do a duck dive and come up behind, holding solidly to
the tank or BCD so they couldn't reach you, and inflate them, then there are
a number of tows to get them to shore/boat without getting into their reach.
If they do get hold of you theres always clubbing them uncounsious.
interesting course.
rhys

I didn't want to bring up the clubbing. We do that with seals, too,
and it always leads to controversy.

---
Mike from Ottawa

rnf2

2003-12-08 09:06:22 UTC

Post by Mike from Ottawa
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:48:45 GMT, "Chris Guynn"

<snip>

I didn't want to bring up the clubbing. We do that with seals, too,
and it always leads to controversy.
---
Mike from Ottawa

seals? You mean the navy killers? I wouldn't like to be around one of those
guys panicked, they carry all sorts of sharp stuff. someone can go fetch a
trak gun from the zoo before I get near them...

rhys

Mike from Ottawa

2003-12-08 22:23:43 UTC

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:06:22 +1300, "rnf2" <***@NOSPAMwaikato.ac.nz>
wrote:

<snip>

Post by Mike from Ottawa
I didn't want to bring up the clubbing. We do that with seals, too,
and it always leads to controversy.
---
Mike from Ottawa

No, we just have the furry seals that eat cod. Brigitte Bardot came
out a long time ago to cuddle with the seals, wearing her fur coat.
Seals are cute, but cod ain't, to the detriment of the cod. Nobody
out there cares about the clubbing of the cod.

I guess we're getting a bit far of track here, eh?

---
Mike from Ottawa

rnf2

2003-12-09 03:51:47 UTC

Post by Mike from Ottawa
<snip>

Post by Mike from Ottawa
I didn't want to bring up the clubbing. We do that with seals, too,
and it always leads to controversy.
---
Mike from Ottawa

No, we just have the furry seals that eat cod. Brigitte Bardot came
out a long time ago to cuddle with the seals, wearing her fur coat.
Seals are cute, but cod ain't, to the detriment of the cod. Nobody
out there cares about the clubbing of the cod.
I guess we're getting a bit far of track here, eh?
---
Mike from Ottawa

So?? This is rec.scuba. the further off track you get the better... maybe
some day you'll end up back on topic after going the long way round and
solving all the worlds ills on the way...
;)

rhys

de Valois

2003-12-09 14:56:10 UTC

Mike from Ottawa left this mess on Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:23:43 -0500 for The Way

Post by Mike from Ottawa
No, we just have the furry seals that eat cod. Brigitte Bardot came
out a long time ago to cuddle with the seals, wearing her fur coat.
Seals are cute, but cod ain't, to the detriment of the cod. Nobody
out there cares about the clubbing of the cod.

How wrong you are. Ask any Scandinavian about the movement to repeal lutefisk, a
meal prepared by beating a cod with a pine board, then eating the board because
it's tastier.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Mike from Ottawa

2003-12-10 04:05:33 UTC

Post by de Valois
Mike from Ottawa left this mess on Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:23:43 -0500 for The Way

How wrong you are. Ask any Scandinavian about the movement to repeal lutefisk, a
meal prepared by beating a cod with a pine board, then eating the board because
it's tastier.

Treating cod with lye? Hmmm. You're right, that's worse than
clubbing them.

Wasn't lutefisk the reason the Vikings grew horns?

---
Mike from Ottawa

de Valois

2003-12-10 14:00:38 UTC

Mike from Ottawa left this mess on Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:05:33 -0500 for The Way

Post by de Valois
Mike from Ottawa left this mess on Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:23:43 -0500 for The Way

How wrong you are. Ask any Scandinavian about the movement to repeal lutefisk, a
meal prepared by beating a cod with a pine board, then eating the board because
it's tastier.

Treating cod with lye? Hmmm. You're right, that's worse than
clubbing them.
Wasn't lutefisk the reason the Vikings grew horns?

We were horny long before lutefisk. I think it's the cold weather.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Mike from Ottawa

2003-12-11 00:31:50 UTC

On 10 Dec 2003 06:00:38 -0800, de Valois <***@nailedandused.com>
wrote:

<snip>

Post by Mike from Ottawa
Wasn't lutefisk the reason the Vikings grew horns?

We were horny long before lutefisk. I think it's the cold weather.

OK, I can agree with that. Canajuns, Norwegians, Finns, Swedes,
Russians -- all a bunch of horny bastards. What else can you do on
those long, winter nights.

---
Mike from Ottawa

Salty

2003-12-08 18:30:52 UTC

Post by Mike from Ottawa
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:48:45 GMT, "Chris Guynn"

<snip>

Post by Salty
Hey, maybe this should be a freaking wake up call
!! And as far as the lifeguards not jumping into the water to save
him, well DUH !! was that *really* part of their employment

contract

Post by Salty
?? I mean I find it hard to believe that their job description
read... "If you witness a guest being torn up by a shark, you will
haul your sorry ass into the water anyway and either beat that shark
off of the guest or else act as a decoy."

Interesting question. The answer seems obvious, but on the other hand,
lifeguards are paid and do agree to put their lives at risk to save

those
in

Post by Lee Bell
trouble in the water. What use are they if they decline to help any

time

Post by Lee Bell
doing so would risk their own lives?

Post by Chris Guynn
say (basically) that if the person is thrashing, leave them alone (at

least

Post by Chris Guynn
until they either calm down or go unconscious). We were trained in
avoidance as well as (in water) escape tactics. We were taught to

perceive

Post by Chris Guynn
that the person who was drowning was already dead and we had the ability

Post by Chris Guynn
bring them back to life. If we killed ourselves in the process, it would
mean that there were now 2 people dead instead of 1.
C Guynn

That rings true for me. I took a NAUI Rescue Diver course a couple of
years ago, and we learned avoidance techniques, too.
All through the scuba courses, we were instructed to avoid putting our
own lives at risk while, of course, you always try to help, but not if
you put your own life at immediate risk.
During the Rescue Diver course, you approach a diver on the bottom and
prod them to see if they're conscious and analyse the situation. You
then apply a technique to take them from the rear, around the tanks,
and use their power inflator to bring them to the surface. Everything
was about hazard avoidance.
---
Mike from Ottawa

Same with PADI rescue diver. id they're thrashing panicked and don't calm
when you talk to them, do a duck dive and come up behind, holding solidly to
the tank or BCD so they couldn't reach you, and inflate them, then there are
a number of tows to get them to shore/boat without getting into their reach.
If they do get hold of you theres always clubbing them uncounsious.
interesting course.

This is all well and fine but I fail to see the singnificance that you
have described. And no, it's not about certs as I've got a PADI Master
Diver Cert and am doing a NAUI DM Cert.

Mike from Ottawa

2003-12-08 22:26:32 UTC

<snip>

Post by Salty
This is all well and fine but I fail to see the singnificance that you
have described. And no, it's not about certs as I've got a PADI Master
Diver Cert and am doing a NAUI DM Cert.

I've never been a lifeguard, and I simply don't know exactly how far
they're supposed to go in saving a life. Jumping into shark-infested
water sounds a bit dangerous, and I wouldn't blame a lifeguard for not
performing a rescue in that situation.

Diving certs are the only thing to which I can relate this.

---
Mike from Ottawa

Salty

2003-12-09 18:14:48 UTC

Post by Mike from Ottawa
I've never been a lifeguard, and I simply don't know exactly how far
they're supposed to go in saving a life. Jumping into shark-infested
water sounds a bit dangerous, and I wouldn't blame a lifeguard for not
performing a rescue in that situation.

Agreed. I think that if the resort expects the lifeguards to take some
form of action directly, then the resort needs to make sure the guards
are trained for this and provide them with the needed 'tools'... ie a
dang harpoon.

Post by Mike from Ottawa
Diving certs are the only thing to which I can relate this.

But how ?? Do you have a cert that taught you what to do in case of
shark attack ?? :) I can see your point about not wanting to have 2
victims.

Mike from Ottawa

2003-12-10 04:00:09 UTC

Or maybe bazookas. I'm not sure of the best way to kill a feeding
shark. I don't think a lifeguard flailing at the shark with his
boogie-board is going to do much good.

Post by Mike from Ottawa
Diving certs are the only thing to which I can relate this.

But how ?? Do you have a cert that taught you what to do in case of
shark attack ?? :) I can see your point about not wanting to have 2
victims.

