Shark attacked tourist as she tried to take its picture in Turks and Caicos, authorities say
The attack occurred the morning of February 7 at a beach on Providenciales, one of the territory's eastern islands, per a statement from the Royal Turks and Caicos Island Police Force.
'The 55-year-old victim was brought ashore and rushed to the Cheshire Hall Medical Center for treatment,' the police statement said, adding that an investigation into the incident is ongoing.
In a press statement posted on social media, the Caribbean territory's environmental department said that the tourist 'had attempted to engage with the animal from the shallows in an attempt to take photographs.'
'The shark was estimated to be approximately 6ft in length, however the species is yet to be confirmed,' it continued.
Global Affairs Canada, the Canadian government body that manages diplomatic relations, said it was aware of 'a Canadian citizen who experienced an accident in Turks and Caicos.'
'Consular officials have contacted local authorities to gather information and stand-ready to provide consular assistance,' Global Affairs continued.
Global Affairs declined to offer further information out of privacy concerns.
CNN has reached out to the Department of the Environment and Coastal Resources for further comment, as well as a spokesperson for the archipelago's tourism authority.
Though popular movies like 'Jaws' have given sharks a reputation for hostility and aggression, attacks on humans are extremely rare, especially in Turks and Caicos. Per the Florida Museum's International Shark Attack File, which tracks such incidents, there were only 3 recorded shark attacks in Turks and Caicos between 1749 and 2024. The Bahamas, meanwhile, recorded 33 in that period.
One of those rare attacks occurred just two years ago in 2023, when a shark bit a snorkeling American woman. She lost her leg in that attack, which the Florida Museum included in their 2023 annual report.
Dr. Gavin Naylor, who manages to the Shark Attack File, said that the most recent attack would be added to the total next February, when the database releases its yearly roundup.
There are about 30 different kinds of shark in that part of the Caribbean, according to Naylor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
a minute ago
- Business Insider
Niger's military government seizes control of industrial gold mine from Australian operator
Niger's military government has announced the nationalisation of the country's only industrial gold mine, accusing its Australian operator of 'serious breaches' as the junta intensifies efforts to gain control over the nation's natural resources. Niger's military government has nationalized the SML gold mine citing strategic interests and resource control. The government accuses the Australian operator of breaches including failure to meet investment commitments. Similar state intervention efforts have occurred in countries like Mali, Guinea, and Burkina Faso to secure greater local benefits from mining operations. Military leader, General Abdourahamane Tiani, who took power after a military coup ousted former President Mohamed Bazoum in an overnight operation, announced the move on state television on Friday. The junta said the mine has entered an ' alarming economic situation.' An official order from General Tiani said: 'In view of serious breaches and with a view to saving this highly strategic company, the state of Niger has taken the decision to nationalise SML.' The statement added, ' This measure is in line with the vision of the president of the republic, which is to promote the full appropriation of its natural resources by the Nigerien people.' The junta criticised McKinel for failing to deliver on a $10 million investment plan, which it said resulted in tax and wage arrears, layoffs, rising debt, and halted production. According to a report by the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, SML's industrial gold production stood at 177 kilograms in 2023, while artisanal production across Niger reached 2.2 tonnes. Security challenges complicate operations in Niger's mines In May, a bomb explosion in Niger's Tillaberi region, a hotspot for jihadist activity, claimed the lives of at least eight workers at the SML mine. This incident prompted the Nigerien army to deploy over 2,000 soldiers to combat insurgent groups in the area, which remains a focal point of the country's security crisis. Consequently, the government decided to take control of the gold mine. This move is part of a broader trend in West Africa, where military juntas have adopted an interventionist approach, reviewing and renegotiating mining contracts to increase state participation and control. Notably, Niger nationalized the local branch of French uranium producer Orano in June, In Mali, following the 2020 coup that ousted President Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta, the military government pressured Canadian mining company IAMGOLD and other foreign operators to increase local ownership and improve investment commitments. It also reviewed contracts with companies like Hummingbird Resources and Randgold Resources to renegotiate terms more favourable to the state. Similarly, Guinea's junta pressured companies like Société Minière de Boké (SMB) and others to increase local ownership and ensure more direct benefits from bauxite exports. In 2022 and 2023, Burkina Faso's juntas took similar steps after their coups, pushing companies like Endeavour Mining, which operates some of Burkina Faso's largest gold mines, to increase investments and improve contributions to the local economy. However, unlike Niger, which has moved towards outright nationalisation in some cases, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Guinea have focused more on contract revisions and stronger oversight rather than formal seizure of assets.
