Do Bull Sharks have Friends? New Paper!

Spoiler: maybe yes maybe not!

Remember Mike's speculative hypothesis?

In brief, I opined that as their prey is comparatively scarce, evolution would select for large predatory Sharks to be solitary in order not to have to share their kills. 

But whereas that appears to be largely correct for Tigers and Whites, anecdotal evidence and some papers (and here) indicate that Bull Sharks appear to mostly travel in pairs or small groups, and I was eager to see whether our enormous data base could help shed further light on the issue. Yes our Shark feed is obviously an artificial aggregation - but I speculated that if certain individuals would preferentially turn up together, this might be a strong indicator that they might also be traveling together when not attending our dive.

The initial findings were promising.

The data showed some unequivocal, albeit rather weak long-term associations as illustrated e.g. in the following sociogram.

 

Sociogram depicting the social ties between individual bull sharks observed on the study site on ≥34 dives for the time period from 2011 (C). Only GAI values in the highest 30% were included to highlight the strongest associations between dyads, with thicker edges indicating higher GAIs for both individuals observed throughout the entire sampling period (red nodes), and individuals which were not observed throughout the entire sampling period (blue nodes) - click for detail.

 

Impressed? 

Me too, initially - but then came the crux with the bloody interpretation!

Did those Sharks really turn up together because they like each other? Or was it because their core ranges overlap with the Shark Reef Marine Reserve = they just happen to live in the vicinity? Or because they share some behavioral trait that makes them bolder/more curious/more opportunistic/weaker hunters = more prone to visit our feed? Or are they maybe the remnants of a cohort of siblings who stayed together in the river nursery and have traveled together ever since? Questions questions!

Short answer: who knows - which is kinda disappointing!

But, we now have a starting point.

Those numbers in the sociogram all correspond to known individual Sharks, and somebody could now invest some time into observing how they actually interact during the dive - and assuming that the visual observations confirm the initial evidence, one could then try and equip selected individuals with adequate sensors like cameras and/or say, business card tags to see what happens once the Sharks leave Shark Reef and/or take tissue samples to determine their relatedness, etc.

Yes that's a lot of work - but that's what we do, so keep watching this space!

Long story short, so far so good!

Enjoy the new paper! 

 

PS - Juerg here, courtesy of Tom.

IMO the semantics are a lot of splitting of hairs (= do we KNOW that they're not friends?), the more as I believe that some are, and that some (like Blunt and Maite) are very much the contrary - but then again who am I to say!

So thanks for the publicity, much appreciated!

PPS - another really nice piece here - well done!

GTs vs Sharksuckers - Paper!

 

Remember this post?

 

That was not the only observation by far.

This never before described novel hunting technique probably started as an attempt by a single innovative Giant Trevally, only to be quickly adopted by the the whole gang of miscreants. At its apex in late 2011, the 15m Take-out had become a veritable gauntlet, with dozens of GTs targeting the Sharksuckers whenever a Bull would come in for a feed. The Trevallies would wait in front of the feeder and then follow the Shark throughout the feeding area, only to then return to the starting point in order to intercept the next approaching Bull.

Of interest, not all caught Sharksuckers would perish as some would manage to latch on to the attacker,  only to then jump back onto a passing Bull Shark - click on the the pic at the top.

 

It however all ended at year end.

When the Bulls get ready for pupping and mating and are less interested in our bait, we relocate the feed to 25m where the topography is completely different and the trajectory of the feeding Bulls is much less predictable. And then most of the Bulls leave for 4-5 weeks, and the few who remain feed way less, thus further greatly reducing the predation opportunities of the GTs.

Whether it was the above and the Trevallies lost interest, or whether the individual Sharksucker-hunting GTs moved away or were fished: the fact is that we've never witnessed that behavior again.

But we had plenty of footage.

Here's a quick-&-dirty little iMovie edit of some memorable moments. Yeah I know the slo-mo kinda sucks - but you get the gist and I promise that I'll post something better later on.

And now Juerg has also written the paper - finally!

On top of the above story, it also describes other really interesting observations of Sharksuckers at Shark Reef and other Shark provisioning sites in Fiji.

Press release here, additional clips here.

Enjoy Juerg's paper!  

Mating Scalloped Hammers - Video!

Awesome!

Remember Jorgensen's inane lekking hypothesis?

Back then I stated that I had personally witnessed mating Scalloped Hammers -incidentally, at the El Bajo off La Paz, a long, long time ago- and now somebody has finally captured the spectacular act on video at Cocos Island.

Just phenomenal - as witnessed by the excitement of the dive guide! :)

And since we're at it.
Here are once again the aerial Mantas.



And here's a selection of Sharks.
Like I said, they all end up sinking to the bottom.
Enjoy!









And there's even video of Juerg's pesky Zebras!
Agonistic indeed!

And the lekking-, (and sniffing) fiasco?

I'm not seeing it mentioned anywhere at all - which begs the question, maybe because it was nothing but ludicrous BS to start with? And incidentally, may Teresa be lekking, too - cuz that sure looks like ROD to me!
Questions questions! :)

But more importantly.

Can we finally agree that those GWS mate at Lupe?

But I'm digressing as always.

Enjoy the graphic canoodling!

 

Two Years of Strap - Field Note!

2016-2018 - click for detail!

Remember that poor Shark back then in 2016?

We named her Strap and have kept tabs ever since.

And here comes the according Field Note documenting the initial worsening and then, thankfully, improvement in her situation all the way to the point where the strap did eventually burst and has since mostly fallen off .