My point was only that we're taught to help someone in distress or
unconscious, but only if they're no danger to us.

I think PADI has a special cert for shark attacks. Not many graduate,
though.

---
Mike from Ottawa

Salty

2003-12-10 09:01:14 UTC

Post by Mike from Ottawa
Or maybe bazookas. I'm not sure of the best way to kill a feeding
shark. I don't think a lifeguard flailing at the shark with his
boogie-board is going to do much good.

LOL Bazookas. That conjures up a funny but twisted image for me. I
kinda suspect that, in the same way that you and I don't know the best
way to kill a feeding shark, the lifeguards didn't know what to do
either. I honestly wonder how many lifeguards are taught anything
about this topic and, if so, what are they taught ??

Post by Mike from Ottawa
My point was only that we're taught to help someone in distress or
unconscious, but only if they're no danger to us.

Yes... and wildlife is a totally different problem.

Post by Mike from Ottawa
I think PADI has a special cert for shark attacks. Not many graduate,
though.

Ha !! Wouldn't PADI have to make sure they graduate in order to be
certain of getting paid ?? <grin>

Chris Guynn

2003-12-10 15:57:28 UTC

Post by Mike from Ottawa
Or maybe bazookas. I'm not sure of the best way to kill a feeding
shark. I don't think a lifeguard flailing at the shark with his
boogie-board is going to do much good.

Post by Mike from Ottawa
My point was only that we're taught to help someone in distress or
unconscious, but only if they're no danger to us.

Yes... and wildlife is a totally different problem.

Post by Mike from Ottawa
I think PADI has a special cert for shark attacks. Not many graduate,
though.

Ha !! Wouldn't PADI have to make sure they graduate in order to be
certain of getting paid ?? <grin>

payment is required up front. Also, you have to sign a waiver. The patch
looks like it has a bite taken out of it... <eg>

Lee Bell

2003-12-11 03:41:25 UTC

Post by Salty
I honestly wonder how many lifeguards are taught anything
about this topic and, if so, what are they taught ??

I was not even mentioned in the courses I took or in those I taught.

Post by Mike from Ottawa
My point was only that we're taught to help someone in distress or
unconscious, but only if they're no danger to us.

That was not the case in the courses I took or taught. We were taught to
recognize and assess the risk and how to deal with it. As you, I think,
previously mentioned, decisions about what we could and could not do were
one of the many judgements we were called on to make, but any time a
lifeguard moves from his observation point to effect a rescue, he's taking a
risk.

Lee

"Grumman-581" @houston.rr.com>

2003-12-10 19:15:03 UTC

"Salty" wrote ...

Post by Salty
LOL Bazookas. That conjures up a funny but twisted image for me. I
kinda suspect that, in the same way that you and I don't know the best
way to kill a feeding shark, the lifeguards didn't know what to do
either. I honestly wonder how many lifeguards are taught anything
about this topic and, if so, what are they taught ??

You mean something more than "don't disturb them while they're eating"?
<sick-grin>

de Valois

2003-12-08 14:09:16 UTC

Mike from Ottawa left this mess on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:27:26 -0500 for The Way

Post by Mike from Ottawa
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:48:45 GMT, "Chris Guynn"
<snip>

Interesting question. The answer seems obvious, but on the other hand,
lifeguards are paid and do agree to put their lives at risk to save those

Post by Lee Bell
trouble in the water. What use are they if they decline to help any time
doing so would risk their own lives?

That rings true for me. I took a NAUI Rescue Diver course a couple of
years ago, and we learned avoidance techniques, too.
All through the scuba courses, we were instructed to avoid putting our
own lives at risk while, of course, you always try to help, but not if
you put your own life at immediate risk.
During the Rescue Diver course, you approach a diver on the bottom and
prod them to see if they're conscious and analyse the situation. You
then apply a technique to take them from the rear, around the tanks,
and use their power inflator to bring them to the surface. Everything
was about hazard avoidance.

Yes, but a Rescue Diver is not a paid lifeguard. Very different situation.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Lee Bell

2003-12-08 15:15:44 UTC

Post by Lee Bell
Interesting question. The answer seems obvious, but on the other hand,
lifeguards are paid and do agree to put their lives at risk to save those
in trouble in the water. What use are they if they decline to help any

time

Post by Lee Bell
doing so would risk their own lives?

Post by Chris Guynn
Interesting take on the situation.

Not exactly a take, just a thought I considered interesting.

During my lifeguard training, I was taught that you should do everything

in your power to save the drowning victim while minimizing your own risk.

So was I, but the fact remains, I was expected to guard the lives of those
in my charge and, that alone, as ever life guard knows all too well, is a
risk of life.

We were taught to perceive that the person who was drowning was already

dead and we had the ability to bring them back to life.

I've never heard anything like this.

If we killed ourselves in the process, it would mean that there were now 2

people dead instead of 1.

Yep, we were all taught that. Most divers were too.

Yes, but a Rescue Diver is not a paid lifeguard. Very different situation.

Sure is. Like I said, interesting question.

Lee

Chris Guynn

2003-12-08 16:07:08 UTC

time

Post by Lee Bell
doing so would risk their own lives?

Post by Chris Guynn
Interesting take on the situation.

Not exactly a take, just a thought I considered interesting.

During my lifeguard training, I was taught that you should do everything

in your power to save the drowning victim while minimizing your own risk.
So was I, but the fact remains, I was expected to guard the lives of those
in my charge and, that alone, as ever life guard knows all too well, is a
risk of life.

We were taught to perceive that the person who was drowning was already

dead and we had the ability to bring them back to life.
I've never heard anything like this.

If we killed ourselves in the process, it would mean that there were now 2

people dead instead of 1.
Yep, we were all taught that. Most divers were too.

Yes, but a Rescue Diver is not a paid lifeguard. Very different situation.

Sure is. Like I said, interesting question.
Lee

The additional information about not even being willing to wade out into the
water after the attack (when the shark had supposedly vacated the area)
really muddies the water here. When you become a lifeguard (whether you are
paid or not) you accept a certain amount of risk and liability. Much like
(although not to the same degree) as a CPR for the professional rescuer
cert. If you are CPR/PR certified, my understanding is that you have a
legal obligation to render aid unless their are mitigating circumstances
that create an unnecessary risk (downed power lines or toxic fumes or...).
A lifeguard also has an obligation to uphold (although, if you aren't
paid/on duty/whatever I think it is less). If these lifeguards are just
standing on the bank (as is implied) waiting for the victim to come onto
land, there is a SERIOUS problem and they should be held accountable for
their actions. However, I'm not sure exactly what punishment I would be
willing to award if I were on a jury hearing the case. The person in
question lived and made it to shore. Obviously it wasn't serious enough to
actually kill the man (since it didn't) although it could kill the next
person. If the resort didn't fire them, that could be a factor as well
(depending on the actual circumstances).

de Valois

2003-12-08 18:46:25 UTC

Chris Guynn left this mess on Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:07:08 GMT for The Way to clean

Post by Lee Bell
Interesting question. The answer seems obvious, but on the other

hand,

Post by Lee Bell
lifeguards are paid and do agree to put their lives at risk to save

those

Post by Lee Bell
in trouble in the water. What use are they if they decline to help any

time

Post by Lee Bell
doing so would risk their own lives?

Post by Chris Guynn
Interesting take on the situation.

Not exactly a take, just a thought I considered interesting.

During my lifeguard training, I was taught that you should do everything

in your power to save the drowning victim while minimizing your own risk.
So was I, but the fact remains, I was expected to guard the lives of those
in my charge and, that alone, as ever life guard knows all too well, is a
risk of life.

We were taught to perceive that the person who was drowning was already

dead and we had the ability to bring them back to life.
I've never heard anything like this.

If we killed ourselves in the process, it would mean that there were now

Post by Lee Bell
people dead instead of 1.
Yep, we were all taught that. Most divers were too.

Yes, but a Rescue Diver is not a paid lifeguard. Very different

situation.

Post by Lee Bell
Sure is. Like I said, interesting question.
Lee

Also, it's dependent on the location.

In the States, a rescue diver would be held blameless by dint of the fact that
he/she is not a trained medical professional (key word being "professional"). A
doctor in the same circumstances would be under a far heavier burden to provide
assistance if possible, but his/her protection would then be Good Samaritan
statutes: because this was not a patient he had agreed to take on, and he was
rendering emergency assistance, if the victim dies, he cannot be held
accountable unless it can be shown he was grossly negligent (let's say he was
drunk).

