New World Record OW Swim

Apparently there are a lot of Ebanks from the Caymans. The family must run very deep in the Caymans. However if it has been around a long time the family might be so large that it is not a single extended family but a number of them. a Model YouTube - ‪Selita Ebanks In The Cayman Islands‬‏ 1st mate on a boat YouTube - ‪Cayman Islands Native Kerry Ebanks Talks about a Trip on the SeaFire‬‏ Beauty contest contestant YouTube - ‪VENESSA EBANKS • CONTESTANT • MISS CAYMAN 2010‬‏ Including one in politics: YouTube - ‪Joey Ebanks‬‏ And an artist: YouTube - ‪National Gallery - Blue Meridian by Davin Ebanks‬‏

Apparently there are a lot of Ebanks from the Caymans. The family must run very deep in the Caymans. How can we know if one of the sharks killed was not an Ebanks, too? One of their own :D

I want to be clear I am not doubting Penny's effort or commitment to the ocean,only Mr.Ebanks.Now he is saying he hooked and dragged the sharks away.That may be,but it is not a harmless adventure for the sharks.I am not talking about the hook so much as the effect of being dragged.It would be exhausting for the shark,which could be fatal and depending on how it was dragged could very easily disrupted the flow of water across the gills enough to "suffocate" it.Even if the shark appeared to swim away there is a significant chance it did not survive the trauma.

Have our attitudes evolved? i like to believe its a work in progress, though it does appear to be a painfully slow process

If this turns out to be true then the significance of the shark events is a bit different. His most recent quote seems to indicate that there was an established practice to bait, hook and remove sharks in the vicinity of Penny. I don't think that is a good standard in a sport where the traditional costume requirement in even the coldest water does not allow a neoprene cap, which is nothing more than a VERY thick cap. (latex - ok, silicone - ok, bubble cap - ok, shower cap - don't know it might be in the same classification as a flower cap) Yes, I'd like to hear those that rail against wetsuits support the relocation of critters. I would also like to know the origin of the kill story then, as it was written it came from Mr. Ebanks' mouth. Unfortunately, appears as if only he knows the truth, and now - after allegations of illegal baiting of a critically endangered shark have arisen and a large public outcry - well, I am not sure I'd admit to the truth either. This all could have been avoided (IMO) If Palfrey's team had taken a "let's find out what happened" attitude rather than a Sgt. Schultz-like "I never saw anything so it never happened" attitude of burying their heads in the sand. How about, "let me contact the people involved to see what happened"? That would be novel. Maybe she needs a new PR company.

Here is an additional article from a member of her core support crew that appears very credible. It would lead one to conclude that if Ebanks did what was alleged, he was doing it independently of Penny & and her crew's wishes - which seems like a more likely scenario. kozhawaii.blogspot.com/.../penny-palfreys-core-team-member-speaks.html

Yes, I'd like to hear those that rail against wetsuits support the relocation of critters. if said relocation could be accomplished without harm to the critters, i would have no problem with it. hypothetical... since i don't believe this is possible.

Morality and ethics aside this "shark control" was a bad idea.First the shark is distracted by bloody chum,then it is caught on a hook and line so that it thrashes around in distress,which excites more predators,then it is killed with a machete,increasing the amount of blood in the water. That's what I thought, too. If the shark originally was not interested in the swimmer or in eating at that moment (it may have been enjoying itself and humming some songs on its journey :D), this whole manipulation and provocation could change its peaceful mood. Suppose Mr. Ebanks missed killing it, the shark may then come back with a suddenly increased appetite and eat the swimmer. www.adventure-journal.com/.../ From this article: 'The director of the Cayman Islands Department of Environment, Gina Ebanks-Petrie, said, “Given the importance of sharks as a top-level predator in the marine environment, the DoE would have preferred to have seen this incident handled differently.”' Looks like even Mr. Ebanks' relative disagrees with him. :cool:

if only 1% remain, does this mean that when oceanic white tips were at their normal population 50 or 100 years ago they would have encountered 400 on the 70 mile trip? that would be seeing 1 oceanic white tip every 280 meters, or every 20 minutes (which are conservative envelope calculations since they are, well, oceanic ... meaning the numerator would be smaller). No. I believe it means that while there would be an increase in the numbers in a given area, it's greatest effect would be an expansion of the area in which they are found

The swim covered 26 daylight hours, or 44 miles of passage. if in my calculations i had used 44 miles instead of 70, then during a 1950's swim (see 2nd pdf) one would have seen one oceanic whitetip every 176 meters, or every 13 minutes. something has to wrong the numbers. What are some estimates on the minimal habitat required to support one adult? This would depend on the health of the food chain and the surrounding habitat. I can't imagine what the fish population would have to to support that many predators. Why would he do that if the population was not healthy? Not sure, but the prime justification for killing wolves is that they kill sheep, cattle, moose, deer etc. In other words the food we eat. They are competitors for the same limited resources. That could be part of an explanation.