My personal take-away?
First and foremost, this once again proves the value of our continuous long term monitoring where our humongous data base is documenting over 15 years of Shark diving and the life history of a whopping 250 individual Sharks!

And boy talk about being tough!

During the course of the whole ordeal, she never appeared to be particularly inconvenienced and  instead maintained her agility and continued to compete successfully during the aerial feeds. In fact I fully expect her to completely heal to the point where she will shortly look similar to Gillette who only upon very close inspection appears to have survived a very similar incident.

Intrigued?

Strap is up for adoption, so there - and don't forget to upgrade in order to receive your quarterly updates!

And because I can.
Here is the entire Field Note for your perusal - as always, great job by Juerg and for the first but certainly not last time, by Tashi Blue!

Please click for detail and, Enjoy!

15 Years of BAD Videos - Coming of Age!

And here we are!

Needless to say that we're mighty proud - and after much trial-and error, it also looks like we might be finally doing something right! :)

Anyway, notable more recent clips include:

Howard and Michele!



Fiji's first National Marine Park!

Happy, and very funny clients - and the FOOTAGE IS 100% REAL! :)

Philippe!



Jason!



Juerg and Kerstin!





16:55ff: Tashi Blue and My Fiji Shark!

Lemme tell'ya, it has been quite the adventure!

And although the job is by no means done, we're certainly getting there, baby step by baby step, with BIG NEWS looming in the not-too-distant future!

To be continued!

And THAT's a promise!

You Are What You Eat - Paper!

Our Whitetip Reefies - happy, well fed and healthy!

And talking of Shark feeding.

And I cite,

The suite of studies available for this site is likely the most comprehensive body of work to date comparing the impacts of tourism on a predator species' behaviour and fitness with conservation and economic benefits.
The various studies address a range of potential issues (e.g. residency, habitat use, consumption of bait, energetic value of bait and diet) and provide a good example of how site-specific information, obtained from multiple methods, can contribute for an effective, evidence- based, management of the predator tourism industry.

Similar multi-methods approaches can be applied to other aquatic and terrestrial wildlife tourism species/operations, to move beyond our current understanding of tourism-driven behavioural and ecological changes, and provide a more holistic understanding of the effects of provisioning on the health and fitness of the target species.

Indeed - and we're mighty proud! :)

And here comes the latest, but by no means last paper investigating the effects of what we do!

I must say that I'm really happy.

This time, we've looked at the consequences of feeding non-resident Sharks, i.e. our Bull Sharks vs feeding much more resident ones, i.e. our Whitetip Reefies.

As a backdrop, keep in mind that we don't merely tease our Sharks like the GWS people do: our Sharks have been fed approx 1 ton of Tuna heads per week (!) for more than 20 years, meaning that they may well be the most, and I may add, best fed tourism Sharks on the planet - and not only that: our research has also shown that far from being junk, those Tuna heads are also highly nutritious!

And with that in mind, the results are simply spectacular.

Stable isotope analysis reveals that there is no evidence of bait incorporation by Bull Sharks; and even for some of the much more resident Whitetip Reefies, the results suggest a mere 8–22% importance of bait, this based on individual preferences - or as the paper states,

Results from the present study, particularly when combined with information from previous studies at this feeding site (Brunnschweiler et al., 2010, 2014;Brunnschweiler and Baensch, 2011; Brunnschweiler and Barnett, 2013;Brunnschweiler et al., 2017), suggest that current levels of provisioning lead to no detrimental long-term impacts on the behaviour or diet (and probably health) of sharks at the Shark Reef Marine Reserve site.

Bingo.

In brief, our feeding does certainly not harm our Bulls - and it equally does not harm the environment as they continue to fulfill their ecological role by quasi exclusively relying on their normal prey.
And when it comes to the Whitetip Reefies, we are actually presently investigating whether instead of feeding them too much, we may actually be feeding too little like what has been shown at Osprey Reef!
 
And not only that!
This is a strong indications that all other global Shark feeds that feed less, less frequently and have done so for a shorter period of time are likely to be unproblematic, too!

Long story short?

Time after time after time again all the evidence points to the fact that the reservations against Shark tourism in general and Shark feeding in particular are largely unfounded and that in the big scheme of things, far from posing a problem, we are one of the safest and most responsible ecotourism activities and as such, very much a part of the solution!

So well done team - this is just awesome!

My particular gratitude goes to Kátya for being so proficient and rigorous in her analysis, and for never losing her faith and her charm despite of the challenges of essentially working pro bono whilst raising a family, and of having to weather a grueling peer review process.

Thank you!

And our detractors?

Ultimately, they cannot be reformed and will surely continue to come up with ever new unsubstantiated hypotheses, and criticize and nitpick whenever they can.
But at this stage in the game and in view of all the unequivocal evidence, it is for them to finally come up with some fucking evidence, see Juerg's comments here - and failing that, they really need to shut the fuck up!

Anyway.

Enjoy Kátya's paper - this is an author's link so make sure you preserve the text as it may well disappear behind a paywall in the future!

Let's go Shark diving!

Escape to Shark Reef!

Very nice!

Check this out.

Juerg has been the scientific supervisor of our research and conservation for 15 years, and we simply could not be happier with the friendship, the level of cooperation and the many stellar papers our symbiotic relationship has spawned.
Contrary to what some self-appointed literal saviors of Fijian Sharks may want you believe, this is by far the most comprehensive and important collection of Shark research papers in Fiji. As such, it already has and continues to inform Government about sustainable Shark management, Shark conservation and sustainable Shark ecotourism.