Similarly, a lifeguard has a duty to assist anyone he sees in trouble off-shore,
and the standards of putting himself at risk are very different than for a
rescue diver.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Chris Guynn

2003-12-08 21:21:51 UTC

"de Valois" <***@nailedandused.com> wrote in message news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
<snip>

Post by de Valois
Similarly, a lifeguard has a duty to assist anyone he sees in trouble off-shore,
and the standards of putting himself at risk are very different than for a
rescue diver.

I agree, but the lifeguard must also assess the situation. Just like an EMT
would not approach a person who was twitching next to a downed power line
(without knowing if the line were still active) neither should a lifeguard
approach a victim who they cannot approach in *relative* safety. They are
provided many tools to help them with their job and they should be
persistent in looking for an opening, but they are not supposed to blindly
help anyone who may be in trouble. You should also remember that the guy
was snorkeling in 5 feet of water. After the attack, he may have stood up
and begun walking to the shore. I was always taught that a lifeguard should
NEVER enter the water uless it is the last resort. If this guy was walking
to shore anyway, why should they have gotten wet? I'm definitely not saying
they were right, but I can also see situations where they might not have
been wrong.

de Valois

2003-12-09 14:57:10 UTC

Chris Guynn left this mess on Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:21:51 GMT for The Way to clean

Post by Mike from Ottawa
<snip>

Post by de Valois
Similarly, a lifeguard has a duty to assist anyone he sees in trouble

off-shore,

Post by de Valois
and the standards of putting himself at risk are very different than for a
rescue diver.

Wasn't his leg chomped off?

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Chris Guynn

2003-12-09 16:28:00 UTC

"de Valois" <***@nailedandused.com> wrote in message news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
<snip>

Post by Chris Guynn
I agree, but the lifeguard must also assess the situation. Just like an EMT
would not approach a person who was twitching next to a downed power line
(without knowing if the line were still active) neither should a lifeguard
approach a victim who they cannot approach in *relative* safety. They are
provided many tools to help them with their job and they should be
persistent in looking for an opening, but they are not supposed to blindly
help anyone who may be in trouble. You should also remember that the guy
was snorkeling in 5 feet of water. After the attack, he may have stood up
and begun walking to the shore. I was always taught that a lifeguard should
NEVER enter the water uless it is the last resort. If this guy was walking
to shore anyway, why should they have gotten wet? I'm definitely not saying
they were right, but I can also see situations where they might not have
been wrong.

Wasn't his leg chomped off?

I didn't read it that closely. All I know is that his leg was bitten and he
lost a lot of blood in the process.

Dan Bracuk, CTHD

2003-12-08 22:51:25 UTC

de Valois <***@nailedandused.com> pounded away at his keyboard
resulting in:
:Similarly, a lifeguard has a duty to assist anyone he sees in trouble off-shore,
:and the standards of putting himself at risk are very different than for a
:rescue diver.

What standards are these? Who sets them?

Dan Bracuk
If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure.
The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

de Valois

2003-12-09 14:58:01 UTC

Dan Bracuk, CTHD left this mess on Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:51:25 -0500 for The Way

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
:Similarly, a lifeguard has a duty to assist anyone he sees in trouble off-shore,
:and the standards of putting himself at risk are very different than for a
:rescue diver.
What standards are these? Who sets them?

I can't speak for Lucaya.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Dan Bracuk, CTHD

2003-12-10 02:33:07 UTC

de Valois <***@nailedandused.com> pounded away at his keyboard
resulting in:
:I can't speak for Lucaya.

So who were you speaking for when you said:
:>:Similarly, a lifeguard has a duty to assist anyone he sees in trouble
:>off-shore,
:>:and the standards of putting himself at risk are very different than for a
:>:rescue diver.

Who sets these standards to which you referred?

Dan Bracuk
If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure.
The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

de Valois

2003-12-10 14:01:34 UTC

Dan Bracuk, CTHD left this mess on Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:33:07 -0500 for The Way

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
:I can't speak for Lucaya.
:>:Similarly, a lifeguard has a duty to assist anyone he sees in trouble
:>off-shore,
:>:and the standards of putting himself at risk are very different than for a
:>:rescue diver.
Who sets these standards to which you referred?

New York State, of course.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

de Valois

2003-12-10 14:40:39 UTC

Post by de Valois
Dan Bracuk, CTHD left this mess on Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:33:07 -0500 for The Way

New York State, of course.

OK, here's the facts on lifeguards in NYS, and probably most states (I know this
is true for much of California).

1) Lifeguards are all certified EMTs.

2) Many lifeguards are recognized peace officers.

In New York, they come under the purview of the park rangers service.

So, you see? They have a duty to rescue beyond that of someone who could say
"no".

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Chris Guynn

2003-12-10 15:43:49 UTC

"de Valois" <***@nailedandused.com> wrote in message news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
<snip>

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
Who sets these standards to which you referred?

New York State, of course.

OK, here's the facts on lifeguards in NYS, and probably most states (I know this
is true for much of California).
1) Lifeguards are all certified EMTs.

Not true in TX... I would guess it's probably not true in most states, but I
don't have any idea whether it is or not. It *might* be true for lifeguards
employed by the state/local government.

Post by de Valois
2) Many lifeguards are recognized peace officers.

Not by default in TX. I would guess there are probably some peace officers
who hapen to be certified as lifeguards, but I don't think there are that
many of them (in TX).

Post by de Valois
In New York, they come under the purview of the park rangers service.

I'm not sure what area they are under in TX...

Post by de Valois
So, you see? They have a duty to rescue beyond that of someone who could say
"no".

I agree with the conclusion, but probably not for the same reasons.

C Guynn

Dan Bracuk, CTHD

2003-12-10 21:43:26 UTC

de Valois <***@nailedandused.com> pounded away at his keyboard
resulting in:
:New York State, of course.

So in New York State, lifeguards are compelled to wade into shark
infested waters?

Dan Bracuk
If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure.
The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Lee Bell

2003-12-11 03:54:41 UTC

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
So in New York State, lifeguards are compelled to wade into shark
infested waters?

No, in New York, the waters are infested with the much more dangerous, used
prophylactics and syringes.

Lee

Al Wells

2003-12-11 04:05:39 UTC

Post by Lee Bell
No, in New York, the waters are infested with the much more dangerous, used
prophylactics and syringes.

Don't forget plastic tampon applicators

Lee Bell

2003-12-11 04:18:25 UTC

Post by Al Wells

Post by Lee Bell
No, in New York, the waters are infested with the much more dangerous, used
prophylactics and syringes.

Don't forget plastic tampon applicators

The applicators are not nearly as disgusting as the used products they
dispense. Hmmm, maybe those waters are shark infested after all.

Lee

Dan Bracuk, CTHD

2003-12-08 22:50:25 UTC

"Chris Guynn" <***@sbcglobal.N.O.S.P.A.M.net> pounded away at
his keyboard resulting in:
:The additional information about not even being willing to wade out into the
:water after the attack (when the shark had supposedly vacated the area)
:really muddies the water here. When you become a lifeguard (whether you are
:paid or not) you accept a certain amount of risk and liability. Much like
:(although not to the same degree) as a CPR for the professional rescuer
:cert. If you are CPR/PR certified, my understanding is that you have a
:legal obligation to render aid unless their are mitigating circumstances
:that create an unnecessary risk (downed power lines or toxic fumes or...).
:A lifeguard also has an obligation to uphold (although, if you aren't
:paid/on duty/whatever I think it is less). If these lifeguards are just
:standing on the bank (as is implied) waiting for the victim to come onto
:land, there is a SERIOUS problem and they should be held accountable for
:their actions. However, I'm not sure exactly what punishment I would be
:willing to award if I were on a jury hearing the case. The person in
:question lived and made it to shore. Obviously it wasn't serious enough to
:actually kill the man (since it didn't) although it could kill the next
:person. If the resort didn't fire them, that could be a factor as well
:(depending on the actual circumstances).
:

What about unnecessary risks for the lifeguard, like getting attacked
by a shark?

Dan Bracuk
If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure.
The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Lee Bell

2003-12-09 13:55:32 UTC

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
What about unnecessary risks for the lifeguard, like getting attacked
by a shark?

