Emerging Challenges - Really?

Mentioned in the paper: Guadalupe cage breach.

Hmmmm.

Take a look at this.

Austin and Charlie are certainly good guys and good researchers, and quite knowledgeable about the Shark diving industry, too; and with that in mind, I can most certainly refrain from delving in the nether regions of stuff like the infamous Kardashian Index (and here - anybody come to mind? Hint: "cites me") let alone level accusations of sesselfurzing or ultracrepidarianism, the more as the paper, albeit being a bit lean, is certainly nothing terrible.
And yet I am once again irritated.

First things first: those issues they mention are valid.

In fact we've continued talking about them (= that would be 120+ posts: enjoy!) ever since that blog post 10 years ago, and at last count we've also enabled 16 peer-reviewed research papers, many of which are investigating the effect we're having on the Sharks but also their environment. And finally, we're also a founding member of an association of operators who  practice and promote safe and sane, sustainable Shark diving and are clearly the best in the industry.
 

So yes, granted, there are challenges.
But we as an industry are on top of them and are continuously evolving and improving - and the only thing that is emerging here, is that terminally irritating fad whereby there appears to be grant money for all those people = mostly scientific lightweights, to come sticking their noses into our business unbidden!

So at the risk of repeating myself.

A. We are not the problem.

Commercial and recreational overfishing, climate change, ocean acidification, pollution and habitat destruction are.
Instead, we are certainly a part of the solution - even the worst ones among us! But yes we always need to learn, evolve and improve - and this ideally via self regulation. And if not, then regulation is certainly both opportune and necessary!

B. When it comes to the whole fucking never-ending controversy about provisioning.

People who feed and condition Sharks are called fishermen - not a few dive operators: so please do focus on them and not us! And anyway, this is one of the safest underwater activities by far = with one single fatality during thousands upon thousands of baited dives, it is orders of magnitude safer than ordinary SCUBA!

Yes there are effects on the animals, the principal one being conditioning - but they are largely short-term, localized and sublethal, and in no way comparable to the threats Sharks face otherwise! But yes there too we need to minimize our impact - and guess what, most of us largely do!

C. And finally, to those researchers and NGOs.

We did not ask for this - and all this incessant nagging and lecturing by people who ultimately have no clue about, and zero investment into our industry is frankly becoming terminally irksome. There is now a whole cabal of  researchers whose academic niche (and thus career and thus income) is predicated upon being considered ecotourism experts, or whatever, and who appear to be operating with questionable agendas and also appear to desperately want to meddle instead of waiting to be asked.

So, thank you gents - I know you mean well.

But now, if I may: could you please refocus your attention and notoriously scarce time on more pressing issues than whether Shark provisioning may also, gasp, condition and feed some Fishes!, and revert to doing research that actually helps us save some Sharks?

Thank you.

Apex Predator Tourism - Paper!

Behold!

I say, not too bad = a big improvement over last time!

Yes it's once again one of those papers where the academic intelligentsia is meddling and wants to tell us what to do - but when put into context like they have done here, those recommendations do make much more sense. And it's obviously nice that they mention the SRMR, and they also do get extra points for mentioning Rick's SSD!

And the whole mumbo jumbo about the need for regulation?

When it comes to Shark diving, it remains highly irritating - but I'm really not gonna waste my time and try to reformulate what I've said here, so please go and read it there = far from being the rule, regulation all the way to bans (!) is only opportune at a very last resort, i.e. only once common sense, voluntary codes of conduct and self regulation have utterly failed!

And yes, Florida troglodytes, I'm totally looking at you!

Oh and.

Considering the current rampant biodiversity loss within all non-managed ecosystems, I personally find the reference to moral, ethical, and philosophical questions about the commodification of nature naive and highly disturbing - and I can certainly leave it at that!

The good news?

This fad appears to be petering out and from what I can discern, this is very likely one of the last papers on the subject - thankfully!

Anyway.

Judge for yourselves = enjoy the paper!

Scavenging by Tiger Sharks - Paper!

Click for detail!

Very nice!

Watch.

Paper here, press release here.

That's quite a handful of prominent authors - but in essence, this is a re-interpretation of some of the data collected by Richard, Adam and Ian whilst on the venerable Undersea Explorer that have already led to this paper from 2012 I posted about here.

Which is why the authors stress that much of the above is speculation.

The experimental design was aimed at deciphering long-term movements, and the present fine-scale analysis is very much based on inference rather than actual scientific evidence; but having said that, Richard and Adam have logged hundreds of man hours at Raine, and tell me that actual predation events on healthy Turtles are very rare and tend to be confined to the start of the breeding season when there are less Turtles and the Tigers are just arriving hungry. On a busy year, Raine will yield up to 2,000 dead Turtles, meaning that after a while, the Tigers are more than sated and really could not care less about chasing after healthy Turtles.

Like I said, very nice - but now things are changing.

BHP the mining giant is giving a lot of money to the Raine Island Green Turtle Recovery Project, and the island is being made more Turtle-friendly by eliminating features that could kill them and by protecting the nests against inundation. This means that less turtles will have accidents, and that any distressed Turtle will be aided by the turtle lovers and consequently, adult Turtle mortality has already been reduced by 50%.