And of course this is not the end by far!

As I consult my notes, there are several papers in the pipeline, some of which in preliminary stages all the way to some that are in final review and will be published very shortly indeed.

Keep watching this space!
 

Mrs. Jaws - New Article!

Great pic by Ozzie Sam - click for detail! 

Check this out!

I must really say that I find this an excellent idea!

To wit, Juerg and Charlie's latest little publication about our serial observations of Mrs. Jaws: maybe a bit lean for a conventional scientific publication but certainly interesting - or not?

And there are also videos!

Methinks this one where she was swimming around with a fishing popper lure is when the whole fiasco with the chronic infection really started to get serious - and this recent one with the grotesquely deformed jaw breaks my heart whenever I see it, as it really bodes ill for her faculty to feed successfully. Here's to me being mistaken - but we haven't seen her in a while and I'm frankly not very hopeful alas!

Anyway.

Enjoy the paper!
 

Bulking up at Shark Reef - Paper!

Great stuff - and I cite,

With provisioning occurring 3–4 times per week at the SRMR and focal individuals consuming an average of ~0.74 heads per provisioning day, we estimate that these sharks consume ~2.6 provisioned tuna heads per week, which is similar to our estimate of food required to meet their weekly energy budget (2.3 heads per week).
As such, it appears that our focal sharks may be fuelling their energy requirements exclusively from provisioning. However, considering that encounter rates vary widely among individuals and between months and that electronic tracking data show that individuals intermittently leave the area for a few consecutive days, weeks to months throughout the year before returning to the feeding site (Brunnschweiler et al., 2010; Brunnschweiler & Barnett, 2013), at the most this may only be the case for some individuals at certain times of the year (e.g. at the beginning of a calendar year).
....
The foremost limitation to this study is that data and inferences are based on 10 individuals observed on 36 days. 
These 10 individuals may be bolder than other bull sharks encountered at the SRMR and thus predisposed to take food and, hence, the patterns found for these individuals may not reflect all the bull sharks in the area. Given the variable number of sharks at feeding events and days individuals are absent from feeding events (Brunnschweiler & Baensch, 2011; Brunnschweiler & Barnett, 2013), further work is needed to determine the importance of tuna heads compared with natural prey in bull shark diets, for example, stable isotope analysis.

So there you have it.

Very surprisingly indeed, those Tuna heads we feed are not at all rubbish but instead a valuable supplement that can help bulk up our Sharks when they come back all exhausted and emaciated after the pupping and birthing season - and I can fully confirm that we've seen many an individual Shark become chubby and happy again after only a few visits!

But what about the potential negative aspects?

Could we be overfeeding them, and could we be subtracting them from the regulatory role they got to play in the environment?

Likely not, as a) the feeding frequency is not uniform but highly individual and determined by individual dominance and/or boldness, b) our observations tell us that those same dominant Bulls do not simply gorge themselves but clearly stop feeding once they got enough and c) our Bull Sharks are not resident but only sporadic visitors whereby individual site fidelity and thus residency is by no means uniform let alone increasing but instead varies greatly from year to year - re-read this post and paper!

But that's obviously not hard evidence but (highly) educated guess.

Hence the suggestion that one examine the Bull Sharks' diet via e.g. stable isotope analysis - and without wanting to preempt anything, I can state with great confidence that you will need to keep watching this space! :)

And this stupidity with its even stupider title?

Re-read this: the actual problem is not the provisioning per se but the disturbance of the Whitetips' diel rhythm, and not the fact that they are being fed but instead, the fact that they are not getting enough food and are incurring a metabolic loss as a consequence! 

Incidentally, much like at those cage dives where in their collective wisdom, the regulators have decreed that the GWS must chase teaser baits without ever being fed - and even more so in e.g. Shark Alley where they are being lured into wasting heaps of energy on fruitless breaches so that the photographers can get their shots!

Detail detail!

But I'm digressing as usual.

Enjoy Juerg's paper (and here)!

Are we killing them with Kindness?

No we are certainly NOT!

Check this out.
I would have never thought that I would have to say this about a paper co-authored by Juerg and Adam, ever - but I find it pretty much shite, and pretty useless to boot. Alas!

To me it smells like some student needed some grades and was told to compile some lists - and like many such meta-analyses, the result is everything and nothing, however very unfortunately with a subliminal anti-industry message at its core, as very much evidenced by the stupid title.
Mind you, methinks that had it not been for my friends, it would have been even worse; plus, there is nothing inherently inaccurate about its findings, and the recommendations are probably formally correct - but it still annoys the heck out of me.

But maybe it's just me.

Thing is, it fatally reminds me of the overwhelming hostility displayed by most researchers and NGOs when we embarked into the Fiji Shark Project 13 years ago.
There was no specific criticism - just a widespread aversion against messing with nature, something that has continued hounding us til today whereby some quarters continue to try and nitpick on what we do despite of the clear benefits the SRMR has brought to Fiji and its Sharks.
Yes of course any wildlife tourism will have an effect (dooh!), and of course those effects need to be analyzed and mitigated which is precisely what we've been doing and also blogging about (yup those would be 100+ posts, and counting!) for years - but to even hint that we may be the problem is just simply unconscionable.
 

Who is killing them are first and foremost the fishermen and hunters, and the people who destroy and pollute their habitat, and humankind that emits too much CO2 etc etc - and far from being complicit, marine ecotourism is one of the factors that is counteracting that unholy trend and slowing down the biodiversity loss by creating alternative income and employment opportunities, and by instilling a sense of awe and love in the public!