Precisely why it's an interesting question. It's kind of hard to define
"unnecessary" for somebody that is paid to save lives, when one of the lives
he is responsible for is at risk. It's also hard to define the level of
risk. I've heard a lot of stories about people that came to the aid of a
shark attack victim, often while the attack was in progress. I can't
remember any story about the person providing assistance being attacked. Of
course the fact that I've not heard them does not mean it hasn't happened.

Lee

de Valois

2003-12-09 14:59:26 UTC

Lee Bell left this mess on Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:55:32 GMT for The Way to clean

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
What about unnecessary risks for the lifeguard, like getting attacked
by a shark?

It is interesting. By Dan's lights, it sounds like the firefighters shouldn't
have bothered going into the Twin Towers on 9-11. There was a clear risk to
them.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Dan Bracuk, CTHD

2003-12-10 02:35:15 UTC

de Valois <***@nailedandused.com> pounded away at his keyboard
resulting in:
:It is interesting. By Dan's lights, it sounds like the firefighters shouldn't
:have bothered going into the Twin Towers on 9-11. There was a clear risk to
:them.

There are places firefighters will go, and places they won't. For the
places they do go, they normally have protective equipment.

What is the recommended protective equipment for a lifeguard before
they go into shark infested waters?

Dan Bracuk
If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure.
The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Lee Bell

2003-12-10 02:45:22 UTC

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
:It is interesting. By Dan's lights, it sounds like the firefighters shouldn't
:have bothered going into the Twin Towers on 9-11. There was a clear risk to
:them.

In hindsight, Dan would be right. Lucky for those that were saved, the
firemen didn't have the benefit of hindsight. Sad for those that added their
lives to the toll.

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
There are places firefighters will go, and places they won't. For the
places they do go, they normally have protective equipment.
What is the recommended protective equipment for a lifeguard before
they go into shark infested waters?

A boat.

Lee

Salty

2003-12-10 10:56:40 UTC

"Lee Bell" <***@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<6NvBb.8266$***@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
<snip>

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
What is the recommended protective equipment for a lifeguard before
they go into shark infested waters?

A boat.

Playing the theme song from "Jaws" and saying one of my most favorite
lines from the movie..."I think we're gonna need a BIGGER boat !" :)

Mike from Ottawa

2003-12-10 04:20:50 UTC

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:35:15 -0500, "Dan Bracuk, CTHD"

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
:It is interesting. By Dan's lights, it sounds like the firefighters shouldn't
:have bothered going into the Twin Towers on 9-11. There was a clear risk to
:them.
There are places firefighters will go, and places they won't. For the
places they do go, they normally have protective equipment.

They wouldn't go into a building that's about to collapse or where the
fire is too intense. As for twin towers, they wouldn't have had any
idea that the buildings were about to collapse. Even the previous
bomb attack didn't really damage the building's structure.

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
What is the recommended protective equipment for a lifeguard before
they go into shark infested waters?

Kodiak steel-toed boots, hockey shin pads and a shot gun. And I still
wouldn't go in.

Like Lee, I've never heard of someone being attacked while trying to
save someone under attack. But I wouldn't blame a lifeguard for not
jumping in.

If it was a family member, I'd probably jump in without hesitation and
I have heard of sharks leaving such a scene. I'd guess that's more
about the shark being in shallow water, a lot of commotion and getting
scared off. I'm no shark expert, but I understand that a lot of shark
attacks on humans are mistakes; they think we're their normal prey
(e.g., seals), and call off the attack when they realise we're not
what they expected.

---
Mike from Ottawa

rnf2

2003-12-10 07:43:31 UTC

Post by Mike from Ottawa
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:35:15 -0500, "Dan Bracuk, CTHD"

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
What is the recommended protective equipment for a lifeguard before
they go into shark infested waters?

Kodiak steel-toed boots, hockey shin pads and a shot gun. And I still
wouldn't go in.
Like Lee, I've never heard of someone being attacked while trying to
save someone under attack. But I wouldn't blame a lifeguard for not
jumping in.
If it was a family member, I'd probably jump in without hesitation and
I have heard of sharks leaving such a scene. I'd guess that's more
about the shark being in shallow water, a lot of commotion and getting
scared off. I'm no shark expert, but I understand that a lot of shark
attacks on humans are mistakes; they think we're their normal prey
(e.g., seals), and call off the attack when they realise we're not
what they expected.

Or they taste the neoprene.

rhys

de Valois

2003-12-10 14:10:36 UTC

Mike from Ottawa left this mess on Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:20:50 -0500 for The Way

Post by Mike from Ottawa
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:35:15 -0500, "Dan Bracuk, CTHD"

True on the first, but conditionally, however DEFINITELY not true on your second
point. If there is a survivor in the building, the most important task at that
point is to rescue that person, regardless of the fire's intensity. If they can
attain that rescue from outside, then that's fine, but you and I both know of
many many tragic incidents where that has not been the case.

As for the building's structure, there was some damage from the first attack,
nothing nearly enough to collapse the building, but that was also a function of
luck. A better placed bomb *could* have collapsed the structure.

And yet, firefighters went into it, not knowing if it would to wouldn't. They
did their jobs.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Chris Guynn

2003-12-10 15:50:22 UTC

Post by de Valois
Mike from Ottawa left this mess on Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:20:50 -0500 for The Way

Post by Mike from Ottawa
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:35:15 -0500, "Dan Bracuk, CTHD"

Wrong. The MOST important task is to minimize the loss of life as best as
possible. That includes the loss of firefighters lives. They will do
everything they can (sometimes even beyond reasonable efforts) to save every
person in the building, but their main priority is to the reduction of
death.

Post by de Valois
And yet, firefighters went into it, not knowing if it would to wouldn't. They
did their jobs.

IMO, they did more than just their jobs...

C Guynn

de Valois

2003-12-10 16:43:14 UTC

Chris Guynn left this mess on Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:50:22 GMT for The Way to clean

Post by de Valois
Mike from Ottawa left this mess on Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:20:50 -0500 for The

Way

Post by Mike from Ottawa
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:35:15 -0500, "Dan Bracuk, CTHD"

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
:It is interesting. By Dan's lights, it sounds like the firefighters

shouldn't

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
:have bothered going into the Twin Towers on 9-11. There was a clear

risk to

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
:them.
There are places firefighters will go, and places they won't. For the
places they do go, they normally have protective equipment.

True on the first, but conditionally, however DEFINITELY not true on your

second

Post by de Valois
point. If there is a survivor in the building, the most important task at

that

Post by de Valois
point is to rescue that person, regardless of the fire's intensity.

You jumped the gun. At the point I mentioned, the priority is to rescue that
person. If in the course of subsequent events, it is determined to be impossible
without the loss of a firefighter's life (without saving the victim's, I should
add), then your qualification becomes important.

Post by de Valois
And yet, firefighters went into it, not knowing if it would to wouldn't.

They

Post by de Valois
did their jobs.

IMO, they did more than just their jobs...

In hindsight. I was talking about their attitude walking in.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Dan Bracuk, CTHD

2003-12-10 21:51:52 UTC

de Valois <***@nailedandused.com> pounded away at his keyboard
resulting in:
:You jumped the gun. At the point I mentioned, the priority is to rescue that
:person. If in the course of subsequent events, it is determined to be impossible
:without the loss of a firefighter's life (without saving the victim's, I should
:add), then your qualification becomes important.

And if the shark attacks the lifeguard, the person already in the
water doesn't get rescued, does he.

Dan Bracuk
If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure.
The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Lee Bell

2003-12-11 03:44:05 UTC

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
And if the shark attacks the lifeguard, the person already in the
water doesn't get rescued, does he.

Let's see. Shark biting my leg. As I struggle toward shore, a lifeguard
enters the water and distracts the shark by offering his own body in place
of mine. I think I'd call that a rescue.

Lee

chilly

2003-12-11 06:57:46 UTC

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
And if the shark attacks the lifeguard, the person already in the
water doesn't get rescued, does he.

Let's see. Shark biting my leg. As I struggle toward shore, a lifeguard
enters the water and distracts the shark by offering his own body in place
of mine. I think I'd call that a rescue.

I think that's called throwing yourself on the grenade, (maybe after it's
gone off?)

Frankly, I'd rather have someone ready and fully able to help me out of the
water, than two of us missing a limb.

