Jump to content


Photo

Happy Teeth the Leopard Seal


  • Please log in to reply
764 replies to this topic

#721 lateral

lateral

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 943 posts
  • Locationauckland

Posted 06 December 2019 - 09:35 AM

Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it...

Whose ignoring history?

I would have thought anyone entering the water would be aware of the ( many) potential risks.

What  are you suggesting?


  • 0

#722 Fish

Fish

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,557 posts

Posted 06 December 2019 - 10:03 AM

2003. This is not 'news'.

 

 

Whose ignoring history?

I would have thought anyone entering the water would be aware of the ( many) potential risks.

What  are you suggesting?

Never mind, 

Enjoy your snorkel.


  • 0

#723 Romany

Romany

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 510 posts

Posted 06 December 2019 - 10:37 AM

don't get me wrong Fish - if I was in a position of influence I would have had it removed long ago. I reckon its a menace but I suppose you gotta to be fair to the iddy biddy seal , one rubber clad diver/snorkeller, 16 years ago doesn't exactly set a pattern.

 

I'd still chase it away if I could.


  • 0

#724 Fish

Fish

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,557 posts

Posted 06 December 2019 - 10:59 AM

Thanks Romany, I agree with the 'in a position of influence' bit whole heartedly.

 

I wouldn't look to this one incident as being pattern setting though. A single data point can't set a pattern. 

But if you consider both the normal habitat of Leopard Seals, and the historical absence of interaction between humans and Leopard seals, this single incident does carry a fundamental message, that humans in water in the same environment face a risk from Leopard seals.

 

How many people have gone snorkelling in Antartica? anyone on this forum? Anyone on this forum know of anyone who knows of anyone that has been snorkelling in Antartica?

I've got mates who worked down there for several winters, and family members that have visited, none went snorkelling...

But the people I know that enter the water around Westhaven and around Auckland in general is too numerous to count.

 

I'm seeing an increasing complacency from people around / toward this resident Leopard Seal. There is a real and ongoing risk that that wont end well.


  • 0

#725 lateral

lateral

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 943 posts
  • Locationauckland

Posted 06 December 2019 - 11:20 AM

What annoys me is the double standard. When it suits and money can be made out of it a citizen safety is paramount.
  • 1

#726 Maté

Maté

    Sailor

  • Marine Forums Only
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,723 posts

Posted 06 December 2019 - 11:32 AM

don't get me wrong Fish - if I was in a position of influence I would have had it removed long ago. I reckon its a menace but I suppose you gotta to be fair to the iddy biddy seal , one rubber clad diver/snorkeller, 16 years ago doesn't exactly set a pattern.

 

I'd still chase it away if I could.

 

pretty much my position, its a menace,  be careful but dont be overly worried


  • 0

#727 darkside

darkside

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 416 posts

Posted 06 December 2019 - 01:12 PM

The other double standard is public vs workers. If a marina staff member gets bitten by a known risk they have warned the public about, I wouldn't want to be a manager at Westhaven or the owners.


  • 0

#728 Aleana

Aleana

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,436 posts
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 11 December 2019 - 08:54 AM

The other double standard is public vs workers. If a marina staff member gets bitten by a known risk they have warned the public about, I wouldn't want to be a manager at Westhaven or the owners.


Exactly. It seems that employee safety is more important than customer / user safety in the NZ environment.
  • 0

You can judge a person by how much they help someone who can do nothing for them in return.


#729 lateral

lateral

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 943 posts
  • Locationauckland

Posted 11 December 2019 - 12:24 PM

Agreed!

Which is logically topsy turvy as a customer is paying for a service with his/her money therefore legally should be entitled to be

safe  with that service.

Whereas an employee is getting paid for providing  said service and should be entitled to be safe, but not before paying customer.?

But then if employee/customer accept all known and unknown risks then I reckon all bets should be off.

 

Nanny state gets all tied up in reams of legislation to keep people safe, then humans in response go to more & more length to risk

their butts in extreme sports/ entertainment. WTF?


  • 0

#730 Aleana

Aleana

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,436 posts
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 11 December 2019 - 06:35 PM

We have the wurst combination of ‘nanny state’ rules that are ineffective! If you’re going to have a rules-heavy government then at least get some benefit from it ie make sure it actually works and delivers something valuable (like genuinely enhanced safety). But don’t be in that crazy middle-ground with the hindrance of lots of rules which aren’t delivering any benefit. Either change the rules or ditch them and start again.
  • 4

You can judge a person by how much they help someone who can do nothing for them in return.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users