Or am I missing something here?

Which brings me straight over to this opus - press release here.

First and foremost, it's always nice to see one's work being publicly acknowledged along with the honorable mention of the GFSC; also, being one of the (recalcitrant) industry representatives who have been consulted, I'm partially responsible for the final product.

This has been in the making for a very long time indeed.

I did blog about it here and very much stand by what I said then, i.e.

Nice to have academia and the NGO intelligentsia look into our industry and hopefully give us some valuable unbiased pointers for improvement - but any such code will only succeed if there is considerable industry buy-in. And for that to happen, any such rules will not only have to reflect some eco wish list but also be flexible and above all, factually and economically practicable!

So how does this rate by those metrics?

I can say that it is much improved compared to its initial versions where there clearly was a don't mess with nature undertone as per the above, and where the overall gist was much more geared towards the need for regulation (re-read this!).
I can also say that I did submit it for review to GSD and got back a polite average score of 7 out of 10 - but I can also equally unequivocally state that nobody was highly impressed let alone enthused, and that most certainly none of us is now gonna run and follow the suggestions to e.g. (re)define his business core values or get certified by some tree-hugging agency, or the like.

And on a more personal note.
Despite of clear improvements, Tool 7 remains highly irritating because of its largely negative bias.  Precautionary approach my ass! And, we have actually chosen (!) to hand feed as provided that it is done responsibly, we find it highly selective and actually safer than the alternatives. And no, we're absolutely not gonna change our feeding times = opening hours on a daily basis - I mean, seriously!
 

And then I find other stupidities like e.g. that fucking flash photography ban which is apparently vital when snorkeling with Whale Sharks but not with equally surface-dwelling Mantas and Baskers, or when cage diving with GWS - let alone with the other Sharks at depth whose pupils will be comparatively more distended????!

But now it's me nitpicking.
Overall the guide is quite nice - and nicely presented which will make the donors happy! :)

Long story short?

A. Although this is well meaning and certainly not terrible, the Best Practice Guide is also not great.

With that in mind, I very much doubt that there will be the abovementioned substantial industry buy-in, the more as I don't see any mechanism for encouraging adherence e.g. via an own rating system or failing that, by using one's outreach to strongly endorse and promote Rick's SSD. Yes Project AWARE I'm looking at you!

The good ones among us don't need your help but very much conduct their own research as evidenced by the bylaws of GSD whereby research is a precondition for membership; and failing some form of gentle coercion (and again, I'm looking at you PADI!), the bad operators will simply refuse to cooperate as e.g. already evidenced by their obvious boycott of SSD.
All of which obviously begs the question, cui bono = and could those resources have been invested into something more useful?

B. We are not the problem.

Instead, even the worst ones among us are a part of the solution, see above! 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!

C. 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! 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!

D. 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 incidentally mainly female 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.

Anyway.

When it comes to the global Shark diving industry in general, there are now one excellent paper and one good one (both, incidentally, by experienced Shark divers!) and several that are not, see e.g. here and also here, with links.

And now there is this.

That's plenty enough, thank you very much.
And now, please, why don't you just fuck off - because we actually got work to do, salaries to pay and tourists to wow!
 

No hard feelings, love you all! :)

 

Tourism Sustainability!

Multi-awarded: Best Dive Shop 2006 + Tourism Sustainability 2012 and 2015! 

Remember this short remark?

Then it happened right on the verge of Winston and it was really not appropriate to dwell - but I really owe it  to the staff, and to our many friends and supporters who have chosen to undertake this long and often arduous journey with us, to say a word or two.

So there.

Yes we've done it - again!

We were short listed in December and then declared finalists shortly before the ceremony, so it did not come as a complete surprise; but we are certainly thankful, honored and humbled by this recognition. Together with our past awards, this quite possibly makes us one, if not the most locally awarded Fijian dive center, ever!

The award recognizes, and I cite

the efforts and contributions made by individuals and organisations who have successfully implemented environmentally sustainable initiatives, demonstrable by long-term commitment and performance. It also recognises the promotion, development and engagement with the Fijian people and operators understanding of Fiji’s Green Growth Framework.

Nani - strategically positioned! :)

Compared to last time, notable new achievements include

• First and foremost, the establishment of Fiji's first National Marine Park after more than ten years of advocacy.


• The development of Fiji's first biggest and most successful Shark-centric volontourism program together with our partners of Projects Abroad. And let me add: Beware of cheap imitations!


• The co-founding of Global Shark Diving, the world's first, only and obviously best alliance of responsible conservation-minded Shark diving operators.

Plus we've of course continued the ongoing sustainable tourism and conservation work inclusive of more research and more stellar research papers by Juerg, with new and exciting initiatives coming soon! In brief, the recipe for our success is that we DO things - as opposed to all the whinging and announcing of some quarters!

My only regret?

Having won automatically means that the Barefoot Collection who were vying for the same award have fallen short. These are really good people doing remarkable ecotourism and conservation work in the Yasawas, and we are proud to be cooperating on several projects with them. If you can, do pay them a visit - especially now after Winston where everybody here is thankful for every tourism dollar!

PS - Martin here. Thanks buddy! :)

Coastal Fishing for Sharks in Fiji - Paper!

Finally!

So here are the facts.

Whilst others continue to bullshit the public with tall tales of them spearheading the fight against finning in the SoPac, or whatever, we've decided to finally shed a light on what really happens in Fiji away from the well-documented shenanigans (and here!) by the Tuna long liners.