Chris Guynn

2003-12-10 22:24:54 UTC

"de Valois" <***@nailedandused.com> wrote in message news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
<snip>

Post by de Valois
You jumped the gun. At the point I mentioned, the priority is to rescue that
person. If in the course of subsequent events, it is determined to be impossible
without the loss of a firefighter's life (without saving the victim's, I should
add), then your qualification becomes important.

The priority (IMO) is always saving as many lives as possible. As long as
there is a reasonable (and, in some cases, not so reasonable) expectation of
being able to save more lives than losing, the firefighters will attempt the
rescue. If the person in charge deems it too dangerous (i.e. feels that
there will be more lost that saved), they will not allow the firefighters to
enter. This is rarely the case unless it is basically too late for the
victim anyway (nomex is wonderful stuff).

Also, I may have been a little too harsh in my previous post. If so, I
apologize.

Post by de Valois
And yet, firefighters went into it, not knowing if it would to wouldn't.

They

Post by de Valois
did their jobs.

IMO, they did more than just their jobs...

In hindsight. I was talking about their attitude walking in.

In that case, I agree.

Lee Bell

2003-12-11 03:48:34 UTC

Post by Chris Guynn
The priority (IMO) is always saving as many lives as possible.

Nope. No firefighter is expected to give his life no matter how many people
will live as a result. Some do anyway. We call them heros.

Post by Chris Guynn
As long as there is a reasonable (and, in some cases, not so reasonable)

expectation of

Post by Chris Guynn
being able to save more lives than losing, the firefighters will attempt the
rescue. If the person in charge deems it too dangerous (i.e. feels that
there will be more lost that saved), they will not allow the firefighters to
enter. This is rarely the case unless it is basically too late for the
victim anyway (nomex is wonderful stuff).

The firefighters I know say you're full of crap on this one. As long as
there is a reasonable expectation that the firefighter will come out alive,
and a reasonable expectation that somebody will be saved, then things will
get done. Lacking either one or the other of these conditions, it's a no go
situation.

Lee

Chris Guynn

2003-12-10 15:46:22 UTC

Post by Mike from Ottawa
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:35:15 -0500, "Dan Bracuk, CTHD"

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
What is the recommended protective equipment for a lifeguard before
they go into shark infested waters?

Kodiak steel-toed boots, hockey shin pads and a shot gun. And I still
wouldn't go in.
Like Lee, I've never heard of someone being attacked while trying to
save someone under attack. But I wouldn't blame a lifeguard for not
jumping in.
If it was a family member, I'd probably jump in without hesitation and
I have heard of sharks leaving such a scene. I'd guess that's more
about the shark being in shallow water, a lot of commotion and getting
scared off. I'm no shark expert, but I understand that a lot of shark
attacks on humans are mistakes; they think we're their normal prey
(e.g., seals), and call off the attack when they realise we're not
what they expected.

Humans, the other, other, other white meat... We're too bony though...

Post by Mike from Ottawa
---
Mike from Ottawa

de Valois

2003-12-10 14:05:48 UTC

Dan Bracuk, CTHD left this mess on Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:35:15 -0500 for The Way

No, that's not what you said in terms of lifeguards at all. You said they should
be allowed to exercise judgement when there's a victim in the water. I'm saying
that, like firefighters, they are paid, and part of that payment is to remove
judgement from their vocabulary.

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
What is the recommended protective equipment for a lifeguard before
they go into shark infested waters?

I think a Speedo suffices. Maybe zinc oxide.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Chris Guynn

2003-12-10 15:55:53 UTC

Post by de Valois
Dan Bracuk, CTHD left this mess on Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:35:15 -0500 for The Way

That is 100% inaccurate. The lifeguards main function is judgement. As
they watch swimmers from shore, they are constantly judging the abilities
and risks each swimmer is facing. They are constantly judging the
difference between a kid playing inthe water and that same kid drowning.
They are constantly judging the dangers of things like weather and (in open
water situations) tidal activity. They are judging the proximity of
swimmers to themselves and their abilities to help swimmers if the need
should arise. When in the act of making a save, they are constantly judging
the risk to their own lives. They must judge the safest way to make the
approach and the best way to escape should things go wrong. They have to
judge when to make the approach and the best tool for the job (often just
whatever is available). They must be able to judge their own abilities to
determine if the save is even possible (by that lifeguard). And, MOST
importanty, they must judge how they look at all times... ;-)

C Guynn

de Valois

2003-12-10 21:07:40 UTC

Chris Guynn left this mess on Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:55:53 GMT for The Way to clean

Post by de Valois
Dan Bracuk, CTHD left this mess on Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:35:15 -0500 for The

Way

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
:It is interesting. By Dan's lights, it sounds like the firefighters

shouldn't

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
:have bothered going into the Twin Towers on 9-11. There was a clear risk

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
:them.
There are places firefighters will go, and places they won't. For the
places they do go, they normally have protective equipment.

No, that's not what you said in terms of lifeguards at all. You said they

should

Post by de Valois
be allowed to exercise judgement when there's a victim in the water. I'm

saying

Post by de Valois
that, like firefighters, they are paid, and part of that payment is to

remove

Post by de Valois
judgement from their vocabulary.

All of these factors are in the case of an emergency *which demands judgement be
removed from their vocabulary*, Chris. Why are you being so thickheaded here?

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Lee Bell

2003-12-11 03:52:50 UTC

I'm saying that, like firefighters, they are paid, and part of that

payment is to remove

judgement from their vocabulary.

You are mistaken on both counts.

Post by Chris Guynn
That is 100% inaccurate. The lifeguards main function is judgement. As
they watch swimmers from shore, they are constantly judging the abilities
and risks each swimmer is facing. They are constantly judging the
difference between a kid playing inthe water and that same kid drowning.
They are constantly judging the dangers of things like weather and (in open
water situations) tidal activity. They are judging the proximity of
swimmers to themselves and their abilities to help swimmers if the need
should arise. When in the act of making a save, they are constantly judging
the risk to their own lives. They must judge the safest way to make the
approach and the best way to escape should things go wrong. They have to
judge when to make the approach and the best tool for the job (often just
whatever is available). They must be able to judge their own abilities to
determine if the save is even possible (by that lifeguard). And, MOST
importanty, they must judge how they look at all times... ;-)

All of these factors are in the case of an emergency *which demands judgement be
removed from their vocabulary*, Chris. Why are you being so thickheaded here?

In this case, it is not Chris that is being thickheaded. In all my years as
a lifeguard and a trainer of lifeguards, I not only was not discouraged from
using judgement, using it was a mandatory part of the job, just as Chris
indicated. Even potential incidents required judgement. Real ones required
a lot of judgement.

Lee

Chris Guynn

2003-12-10 15:44:33 UTC

Ummm... sunscreen and zinc-oxide? Oh, and a bathing suit...

Post by Dan Bracuk, CTHD
Dan Bracuk
If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure.
The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Salty

2003-12-10 07:58:10 UTC

Post by de Valois
It is interesting. By Dan's lights, it sounds like the firefighters shouldn't
have bothered going into the Twin Towers on 9-11. There was a clear risk to
them.

I believe that once it became apparent that the second tower was going
to collapse, the control center radioed to the firefighters inside and
told them to literally stop what they were doing and get out of the
building asap. That's is the main reason that they, unlike the others,
are still alive.

de Valois

2003-12-10 14:19:14 UTC

Post by de Valois
It is interesting. By Dan's lights, it sounds like the firefighters shouldn't
have bothered going into the Twin Towers on 9-11. There was a clear risk to
them.

There's another reason. The time left between the first collapse and second (23
minutes) was also sufficient for many of the civilians still stuck to get out,
and the plane that struck the north tower (the second to collapse) hit earlier,
before many people reached work, and higher on the building, trapping fewer
people. In other words, their job was pretty much completed as much as humanly
possible when the word came up. The New York Times did an analysis of the
victims, and this was borne out by the "map" they produced of where bodies and
body parts were found, and the timing of the collapses.

Interestingly, the radios weren't working, and much of the "word" was passed up
the line a la a fire brigade, mouth-to-ear.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Salty

2003-12-08 17:28:11 UTC

Hmmm. Well Lee, I don't know who it could be off hand. I have never
been a proponent of shark feeding dives. I've said all along that if
you feed them, you're gonna end up with some nasty creatures who are
just like the bears in the state forests are now... they demand food
when they see a human and they aren't so subtle about it. They will
hurt you if they don't get your food. They will literally tear your
car apart to get to a bag of chips... which they can now recognize by
sight of the bag and by the smell. So hey... you wanna teach sharks to
do the same thing by letting divers feed them, then IMHO you're a
really sick f*ck.