Indianapolis Star
3 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Trump's immigration raids normalize cruelty toward fellow humans
Americans are still firmly behind President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown, but it appears that at least some of them are getting cold feet as his brutal tactics come into view. The spectacle of masked agents smashing car windows, detaining folks with no court hearings and deporting some of them to dangerous countries like El Salvador and South Sudan is starting to splinter public support. The reality is jarring, and for a growing number of Americans, it's becoming too much to stomach. I just wish more of them would see it now before more people get swept under Trump's indiscriminate campaign against migrants – legal or not. Let's start with the numbers. A recent Wall Street Journal poll found that 62% of voters still support deporting undocumented immigrants, and just over half approve of Trump's overall handling of immigration. But beneath that top-line support is mounting discomfort. Nearly 6 in 10 Americans opposed deporting people without court hearings or legal review. Independents, a key voting bloc, are especially critical. Most say the administration has gone too far, specifically when it comes to detaining and deporting individuals who've never had a chance to see a judge. The policy of offloading migrants to third-world countries – even countries that they are not from – should strike many more as not just impractical, but also fundamentally un-American. Hicks: Indiana shuns immigrants at its own peril This tells us something important and gives me a bit of hope. Americans want stronger border security, but enough of them aren't ready to abandon due process. They might have begun to reject the spectacle of lawlessness cloaked in the language of 'law and order.' Yet, cheers persist, which is why we must never stop speaking up. The slow public reaction and the applause for harsh enforcement reveal a darker side of the American psyche – a creeping comfort with dehumanization, a willingness to look away from suffering as long as it happens to 'others,' in this case, to migrants whom MAGA wants out of the United States at any cost. Nobody denies that the United States has the right and responsibility to protect its borders and deport those living here illegally. Trump didn't invent mass deportations. Every president before him has done it. Democrat Barack Obama, for instance, deported more than 3 million during his presidency. But Trump has done something different – he's normalized cruelty, weaponized it and stripped away even the pretense of procedural justice. Hicks: Immigration is the only hope for Indiana's dying small towns What's more disturbing is how far federal agents have gone under Trump's orders. Americans have watched as Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in full tactical gear raid workplaces, pull people from their cars and drag individuals off the streets. Even a sitting U.S. senator, Alex Padilla of California, was tackled to the ground on national television simply for demanding answers. Legal residents and even U.S. citizens are being swept up, too. Due process isn't just being denied – it's being erased. Arizona Democratic U.S. Reps. Greg Stanton and Yassamin Ansari are sounding the alarm about inhumane conditions in immigration detention centers. But even as elected officials, they've been barred from inspecting facilities like the Eloy Detention Center in Florence, Arizona, where horror stories are emerging. One of those cases involves a green cardholder who has lived in the U.S. for two decades and is now battling leukemia while detained, according to Ansari. Opinion: Trump's $600 'rebate checks' from tariffs are just voter bribes Ansari told reporters that the woman has lost 55 pounds, is in severe pain and is not receiving adequate – or any – pain medication. If they can do this to a legal resident with cancer, and keep members of Congress from even entering the facility, what can't they do? And where is the collective outrage? Why isn't the public speaking louder and showing more than slow discomfort in recent polling? Blame that in part on the fragmented media landscape. The country is not just divided politically, but it's divided informationally, too. Many Trump supporters tune in to outlets and influencers that amplify the administration's narrative – painting ICE raids as righteous missions to capture "the worst of the worst.' The reality on the ground tells a different story. When they see that reality, they begin to wonder. Like Trump supporter Joe Rogan, who is finally questioning Trump's immigration crackdown. Briggs: Remember Jim Banks' tariff cheerleading when the economy tanks "It's insane,' the podcaster recently said. "Not cartel members, not gang members, not drug dealers – just construction workers. ... Gardeners.' "Like, really?' Rogan asked. That shifting narrative in the MAGA media landscape – from a one-dimensional tale of criminals to the undeniable truth of working-class migrants being ripped from their families – just might be starting to enter the national consciousness. I bet if more Americans like Rogan pay attention and speak up about what's really happening under Trump, the cheers will stop.