In essence, we've embarked into a two-month road trip throughout the country - and lemme tell 'ya, it has been epic!

Under Juerg's leadership, we took Swiss masters student Kerstin Glaus to every single coastal village we could reach, see the paper, where she conducted interviews with the local fishermen; and then, we visited some of the principal fish markets in order to verify and collect further evidence.

The results were equally impressive and disturbing.

Contrary to common lore whereby Fijians don't fish for Sharks, we found that local small- and medium-scale subsistence and commercial Shark fishing was very much alive and even on the rise following the defeat of the Shark Sanctuary Campaign but also very much because as Sea Cucumber stocks were being wiped out, the bêche-de-mer traders were increasingly asking for Shark fins as a commercial substitute, and because Sharks were increasingly being consumed as stocks of other more prized Fishes were dwindling.

A first outcome was Kerstin's stellar masters thesis, see at top.

Much more comprehensive than the present paper -and we shall come back to that-, it was the basis of a series of presentations to Fiji's Department of Fisheries that having so far lacked any relevant data, had been largely unaware of the extent of the problem and consequently failed to enact any management measures. Thankfully, this is now changing, also owing to the implementation of the latest protection measures under CITES.

And now this knowledge is finally open source.

But whilst I loved the masters thesis, I'm somewhat underwhelmed by the present paper.

And this is why.

There is bycatch and bycatch.

If a coastal fisherman goes out to net himself some Mullet and having left the net to soak overnight, comes back to find a dead Blacktip Reefie among his catch, then the Shark is genuine bycatch = unplanned, unintended and unwanted.
 

But what about this.
If a spear fisherman sets out to catch himself a Parrotfish for dinner but upon encountering a Blacktip Reefie, decides to shoot it in order to sell its fins, then I hope that we can all agree that the circumstances leading to the Shark's demise are radically different from the first example. Same-same as if that same Parrotfish-hunting spearo ventured across a White Teatfish and decided to collect it in order to pocket its staggering price of 150.00 bucks, notabene for a single individual.

In both these cases, the take is equally unplanned and thus defined as bycatch - but it is certainly very much intended and wanted!

IMO rightfully, Kerstin decided to highlight that difference.

She decided to differentiate between accidental and intentional bycatch, and I cite from her masters thesis.

Several studies indicate that threatened species are also caught as bycatch in artisanal fisheries (Godley et al. 1998, Jaramillo-Legorreta et al. 2007, Peckham et al. 2007). Bycatch is defined as the capture of non-target species or undesired sizes of target species (Lewison et al. 2004). Thus, bycatch is typically discarded. However, bycatch can also be retained as valuable source of income, and hence be sought intentionally (Ebert et al. 2013). Furthermore, the association of intentional bycatch of several marine species with artisanal fisheries has recently been reported (Casale 2011). Therefore, inshore shark species may be increasingly under pressure from local-scale artisanal fisheries...

Respondents who had sharks as bycatch were further divided into accidental and intentional bycatch (further described in chapter 1). The distinction between intentional and accidental bycatch was mainly based on the use of sharks caught. Discard of sharks caught is the main criterion in this study for accidental bycatch. Since non-targeted but used sharks may be caught intentionally, any kind of usage (e.g. fin sale, meat sale, regular and repeated consumption) is regarded as main criterion for intentional bycatch.

Gill-nets and hand-lines are commonly used in artisanal fisheries to target reef finfishes (Pratchett et al. 2011). Therefore, the deployment of lines with catch capacities of around 100 pounds and more is used as a further criterion for intentional bycatch. Moreover, the application of spears and spearguns is considered here as technique used for intentional bycatch, since the intrinsic purpose of that fishing gear excludes accidental bycatch.

And with that in mind, this was the result.

See what I mean?

Suddenly, those otherwise rather innocuous bycatch statistics become highly relevant. As a minimum, they document that catching Sharks has become desirable for well over half of Fiji's coastal fishermen - and we all know all-too-well how that desire will lead to dire consequences!

Case in point: we're definitely losing Bull Sharks at a rather alarming rate!

Alas, the paper's peer reviewers did not agree.

The differentiation between accidental and intentional bycatch was scrapped, IMO much to the detriment of the paper's relevance along with its value for any fisheries management bodies.

Oh well - at least the authorities here know the whole picture.

And one last thing.

Remember the musings about Spinner Sharks in Fiji? 

Kerstin's picture from the Lautoka market has been recently corroborated by this catch in the Rewa. That's not a Blacktip C. limbatus but a Spinner, C. brevipinna - check out the anal fin and compare to this ID guide!

But I'm digressing as always.

Enjoy Kerstin and Juerg's paper!

OSAM - Interview with Juerg!

Nice!

Read this.

Juerg is a very good friend and somebody I respect immensely, and from whom I've learned a lot. Our relationship has undergone a remarkable evolution, from a goal-oriented and initially, mutually cautious collaboration into what is more of a symbiosis, with both parties profiting and incidentally, having heaps of fun in the process!

BAD was able to secure the collaboration of a highly respected and prolific Shark researcher, and he was able to secure exclusive access and major influence on the direction of an equally stellar Shark research and conservation project that will continue to lead to new amazing insights for many years to come.

Or so I hope.

So here's to the next dozen years!

Cocos Island - a Paper Park?

Remember this paper?

The authors are weighing in, and here's another piece.

And I cite.

The declines in the number of sharks and rays restricted to the waters surrounding Cocos are a clear indication that the protected area isn’t working.

and

New research led by researchers at the University of Victoria raises serious concerns about the ability of marine protected areas (MPAs) to effectively protect wide-ranging iconic species, such as sharks and rays.