Deciding to put their lives on the line to save a person when they
have to battle the currents, waves, etc is one thing. Deciding to put
their lives on the line to save a person when they have to battle a
fish that can tear them apart... and is tearing apart the person they
are to save... is totally another.

William Rampartson

2003-12-08 18:01:07 UTC

Post by Salty
Hmmm. Well Lee, I don't know who it could be off hand. I have never
been a proponent of shark feeding dives. I've said all along that if
you feed them, you're gonna end up with some nasty creatures who are
just like the bears in the state forests are now... they demand food
when they see a human and they aren't so subtle about it.

I am not a sharkfeed proponent either, but the analogy of resulting shark
vs. bear behaviours is rudimentary at best and stupifying at worst. Maybe
this is why the movement to ban sharksfeeds has never approached the
strength required to overcome the fiscal benefits.

Salty

2003-12-08 23:01:22 UTC

Post by William Rampartson

Perhaps you could explain your statements. I'd be very interested to
hear your distinction betweeen one wild animal being fed and another
wild animal being fed.

Lee Bell

2003-12-09 14:03:24 UTC

Post by William Rampartson

Florida passed the ban.

Salty

2003-12-10 09:06:59 UTC

Post by William Rampartson
I am not a sharkfeed proponent either, but the analogy of resulting shark
vs. bear behaviours is rudimentary at best and stupifying at worst. Maybe
this is why the movement to ban sharksfeeds has never approached the
strength required to overcome the fiscal benefits.

Florida passed the ban.

Ya know what...I'm sitting here thinking about this issue (and
enjoying this glass of wine, thinking about the Christmas party I was
at tonite and about upcoming holidays, and realizing that I need to be
at work in 5 hrs) and I just thought about something to do with our
local quarries.

There was a time when divers thought that feeding the fish in the
quarry was cool. I admit I did this and I carried out this deed by
bringing a few slices of lunchmeat inside a plastic bag on dives with
me. This occured before the invention of ziplock bags and so by the
time you got to depth, the stuff you took down was a yucky mess. Many
divers would haul a can of Cheese-Whiz and literally squirt it into
the water for the fish to eat.

Mind you, I am talking about Willow Springs, Dutch Springs and
Bainbridge where the fish in question are 'sunnies'. I've seen a few
big catfish in Bainbridge but they always took off when you got close
to them. So the fish I'm referring to are about 6 in long at the most
but average for them is mostly like 4 in.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that these fish were
extremely used to being fed by divers. There's one incident that took
place and it gives me cause to connect it to shark-feeding... and then
think to myself "Holy shit !!".

Hub and I were diving at Bainbridge among all the divers feeding the
fish. This was one time when I didn't bring any food for them. It was
not a conscious effort on my part to stop feeding them. I simply
didn't have anything to give them. Hub never fed them. He didn't think
it was right to do. Anyway, he and I were looking at something... I
don't recall what...and we were at about 20 ft. A group of these
sunnies appeared around us and I started to wiggle my fingers at them.
They were looking at me and investigating my hands to see what I had
like... "Where's my food??" but didn't bite me. However, for some
reason, one did bite hub's ear !! The little stinker drew blood from
hub !!

The more I think about their behavior, the more I'm convinced that
they were acting on 'auto-pilot'. IMHO, you would not see this fish
behavior today at the quarry because feeding them is very much frowned
upon. Draw your own conclusions. Then, reformat them to include a
predator like a shark.

On that note... goodnite. LOL :P)

Al Wells

2003-12-10 14:22:16 UTC

Post by Salty
The more I think about their behavior, the more I'm convinced that
they were acting on 'auto-pilot'. IMHO, you would not see this fish
behavior today at the quarry because feeding them is very much frowned
upon. Draw your own conclusions. Then, reformat them to include a
predator like a shark.

I hope you didn't have to think about this too long - it is an obvious
no brainer. If you dive near the feeding sites off New Providence, you
will easily see what feeding is doing to the sharks. While you're there,
ask the ops why they no longer feed at the site called Arena.

Feeding sharks is just plain stupid, but a bigger problem is fishing
piers and surf fishing at beaches where there is swimming. Even without
that, there will always be isolated problems where predatory fish feed
in the surf zone. Does anyone remember the bluefish incident in southern
Connecticut a few years ago? The blues chased the baitfish into the surf
where a group of kids was swimming, and several kids were badly hurt.

al

Dan Bracuk, CTHD

2003-12-10 21:42:15 UTC

***@hotmail.com (Salty) pounded away at his keyboard resulting
in:
:The more I think about it, the more I realize that these fish were
:extremely used to being fed by divers. There's one incident that took
:place and it gives me cause to connect it to shark-feeding... and then
:think to myself "Holy shit !!".
:
:Hub and I were diving at Bainbridge among all the divers feeding the
:fish. This was one time when I didn't bring any food for them. It was
:not a conscious effort on my part to stop feeding them. I simply
:didn't have anything to give them. Hub never fed them. He didn't think
:it was right to do. Anyway, he and I were looking at something... I
:don't recall what...and we were at about 20 ft. A group of these
:sunnies appeared around us and I started to wiggle my fingers at them.
:They were looking at me and investigating my hands to see what I had
:like... "Where's my food??" but didn't bite me. However, for some
:reason, one did bite hub's ear !! The little stinker drew blood from
:hub !!

A similar thing happened to me. To make a long story short, the dive
site was the Oro Verde, off the coast of Grand Cayman. I was hanging
on to a bar hanging from the boat, and a chub bit my finger.

This is a popular dive site, and I am sure that the fish get fed by
divers.

Dan Bracuk
If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure.
The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Lee Bell

2003-12-09 14:02:18 UTC

Post by Salty
Hmmm. Well Lee, I don't know who it could be off hand.

It shouldn't be hard to figure out. We know where the attack happened and,
with a little research, would also know who does shark dives in that area.
I've got a pretty good idea already, but won't say more until I've done some
research myself.

Post by Salty
I have never
been a proponent of shark feeding dives. I've said all along that if
you feed them, you're gonna end up with some nasty creatures who are
just like the bears in the state forests are now... they demand food
when they see a human and they aren't so subtle about it. They will
hurt you if they don't get your food. They will literally tear your
car apart to get to a bag of chips... which they can now recognize by
sight of the bag and by the smell. So hey... you wanna teach sharks to
do the same thing by letting divers feed them, then IMHO you're a
really sick f*ck.

So far, sharks have not proven to be quite that bad. They do learn to
associate people with food and they do tend to approach more agressively
when conditioned to expect to be fed. Unlike bears, however, they are
relatively easy to discourage provided you see them coming. Even if you
don't see them coming, injuries to divers have almost all been accidental, a
byeproduct of a shark going for food the diver was carrying, a speared fish,
for instance.

Post by Salty
Deciding to put their lives on the line to save a person when they
have to battle the currents, waves, etc is one thing. Deciding to put
their lives on the line to save a person when they have to battle a
fish that can tear them apart... and is tearing apart the person they
are to save... is totally another.

Like I said, interesting question. I previously posted a statement that
I've read a lot of articles about people who jumped in to assist a shark
attack victim, some more successfully than others. I don't recall any
instances where the rescuer was, in turn, attacked by the shark. Do you?

Lee

Calamari

2003-12-09 20:03:50 UTC

Post by Lee Bell
It shouldn't be hard to figure out. We know where the attack happened and,
with a little research, would also know who does shark dives in that area.
I've got a pretty good idea already, but won't say more until I've done some
research myself.

You have me curious now.

Post by Lee Bell
So far, sharks have not proven to be quite that bad. They do learn to
associate people with food and they do tend to approach more agressively
when conditioned to expect to be fed. Unlike bears, however, they are
relatively easy to discourage provided you see them coming. Even if you
don't see them coming, injuries to divers have almost all been accidental, a
byeproduct of a shark going for food the diver was carrying, a speared fish,
for instance.