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Even if they settle with Trump, universities have their work cut out for them
Last month, the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University and Brown University cut deals with the Trump administration to resolve accusations related to antisemitism, diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and transgender rights. The administration believes it now has a template for forcing universities to accede to its policy preferences: Make vague but sweeping allegations of discrimination; freeze hundreds of millions of dollars in research funding; overwhelm administrators with civil rights investigations and document requests; and threaten consequences ranging from stripping universities of their right to enroll international students to revoking their tax exemptions. The means used to secure these deals amount to extortion. Over $400 million in research funding was frozen at Columbia with no due process and in violation of the procedural requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Harvard University, which chose to litigate but is reported to be negotiating a deal, had over $2 billion in federal grants and contracts frozen and faces half a dozen civil rights investigations and threats to its international student population, tax exempt status and accreditation. Trump's tactics work because his targets cannot survive as modern research universities if they are at war with government agencies prepared to ignore legal constraints and social norms. There are ample reasons to question the sincerity of the Trump administration's commitment to combatting antisemitism, and throttling scientific research makes little sense as a response. Many of the policies agreed to in the settlements reached by Columbia, Brown and Penn are damaging and dangerous. But some of the concerns on which they are based are legitimate. American institutions of higher education should act as well as react to this crisis. The anti-Israel protests that engulfed some campuses last year brought with them a surge in antisemitism. Task force reports at Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, UCLA and other elite institutions acknowledge failures to do enough to address harassment of Jewish students, faculty and staff. At UCLA, for example, pro-Palestinian protesters barred Jewish students from crossing parts of campus, prompting a lawsuit UCLA recently settled for over $6 million and a Justice Department finding that UCLA violated civil rights laws and the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. In its settlement agreement, Columbia pledged to review its Middle East programs to ensure their educational offerings are 'comprehensive and balanced,' appoint new faculty members in related fields who 'will contribute to a robust and intellectually diverse academic environment' and hire an administrator to serve as a liaison to students on antisemitism issues. We believe the imposition of these requirements poses a threat to academic freedom and university autonomy. That said, the Trump administration's draconian demands provided at least part of the impetus for institutions to revise their policies. Harvard, for example, announced a series of initiatives to encourage respectful discourse and support research on antisemitism. Other colleges and universities are also making efforts — generally commendable, sometimes problematic — to maintain their commitments to free speech while tightening time, place and manner restrictions on protests. In an April 11 letter, the Trump administration also insisted that Harvard hire an 'external party' to audit 'the student body, faculty, staff and leadership for viewpoint diversity,' and then hire faculty and admit students to achieve balance in every department, faculty and teaching unit. This demand is ill-defined, absurd and unconstitutional. But as Harvard's president, Alan Garber, has acknowledged, the university needs to do more to ensure 'a culture of free inquiry, viewpoint diversity and academic exploration.' According to a 2023 survey, over 77 percent of Harvard's faculty identify as 'liberal' or 'very liberal,' compared to 3 percent who identify as 'conservative' or 'very conservative.' Similar if less extreme disparities exist on most elite campuses, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. And as the Heterodox Academy has observed, a too-uniform political culture can give rise to 'closed-minded orthodoxies within scholarly communities.' The devil, of course, is in the details. Departments can easily rule out hiring a creationist to teach biology or a climate change denier to teach environmental studies. But what is the right mix of expertise in a history or chemistry department? And how should that be achieved without employing affirmative action, given the dearth of conservatives pursuing a Ph.D. in many fields? One thing, at least, should be clear: The answers to such questions should come from internal deliberations rather than external mandates. The most controversial aspect of the Trump administration's effort to remake higher education has been its attack on DEI programs. The Columbia settlement insists not only that the university maintain 'merit-based admission policies' and refrain from racial preferences, but also that it 'may not use personal statements, diversity narratives, or any applicant reference to racial identity as a means to introduce or justify discrimination,' even though the Supreme Court's decision on affirmative action permits universities to consider 'an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.' Universities must decide how to square this circle. Similar language forbidding racial preferences appears in the Brown settlement. That agreement also requires Brown to 'provide female student-athletes with intimate facilities such as locker rooms and bathrooms strictly separated on the basis of sex,' offer women the option of 'female-only housing, restrooms, and showering facilities' and 'ensure students have access to single-sex floors in on-campus housing,' with male and female defined in accordance with a Trump executive order insisting that sex is binary and immutable. These provisions go well beyond existing law and may make campuses less welcoming places for many students. That said, some DEI policies should be reconsidered. Requiring job applicants to submit diversity statements, for example, risks the imposition of ideological filters. And although concerns about transgender athletes participating in college sports have been vastly overstated, there is room for fine-tuning participation policies. Critics of the Trump administration rightly decry the bullying that is forcing universities to accept unprecedented government intrusion into university affairs. Most of that intrusion will do far more harm than good. But colleges and universities should seize the moment to preserve and promote core values while implementing reforms that are reasonable, feasible and just. Doing so may not keep the wolf away, but it might help win over a skeptical public.