I say, not so fast!

There is an increasingly irritating cabal of vociferous researchers that instead of being preoccupied with the 99.97% of oceans that are not being protected, continue to snipe against the 0.3% that have been designated as MPAs - and these statements are playing right into their hands.

So, was protecting Cocos and for the matter, the other hot spots Malpelo, Gorgona and the Galapagos nothing but an exercise in futility?

Yes of course there have been declines!

When it comes to the wide-ranging pelagic species like the Hammers that regularly leave protected waters when they migrate between Cocos, Malpelo and the Northern Galapagos it was to be expected. It's exactly the same here in Fiji when the Bulls leave the Fiji Shark Corridor, and over the past decade, we too have lost several individuals. BUT, by the same token, many more have survived because like Juerg's paper shows, our Bulls spend approx 1/2 of their lives in protected waters!

And the same of course applies mutatis mutandis to those Hammers - or does anybody believe that you could still see those iconic schools if we had not protected those sites, and if the dive boats had not been there as witnesses that did certainly discourage the worst of the poaching? If so, think again, as in comparable places like the El Bajo in the Sea of Cortez where there is no local protection, the Hammers have all but disappeared!

In brief, the protected area is by no means not working, it is merely working imperfectly!

And the resident Elasmobranchs?

Although I'm clearly speculating, some of those Rays and Whitetips that are being predated upon by the increasing numbers of Tigers and the Galapagoses may well have decided to depart for greener pastures much like we are witnessing here in Fiji.

But chiefly, they have been the victims of insufficient enforcement - which incidentally is the principal reason why many full no-take MPAs are failing globally! In brief, the failure of many declared MPAs is not a failure of the concept per se, it's a failure of their implementation - meaning that we got to improve the implementation and stop sniping against the concept! 

And anyway: show me a better way to protect marine biodiversity in the developing world where there are simply not enough resources for enacting proper management - and since yer at it, how about proving your point by enacting your miraculous recipes in those remaining 99.97% and leaving us alone! 

And yes I'm being uncharacteristically polite! :)

Solutions?

The researchers write,

Although management efforts have increased in the past decade, illegal fishing still occurs within the island’s waters (Arias et al. 2014). It is unclear if the Cocos Island MPA is even properly designed (Botsford et al. 2003) to protect such large and wide-ranging species (Hooker and Gerber 2004; Gr¨uss 2014). 

Conservation efforts at Cocos Island cannot be focused simply on expanding the protected area (Arias et al. 2014); rather, efforts should be put toward increasing enforcement and management (Kelaher et al. 2015). Costa Rica’s efforts to increase their MPA coverage are admirable, but the establishment of MPAs cannot be the end point. Explicit plans and dedicated funding for monitoring and enforcement must be in place to prevent the creation of a network of paper parks. These plans need to include using both theory about MPAs and empirical data (White et al. 2011). Further, there must be stronger penalties for noncompliance with MPA rules to offset the potential gains of illegal fishing (Arias et al. 2014). 

We recommend that monitoring and enforcement of Costa Rica’s MPAs be increased substantially and that international environmental NGOs and foundations contribute to these efforts. Such efforts are urgently required if Cocos Island is to recover its elasmobranch populations and claim its status as a truly successful MPA.

Could not agree more!

And if I may venture a suggestion, apply Fiji's new concept of public/private partnerships in marine conservation and deputize the local crews of the liveaboard vessels that could then help Costa Rica enforce the MPA!

But above all.

Let's continue to celebrate Cocos Island as one of the most iconic Shark diving destinations, and let's commend and thank the Undersea Hunter Group for the pioneering and selfless work they continue to do there on a daily basis! 

Yes there may be Trouble in Paradise.

But it's still Paradise, and the trouble can certainly be overcome!

And since we're at it.
Enjoy - very nice! :)

Shark Strike in the Azores - Debate!

Oh for crying out loud!

Have you seen this?

Spare yourselves the 40 bucks - in essence, the article recounts how a Blue Shark bit the fin of a pal of the authors, and this thusly.

An Unprovoked Attack by a Blue Shark Prionace glauca (Chondrichthyes: Carcharhinidae) on a Spear Fisherman in Terceira Island, Azores, Northeast Atlantic

On July 24, 2013, near a shallow water rocky reef approximately 50 m from the coastline, a 48-year-old spear fisherman was surprised by a blue shark that bit his right flipper. The incident occurred on the South coast of Terceira Island, Azores, Portugal, Northeast Atlantic, where a shark attack or conflict is a very rare phenomenon, having only 3 minor incidents previously recorded...

Late afternoon the spear fisherman entered the water and swam away from the adjacent fishing port, now converted into a leisure summer area, toward the tip of the adjacent rocky reef. 
There, he saw a school of Atlantic Bonito, Sarda sarda (Bloch, 1793) and immediately dove to place himself in a position suitable to target one of the fish swimming in front of him. As he descended to a depth of approximately 10 m, he felt his right foot being pushed and turned his head to see an approximately 2.1 m total length blue shark biting his flipper...

At the same time, he reported that at least 5 more similar-size blue sharks were close by, and he was able to chase the first specimen away simply by touching it with his left leg. The sharks disappeared, and the victim continued to fish in that same area with no further sightings.

And then the authors have the audacity to attribute the incident to Shark feeding as follows.