I agree with you as far as injuries to divers so far. The thing is
though, that shark feeding is relatively new as compared to ppl
visiting parks and such where the bears have learned about food. The
bears seem to have been able to be 'trained' re: the relationship
between humans and a food source, and those adults have carried that
knowledge one step farther. They teach their cubs. How will sharks
behave after many years of being able to associate humans with food ??

I think recall hearing about anyone who deliberately jumped in to
assist a shark attack victim during what was to become the 'real-life
saga of Jaws'. I believe a boy tired to save his friend and
subsequently lost his leg but I'll have to see if I can find more info
about this. I don't think I've heard of any modern-day incidents of
this kind... although I seem to recall hearing about a parent who dove
in to save a child from an alligator. Different animal and set of
circumstances though.

de Valois

2003-12-08 14:07:50 UTC

Post by newz
Shark feeding victim? Krishna Thompson sues Our Lucaya resort for $25
million
http://www.cdnn.info/industry/i031205a/i031205a.html

Someone failed to tell this guy that there were sharks around ??
Perhaps he should name the shark-feeding operation in an additional
suit.

If Scuba Booby had bothered to plagiarize a real reporter's work on the story,
it would have noted the resort, "Our Lucaya" failed to post warnings about
sharks in the area, or that shark feedings were happening twenty five feet from
the resort's beach, with no underwater barrier blocking the beach from the
feeding area.
And if I'm not mistaken, if memory serves, the lifeguards watched the attack and
did nothing until the guy struggled back to the beach once the shark cleared
out.
But you wouldn't know that, 'cause Scuba Booby is a jackass.

First of all, you're a diver and sign a release form, so you can be assumed to
have informed consent. He was bathing in the surf. Very different situation. He
can be assumed *not* to have informed consent.

Second, the contention of the *true* story, as opposed to the third hand info
Scuba Booby posted, is not that the lifeguards failed to risk their lives, but
that they didn't even wade out when the shark had cleared the area and Thompson
was struggling back to the beach.

Third, yea, I think the lifeguards probably received *some* training about what
to do if a guest gets attacked and part of that training probably involved
something along the lines of "if you *don't* help, you and the resort will be
open to suit on the grounds that you should have helped."

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Calamari

2003-12-08 18:47:30 UTC

Post by newz
Shark feeding victim? Krishna Thompson sues Our Lucaya resort for $25
million
http://www.cdnn.info/industry/i031205a/i031205a.html

Someone failed to tell this guy that there were sharks around ??
Perhaps he should name the shark-feeding operation in an additional
suit.

If Scuba Booby had bothered to plagiarize a real reporter's work on the story,
it would have noted the resort, "Our Lucaya" failed to post warnings about
sharks in the area, or that shark feedings were happening twenty five feet from
the resort's beach, with no underwater barrier blocking the beach from the
feeding area.
And if I'm not mistaken, if memory serves, the lifeguards watched the attack and
did nothing until the guy struggled back to the beach once the shark cleared
out.
But you wouldn't know that, 'cause Scuba Booby is a jackass.

How so ?? IIRC, there are sharks everywhere. WHat is this 'informed
consent' crap ?? Hey, how about if I step on a broken shell. It cuts
my foot. Do I have the right to sue because the shell cut me... and
what if the I'm a diabetic who has to be very careful of my cuts ??

Post by de Valois
Second, the contention of the *true* story, as opposed to the third hand info
Scuba Booby posted, is not that the lifeguards failed to risk their lives, but
that they didn't even wade out when the shark had cleared the area and Thompson
was struggling back to the beach.

Yea... and ???

Post by de Valois
Third, yea, I think the lifeguards probably received *some* training about what
to do if a guest gets attacked and part of that training probably involved
something along the lines of "if you *don't* help, you and the resort will be
open to suit on the grounds that you should have helped."

And ya know what... if I worked there, I'd say "F*ck you and
everything you need to have on the cue for this guest." It's either
pick a way to stand up or not... regardless of the guests if a shark
comes at you.

de Valois

2003-12-08 20:08:29 UTC

Post by Calamari
How so ?? IIRC, there are sharks everywhere. WHat is this 'informed
consent' crap ?? Hey, how about if I step on a broken shell. It cuts
my foot. Do I have the right to sue because the shell cut me... and
what if the I'm a diabetic who has to be very careful of my cuts ??

Please. This guy is from New York. The only shark he sees at the beach is the
one at the Coney Island Aquarium.

Yea... and ???

And get fired. Which is likely what should have happened.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Salty

2003-12-09 18:08:37 UTC

Post by de Valois
Please. This guy is from New York. The only shark he sees at the beach is the
one at the Coney Island Aquarium.

He's from NY ?? Then that explains everything. :) Seriously though,
he had to realize the dangers of the ocean before he jumped into the
water.

Post by de Valois
And get fired. Which is likely what should have happened.

I can understand that the expectation would be to call for help or
possibly to go into the water in a boat with a spear or something to
use to injure the animal enough to get it off of the person, and then
get the person into the boat. If you owned the resort, what would you
expect from the lifeguards in this situation ??

de Valois

2003-12-09 19:18:11 UTC

Post by de Valois
Please. This guy is from New York. The only shark he sees at the beach is the
one at the Coney Island Aquarium.

He's from NY ?? Then that explains everything. :) Seriously though,
he had to realize the dangers of the ocean before he jumped into the
water.

Post by de Valois
And get fired. Which is likely what should have happened.

That's the easy part: I'd expect him to act in a manner that will save me from a
$25 million dollar lawsuit, and to protect my guests so they'll come back again.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Chris Guynn

2003-12-09 22:17:35 UTC

Post by de Valois
Please. This guy is from New York. The only shark he sees at the beach is the
one at the Coney Island Aquarium.

He's from NY ?? Then that explains everything. :) Seriously though,
he had to realize the dangers of the ocean before he jumped into the
water.

Post by de Valois
And get fired. Which is likely what should have happened.

That's the easy part: I'd expect him to act in a manner that will save me from a
$25 million dollar lawsuit, and to protect my guests so they'll come back again.

I'd expect that he'd keep himself safe and make a good show of trying to
"rescue" the guy so that when the guy gets to shore (with or without the
lifeguards help) witnesses can say that the lifeguard made a reasonable
effort... <eg>

de Valois

2003-12-10 14:20:08 UTC

Chris Guynn left this mess on Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:17:35 GMT for The Way to clean

Post by de Valois
Please. This guy is from New York. The only shark he sees at the beach

is the

Post by de Valois
one at the Coney Island Aquarium.

He's from NY ?? Then that explains everything. :) Seriously though,
he had to realize the dangers of the ocean before he jumped into the
water.

Post by de Valois
And get fired. Which is likely what should have happened.

That's the easy part: I'd expect him to act in a manner that will save me

from a

Post by de Valois
$25 million dollar lawsuit, and to protect my guests so they'll come back

again.
I'd expect that he'd keep himself safe and make a good show of trying to
"rescue" the guy so that when the guy gets to shore (with or without the
lifeguards help) witnesses can say that the lifeguard made a reasonable
effort... <eg>

I think I'd classify that as "what I would expect from myself if I was the
lifeguard" :)

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Salty

2003-12-10 07:21:55 UTC

Post by de Valois
That's the easy part: I'd expect him to act in a manner that will save me from a
$25 million dollar lawsuit, and to protect my guests so they'll come back again.

Like maybe he should be able to walk on water to go and fetch the guest ?? <g>

de Valois

2003-12-10 14:20:51 UTC

Post by de Valois
That's the easy part: I'd expect him to act in a manner that will save me from a
$25 million dollar lawsuit, and to protect my guests so they'll come back again.

Like maybe he should be able to walk on water to go and fetch the guest ?? <g>

If I knew there were sharks in the water I was about to rescue a guy from, you
can bet your ass I'd be trying!

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Chris Guynn

2003-12-10 16:01:27 UTC

Post by de Valois
That's the easy part: I'd expect him to act in a manner that will save me from a
$25 million dollar lawsuit, and to protect my guests so they'll come back again.

Like maybe he should be able to walk on water to go and fetch the guest ?? <g>

They make special "shoes" that would actually make this possible. I don't
know how well they work though. I saw a special on them on one of those
techie/invention/discovery channels. Or maybe it was an infomercial... I
can't remember...

Lee Bell

2003-12-10 00:32:11 UTC

Post by Salty
I can understand that the expectation would be to call for help or
possibly to go into the water in a boat with a spear or something to
use to injure the animal enough to get it off of the person, and then
get the person into the boat. If you owned the resort, what would you
expect from the lifeguards in this situation ??