And the Tigers?

What happens at Raine is part of a system - and if you tinker at one end, it stands to reason that there will be consequences at the other.

Will the Sharks predate more on healthy individuals whilst expending more energy in the process - and if predation increases, will that have an effect on the behavior of the Turtles? Or will the Tiger Sharks gradually stop coming? And what are the effects of this diminishing resource on their population?

Here's what I think - and yes I'm totally speculating.

Research in Hawaii has shown that those Tiger Sharks are able to regularly exploit determined ephemeral resources, and our own observations at Shark Reef indicate the same for our Bulls at Shark Reef. In essence, one of those Sharks will stumbles upon an opportunity, is able to memorize the experience and will henceforth come back to exploit it. This is learned individual behavior, not something that is genetically encoded or communicated by conspecifics or the like.

At the same time, our observations and those of the GWS people indicate that individual Sharks will favor determined strategies, e.g. individual GWS will attack the teaser bait consistently in one determined way; and on Shark Reef where we have a hand feeding and a bin feeding tribe of Bulls with very little overlap, those specialized hand feeding Bulls will gradually stop visiting when we temporarily suspend hand feeding,

Could it be the same for Raine Island?

Could there be always the same Tigers, and could those individuals be specialized scavengers that would not switch to outright predation but instead, would eventually stop coming once there are not anymore enough carcasses to feed on? 

Dunno - but that's certainly testable, or not?

And another thought.

If one believes Domeier -and I certainly do- what happens at Guadalupe is essentially a GWS feeding and mating aggregation. Could the food pulse during the pupping season of the Northern Elephant Seals maybe even trigger mating, and could it be important for the success of the ensuing pregnancies?

And could what happens at Raine Island be the same, meaning that if the Shark aggregation slowly disperses, finding mates would become more difficult and reproduction success would be lower?

Questions questions!

Ain't science a wonderful thing! :)

Tiger Beach - Paper!

Source.

Nice!

Have you seen this?

I cannot find it online - but somebody sent me the full text that says Open Access, so I assume it will appear shortly.

Anyway, here's the 

ABSTRACT: Advancing our knowledge of the reproductive biology and mating systems of freeranging sharks is inherently challenging. The large size and mobility of the specimens are just a few of the problems that make such studies complicated, and in some respects, impractical. The tiger shark Galeocerdo cuvier is a large, roving, apex predator found in many oceans throughout the world. Although their nomadic nature is primarily linked to large-scale migrations, these sharks can also display site fidelity. 

One site where this is known to occur is at Tiger Beach, Bahamas. 
Unique to the waters of this area is the consistent sighting of large females. While the sex-specific use of the area remains unknown, the shallow, warm environment could represent a critical habitat for reproductive events. To investigate the reproductive biology of tiger sharks at Tiger Beach, 65 individuals were opportunistically sampled between 2011 and 2014. Reproductive status of captured females (n = 59) was assessed with ultrasonography and by measuring circulating sex steroid hormones (progesterone, testosterone and estradiol). 

Our results indicate that Tiger Beach is a high-use site for female tiger sharks of mixed life stages.
The results also suggest that Tiger Beach may function as a refuge habitat, allowing females to reach maturity free from male mating harassment, as well as functioning as a gestation ground where gravid females can benefit from year-round calm warm waters, which may reduce the gestation period and accelerate embryo development.

I really like this, especially the collecting of multi-pronged evidence.

Local lore had it that the  Tiger Shark aggregation was correlated with the fact that Sea Turtles would shelter on Little Bahama Bank during rough weather - but I guess we now know this to be, if at all, of only secondary importance.
Press release here.

Anyway, bravo, well done!

PS - here's the full text!

Shark Diving Tourism - Paper!

Absolutely agree! 

Finally!

I say, this is as good as it gets!

After years of frustration at the various stupidities about our industry that have been proffered by an motley array of researchers and other bloviators with little personal experience but obvious agendas, here comes a paper written by people who being Shark divers have been there and done it, and obviously understand what they are talking about.
And... nice to see the frankly surprising cooperation! :)

Required reading!

The global code of conduct and scoring system?

Absolutely agree! 

Developing a meaningful code that is not too generic will be a huge challenge in view of the highly diverging circumstances in terms of legal framework, location, species etc. - but on top of the general statements (= e.g. don't harass), one could envision sub-categories (e.g. provisioned or not) that could lead to the necessary specificity. Plus, there will have to be considerable industry buy-in - so guys, talk to us!

And when it comes to the rating which I strongly advocate, the challenge will be to avoid the obvious issues of liability for the rating agency - but again, it can, and should be done.

And guess what - people are already working on both issues! :)

So, does this paper make me 100% happy?

Of course not! :)

Precautionary approach?

Like I continue to state, we've been enduring decades of unsubstantiated slander despite of having built one of the safest tourism activities anywhere - and I am really sick an tired of that.