These offshore, mainly pelagic species do have coastal habits when in close proximity to oceanic islands, as happens to be the Azores. Moreover, they are attracted by tourist operators with feeding stimuli and may be already in the process of associating these stimuli with humans, namely, divers. Contrary to well-known coastal sites where this practice is common and local sharks seem to have residential habits while becoming conditioned by specific diving sites, Azorean targeted species roam vast areas and far away from the open water zones where they are mainly attracted.

In spite of the fact that some of the most dangerous species are seldom seen in the Azores, we believe that this practice of proximity and feeding stimuli to open water nonresident sharks is potentially dangerous and may well lead to more, possibly very serious, accidents in Azorean waters in the future.
In our opinion, close proximity of large predatory vertebrates to humans may well lead to accidents that sometimes may even be lethal. Apex predators, when accustomed to being enticed with food by humans, either for tourist purposes or from simple curiosity, are known to increase attacks.
Changes in shark behavior due to touristic activities such as “shark diving” were also documented by Hammerschlag et al.

We do think that care and common sense must surely prevail in these cases, while dealing with situations than can easily get out of control and lead to serious risks and overwhelming panic situations, which, if nothing else, will inevitably affect tourist activities as a whole.

Not so fast, says Juerg.

Here is his reply, unabridged.

Shark Attacks and Shark Diving 

To the Editor:
It is with great astonishment and concern that I read the letter to the editor by Barreiros et al in which the authors report an attack by a blue shark on a spear fisherman in the Azores.
Whereas the first part of the article accurately details the circumstances of the accident, Barreiros et al, in the second part,devise a far-fetched and illegitimate connection with shark div ing, in particular with shark feeding.

Shark-induced human injuries are among those inter actions between humans and wildlife that arguably receive the most media and public attention.
The general arguments of shark feeding critics are that 1) luring or feeding sharks over a period of time has the potential to condition them and that this conditioning could lead to sharks associating the presence of humans with food; and by insinuation, 2) make them aggressive toward humans. This in turn could lead to 3) an increase in accidents (eg bites)at shark feeding sites when no food is provided. Concern also exists that 4) regular shark feeding at ecotourism sites may increase the risk of shark attacks on ocean users in surrounding areas.

The first argument is beyond scientific controversy.
There is ample empiric evidence that elasmobranchs can be conditioned and are capable of learning to associate, for example, specific locations with food rewards. Recent studies looking at long-term trends in shark abundance at such sites have found numbers,at least of certain species, increasing over time,which further supports the quite unsurprising conclusion that sharks can learn to associate specific locations with food. It is this very capability shark diving operators capitalize on to set up profitable and sustainable businesses. No empiric evidence exists that would support the other 3arguments.

If shark feeding critics implicitly deduce them from the first argument,one has no other choice than to assume that what critics mean is not sharks “associating” humans with food, but “regarding” them as a food source. This could be viewed as semantics, but they are the very arguments on which authorities have based the implementation of legislation on shark feeding bans.
For example, in 2 highly publicized cases in 2002, Florida and Hawaii banned the practice of shark feeding while diving or snorkeling in their respective state waters.

Barreiros et al use a certainly tragic but single shark accident to fire an unsubstantiated broadside at the nascent shark diving industry in the Azores.
If shark feeding critics are serious about their assertion that sharks regard humans as food, then it is time to come up with fact sand figures. In doing so, the results of the respective studies will add to the objectification of the public discourse about feeding sharks as a tourism attraction. If shark feeding critics continue to refuse to address the respective questions by applying the scientific method, then their arguments remain what they currently are: tendentious and uninformed.

Juerg Brunnschweiler, PhD ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

And this is the riposte by the authors.

In Reply to Shark Attacks and Shark Diving

To the Editor:
 In his letter, Dr Juerg Brunnschweiler expresses both astonishment and concern regarding our paper when stating that it “devises a far-fetched and illegitimate connection with shark diving, in particular with shark feeding.”

We do not agree with Dr Brunnschweiler’s comments, because 1) our paper is not a “criticism” of either shark diving nor shark feeding but yet a description of an attack that might have had some kind of connection with the growing industry of shark diving in the Azores; 2) we clearly expressed a legitimate concern that, contrary to shark species with residential habits, the blue shark that caused this attack has pelagic habits and roams coastal areas of oceanic islands, and is the only species targeted by the Azores commercial shark diving companies; 3) the possibility—although rare—of interactions with humans and eventual attacks are real and may cause collateral damage to man upstream and downstream areas of maritime tourism in the Azores; and 4) panic and disproportionate fear, something that is worldwide associated with sharks, are critical issues and may lead to other types of accidents.

We understand and respect the diving operators’ will to capitalize on this specific niche of tourism. 
However, we think that it is our duty and even a responsible obligation to describe well documented events and discuss them within the scientific community. Throughout the world, many accidents presenting several degrees of gravity do occur. However, it is known that many remain unreported, either because they occur in remote areas or because there are many types of political pressures to avoid their knowledge precisely not to harm some types of touristic initiatives. That is one of the reasons why Dr Brunnschweiler’s comment when asking for “facts and figures” is so difficult to achieve.

And yet,in his last paragraph, DrBrunnschweiler expresses a very inelegant affirmation when he doubts our ability to use the “scientific method.”
We are certain that he knows perfectly well that we did use it, but numbers do not appear—and probably that will remain as it is for a long time simply because (and may we add, fortunately) shark attacks are rare.