We're talking the Bahamas here. I'd be impressed if my lifeguards could
swim.

Salty

2003-12-10 08:20:31 UTC

Post by Lee Bell
We're talking the Bahamas here. I'd be impressed if my lifeguards could
swim.

Lee..... <chuckle> Ok, get serious. I've been wondering about a
couple of things.

First, we've talked about how far should a rescuer go. Do you recall
hearing something about an incident where professional rescuers (the
Coast Guard ??) refused to set foot on a capsized boat's hull in order
to attempt to extract the ppl who were trapped in their cabins ??
Something about they would not risk being on a craft that was so
unstable that it could flip again in the middle of the extraction ??
I seem to remember hearing about this but I'm not sure of the details.

Second, I'm wondering if any beach resorts around you in Fla put nets
up in the water to protect swimmers from sharks. Do you know of any ??

Lee Bell

2003-12-09 14:09:16 UTC

Post by de Valois
First of all, you're a diver and sign a release form, so you can be assumed to
have informed consent. He was bathing in the surf. Very different situation. He
can be assumed *not* to have informed consent.

Only if you're diving with a commercial operator.

Post by Calamari
How so ?? IIRC, there are sharks everywhere.

Your recollection is faulty. There are not sharks everywhere. In this case
there were sharks close by specifically because somebody had been feeding
them. They were deliberately attracted to the area and the resort new it.
While I don't think that necessarily makes the resort liable, it does
suggest that they knew something that might have benefitted the swimmer who
was attacked.

Post by Calamari
WHat is this 'informed consent' crap ?? Hey, how about if I step on a

broken shell.

Post by Calamari
It cuts my foot. Do I have the right to sue because the shell cut me...

and

Post by Calamari
what if the I'm a diabetic who has to be very careful of my cuts ??

It does if somebody put that shell there on purpose, knowing that
unsuspecting barefoot people would be walking in the area.

Lee

Calamari

2003-12-09 19:51:07 UTC

Post by de Valois
First of all, you're a diver and sign a release form, so you can be

assumed to

Post by de Valois
have informed consent. He was bathing in the surf. Very different

situation. He

Post by de Valois
can be assumed *not* to have informed consent.

Only if you're diving with a commercial operator.

I didn't write that part.

Post by Calamari
How so ?? IIRC, there are sharks everywhere.

First, I had to re-read the article because I wasn't sure if the
person was diving or swimming. FSR, I thought he was diving but it
seems he was snorkeling. Second, I don't believe that my recollection
is faulty at all. I truly believe there are sharks, many more then we
see with our naked eye. I recall hearing this mentioned on a TV
documentary once also. Think about the dive that we did when we saw
that hammerhead. I don't believe that that particular shark 'strayed
far from home.' I think that there are probably alot of hammers in
that area but that they see you before you see them and, for whatever
reason, they decide to stay away from you. Don't you think that while
you're diving off of Boynton and Lauderdale, there are alot of sharks
who are just outside your vision ?? The shark feeding wasn't taking
place right off of the resort's beach. How much of the ocean is a
resort accountable for ??

Post by Calamari
WHat is this 'informed consent' crap ?? Hey, how about if I step on a

broken shell.

Post by Calamari
It cuts my foot. Do I have the right to sue because the shell cut me...

and

Post by Calamari
what if the I'm a diabetic who has to be very careful of my cuts ??

It does if somebody put that shell there on purpose, knowing that
unsuspecting barefoot people would be walking in the area.

I don't think the resort 'put' the shark there. :)

de Valois

2003-12-09 21:32:34 UTC

Post by Lee Bell
It does if somebody put that shell there on purpose, knowing that
unsuspecting barefoot people would be walking in the area.

I don't think the resort 'put' the shark there. :)

No, but they knew there was shark feeding going on only feet from their shores.
That should have been made a note of for guests who were thinking about
swimming. Of course, that would have driven guests away, now wouldn't it?

Ergo, because of their greed, they kept quiet and hoped for the best. They
rolled the bones and the bones came up craps. They ought to be sued for that
stupidity alone.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Salty

2003-12-10 07:25:48 UTC

Post by Calamari
I don't think the resort 'put' the shark there. :)

Well now wait de...the article says the feeding was like a mile off
shore.

Post by de Valois
Ergo, because of their greed, they kept quiet and hoped for the best. They
rolled the bones and the bones came up craps. They ought to be sued for that
stupidity alone.

So should every resort be required to post a sign that says... "Beware
of sea life that can bite and eat you. Swim at your own risk." ??
Don't you think that most ppl understand that sharks live in the ocean
??

de Valois

2003-12-10 14:29:13 UTC

Post by Calamari
I don't think the resort 'put' the shark there. :)

Well now wait de...the article says the feeding was like a mile off
shore.

Yea, but that's Scuba Booby's slant on things.

But the op was right next door. Sharks, however dumb we may think they are, can
learn at least this much: boat has food, follow boat. It stands to reason they
might follow it back to port.

Post by de Valois
Ergo, because of their greed, they kept quiet and hoped for the best. They
rolled the bones and the bones came up craps. They ought to be sued for that
stupidity alone.

Again, you're assuming something that may not be true. Do people know sharks
live in the water? Yes. Do most people ever *see* a shark? No.

He's from a part of the world where the most dangerous thing in the water is a
dead jellyfish, at least to his mind. Do I absolve him of responsibility for,
say, maybe reading up a little, or paying attention? No, but that also does not
absolve the resort from their actions. It is incumbent on them to remind guests,
early and often, of any dangers. Isn't this why when we dive with an op, we sign
releases? Yes, it protects the op, but it also notifies us that "scuba is a
dangerous activity" (or whatever the wording is).

Now, Lucaya had two choices: remind their guests (signs are the usual thing, if
California is any guide) that sharks patrol their waters, or face the
consequences of a shark attack.

I'd be curious to know why they didn't inform the swimmer.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Chris Guynn

2003-12-10 16:04:08 UTC

Post by Calamari
I don't think the resort 'put' the shark there. :)

Well now wait de...the article says the feeding was like a mile off
shore.

Yea, but that's Scuba Booby's slant on things.
But the op was right next door. Sharks, however dumb we may think they are, can
learn at least this much: boat has food, follow boat. It stands to reason they
might follow it back to port.

Post by de Valois
Ergo, because of their greed, they kept quiet and hoped for the best. They
rolled the bones and the bones came up craps. They ought to be sued for that
stupidity alone.

Again, you're assuming something that may not be true. Do people know sharks
live in the water? Yes. Do most people ever *see* a shark? No.
He's from a part of the world where the most dangerous thing in the water is a
dead jellyfish, at least to his mind. Do I absolve him of responsibility for,
say, maybe reading up a little, or paying attention? No, but that also does not
absolve the resort from their actions. It is incumbent on them to remind guests,
early and often, of any dangers. Isn't this why when we dive with an op, we sign
releases? Yes, it protects the op, but it also notifies us that "scuba is a
dangerous activity" (or whatever the wording is).
Now, Lucaya had two choices: remind their guests (signs are the usual thing, if
California is any guide) that sharks patrol their waters, or face the
consequences of a shark attack.
I'd be curious to know why they didn't inform the swimmer.

They probably did, it was just a little too late by then... <eg>

de Valois

2003-12-10 14:35:08 UTC

Post by Calamari
I don't think the resort 'put' the shark there. :)

Well now wait de...the article says the feeding was like a mile off
shore.

OK, I read the facts on this part...

The lawyer for the _resort_ says the shark feeding was a mile off shore. But the
feeding operator, "Shark Junction" has a pier just feet from Lucaya's beach. So
one cannot take the "mile off shore" literally, since it's from an interested
party.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

Chris Guynn

2003-12-10 16:02:41 UTC

Post by Calamari
I don't think the resort 'put' the shark there. :)

Well now wait de...the article says the feeding was like a mile off
shore.

Post by de Valois
Ergo, because of their greed, they kept quiet and hoped for the best. They
rolled the bones and the bones came up craps. They ought to be sued for that
stupidity alone.

I think that most people think that sharks live *way* out in the ocean and
that Jaws was an anomalous documentary... <eg>

uwattimes

2003-12-07 16:28:17 UTC