Our track record speaks for itself and with that in mind, I do not at all buy into the recommendation that we need to adopt a precautionary approach on all those assumed potential risks pending more in-depth analysis by the intelligentsia.
E.g. Ben and Cristina have been hand feeding those Reefies for what feels like time immemorial, and this with zero documented side effects and owing to their protective gear, zero incidents. With that in mind, it makes zero sense for them to discontinue anything only because somebody proffers some hypothetical caveat - but at the same time, should somebody come up with hard evidence, I am equally convinced that Cristina would be the first to implement the necessary changes!

So once again - stop speculating but show me the fucking evidence instead!

Or the bloody ban of flash photography!

This stupidity has been the "mainstay" of sustainable Whale Shark snorkeling procedures, see e.g. here. Methinks it was likely once developed by some tree hugging do-gooder and then simply copy/pasted uncritically, and it has been my pet hate ever since. 

I mean, seriously: eye trauma? How does the intensity of an electronic strobe compare to those gasquillions of bursts of UV-saturated sunlight that are hitting the eyes of a WS when it basks at the surface? 

And no - regulation is the very last resort!

But yes I'm digressing.

Not 100% happy - but 99.5% I am!

This is spot-on both in scope and content, and I cannot but applaud the authors for an exhaustive, thorough, unbiased and what is more important, accurate analysis of the issues at hand.

Bravo - job well done!

Tagging Controversy - Paper!

Howlymackerel!

You really got to read this!

Neil, Austin et al are wading right into the hornet's nest that is the whole bloody Shark tagging controversy -biofouling, harassing and all- and attempting to encourage dialogue to establish a set of possible rules that may satisfy all the diverging resource users from researchers to operators to fishermen to conservationists to aficionados.

Not gonna happen of course - but valiant try! :)

And I cite.

Some recommendations to help engage local stakeholders in the significance of tagging research include

• (1) use of informative posters or flyers; 

• (2) meetings with stake holders ahead of time; 

• (3) involving members of the public in the research (i.e. citizen science) or inviting them to observe the tagging activities; 

• (4) providing public talks (e.g. schools, clubs and museums); 

• (5) working closely with stakeholders (such as hiring guides or tourism operators to help with research)

• (6) use of traditional mass media (print, radio and television)

• (7) publishing tagging results in peer-reviewed journals in a timely fashion

• (8) use of online materials such as websites, short videos, teaching via social media and even online platforms that allow the public to follow the movements of the tagged animals; and

• (9) keeping the public updated on results.

Indeed - see Fischer's bloody communication breakdown in SA vs the much improved outreach when he moved operations to the US East Coast!

And I did like this.

While this discourse has mostly focused on stakeholder attitudes as well as user consideration and responsibilities, manufacturers have an important role to play in improving tag function and animal welfare.
While there is certainly considerable manufacturer effort to improve tag performance (battery life, transmission rate and size), there needs to be a greater focus on engineering instruments that eventually detach from animals, especially if a large proportion of tags inevitably become functionally impaired. The software does exist for some tags (mostly satellite tags) to determine their functionality (e.g. battery life/power level or light level that could determine biofouling) which could trigger release mechanisms of external tags. Tools could be further developed or studies designed in a way that tagged animals are recaptured at the end of a study.

Again, indeed!

Kinda reminds me of a rather lengthy (!!!) post somebody wrote a few years ago! :) 

Anyway, brave and interesting paper!

Like I said, you really got to read it, and I'm sure the authors will be happy to provide you with a copy should you ask them!

Catch-and-Release fishing for Sharks - Paper!

Nothing to be proud of - source.

Good stuff!

Remember those interminable debates - especially here?

Now that Austin has finally published his research, the verdict is unequivocal: targeting those Great Hammerheads is just simply wrong - especially in the case of land based fishing that requires subduing and wrestling in the Shark all the way to shore. Considering the documented post release mortality, there is no best practice here as even those Sharks that swim away seemingly unfazed are in grave danger of dying shortly thereafter.

Of course one cannot always chose what takes the bait - but the deliberate targeting of that species must stop immediately.

Or as Austin puts it,

This study may also suggest that relying on visual observations of post-release vitality could underestimate mortality and that these events could still occur in conservation zones that wholly restrict shark harvest (e.g. shark sanctuaries) and/or require release of threatened or protected species (e.g. regional/national prohibited species, endangered species list). 

For example, in January 2012, the state of Florida added 3 species of hammerhead sharks (great, scalloped [ Sphyrna lewini] , and smooth [ S. zygaena] ) to their prohibited species list, requiring individuals caught in state waters to be released. 
However, our results suggest that great hammerhead sharks are particularly vulnerable to fighting on a line with short fight times, even when sharks are observed swimming away vigorously post-release. Thus, potential conservation strategies to address these issues in great hammerhead sharks (in addition to restricting harvest) could include having fishers avoid peak or aggregation areas/times, use weak fishing line or hooks, or simply cut the line nearest the hook (without having to ‘fight’ the animal; Stokesbury et al. 2011).

Synopsis here, paper here.

And here's the usual nice video by Neil's lab.

Enjoy!

PS: follow-up Q/A on the Shark Defenders blog here.

Austin Gallagher - great Outreach!

Brilliant!

Currenly, Austin works as a research assistant with Neil.