Our arguments are precautionary and cautious.
Enticing predators and especially apex predators with food will lead to conflicts between humans and wildlife, and these happen all the time and in many places. This is not the first time that the description of an attack with a discussion on possible causes is criticized, and we thank Dr Brunnschweiler for doing precisely that. Discussing these aspects, however, may well lead to more caution and common sense when dealing with these types of animals. That will certainly improve human-wildlife relations, reduce conflicts, and certainly diminish high degrees of intolerance toward wildlife—and that will ultimately be of great help in protecting precisely these animals, including sharks.

In conclusion,we would like to add that, apparently, Dr Brunnschweiler expressed his legitimate concern for the industry of shark diving. We express our deep concern on behalf of the welfare of both humans and sharks.

Deep concern huh.

My take?

• First, there is ONE scenario whereby the authors would be correct.
  That is, if some fool had been feeding Blue Sharks on that reef 50 meters away from the adjacent fishing port, now converted into a leisure summer area. I've said it before: location matters, and establishing a Shark feeding dive right in front of a tourist area would be utterly reckless and negligent, and the authors would be absolutely correct in asserting likely causality and being deeply concerned.
  But I don't think that's the case as every single picture of Blue Sharks from the Azores has been clearly taken in open ocean.

And if so, the assertion by the authors that they did use the scientific method is just plain ludicrous. Yes n=1 really does generally not allow for any deep insights, and Shark strikes are rare and thus elude science - and in fact, had they attributed the strike to the alignment of Mars and Jupiter, their finding would have had the exact same degree of veracity!

With that in mind, it would have been perfectly OK had they simply reported the incident - but once they started to speculate about the likely cause, then the scientific method would have mandated to examine all the possible scenarios and not simply jump to conclusions and blast what is obviously their pet hate, and this without a single shred of evidence.

So there.

• Blue Sharks are big, bold and potentially dangerous.
  Yes they do not figure prominently in the Shark attack statistics - but that is both a figment of those statistics and also due to the fact that they are epipelagic and that there are usually not a lot of people perambulating in the open ocean. But as those gruesome shipwreck tales from WWII amply illustrate, large epipelagic Sharks will certainly investigate and eat people and thus, the surprise of the authors that a Blue Shark would approach, investigate and nip their pal is rather naive.


• Incidentally, that's also not how a conditioned Shark would approach a person.
  As anybody that dives with fed Sharks can attest, they don't sneak in and then take a nip - that's typical of wild Sharks. Sharks that expect to be fed approach openly from the front and linger waiting for a handout.

• But what were those half-dozen Sharks doing there in the first place?
  As the authors assert, the species is known to frequent coastal areas of oceanic islands so that's hardly surprising. In this case, it appears plausible that they may have been following their prey = those Atlantic Bonito, an equally epipelagic species that may in turn have been coming to the coast to feed.

• Or maybe not.
  Maybe the cause for the presence of those Sharks was that the reef is frequently being used by spear fishermen. Or maybe it was the proximity to that fishing port. 
  Because let us never forget who feeds and conditions the Sharks: fishermen! 
  Spear fishermen produce fish blood and vibrations, attract Sharks and are frequently victims of Shark strikes. Fishermen feed Sharks with millions upon millions of baited hooks, clean their catch and discard bycatch, and specifically those Blues have been following fishing boats into port since time immemorial.  
  If there has to be talk of conditioning, that it is THAT the authors should have been focusing on, not a few people baiting with tiny scraps!

• And what about the assertions that apex predators, when accustomed to being enticed with food by humans, either for tourist purposes or from simple curiosity, are known to increase attacks and that enticing predators and especially apex predators with food will lead to conflicts between humans and wildlife, and these happen all the time and in many places.
  
  Welcome to the fucking old tired "don't feed the Bear" argument!
  Yes "they" happen - but so far, when it comes to those big Sharks, that is simply not the case! Whereas accidental bites on feeders do happen, strikes let alone fatal ones on participating tourists are exceedingly rare, and any correlation (let alone causality) between Shark feeding and Shark strikes on the public at large is completely speculative and not at all supported by the evidence.
  
  In fact, and yes I'm repeating myself, people who feed large Sharks are acutely aware that it is dangerous and are exerting tremendous caution and common sense - and as a consequence, the danger of those activities is significantly smaller than interactions with other marine life (including smaller Sharks) that are being viewed as more harmless; and it is orders of magnitude safer than "normal" diving! 


• In fact, if anybody had to be reprimanded, then it would have been the victim, for being totally reckless: for potentially attracting Sharks to a tourist area, for spearfishing at dusk when predators are known to feed and above all, for not immediately leaving the water but instead continuing to spear fish after having been nipped!


• And finally.
  That will certainly improve human-wildlife relations, reduce conflicts, and certainly diminish high degrees of intolerance toward wildlife—and that will ultimately be of great help in protecting precisely these animals, including sharks.
  
  What a load of sanctimonious horse shit!
  Fishermen target Sharks for money - not because they hate them for biting people! That argument is frankly so stupid to be embarrassing!
  Want to save those Blues? Take a boat to Vigo and tell those fishermen to stop targeting the Azorean Blue Shark nurseries - or at least stop wasting people's time and patience with BS, and work on making a stock assessment and on implementing a management plan for sustainable Blue Shark fishing in the Azores!
  That's how real scientists contribute to Shark conservation!


• And one very last remark: how the fuck did this manage to get a pass by the peer review?

Long story short?

It's exactly like Juerg states: this is not science but total bullshit, nothing more than a completely unsubstantiated broadside against the nascent Shark feeding industry in the Azores, and this clearly not based on the evidence but driven by one's uninformed prejudices.

And yes I can leave it at that.

Not impressed and once again, rather pissed off!