Elasmobranch Tourism for Managers - Paper!

Shark Reef: happy tourists, happy Sharks! Great pic by Ozzie Sam - click for detail!

And here we go again.

Andrew has sent me this paper, and I am once again irritated.

Mind you it is by no means terrible, the more as it correctly states that  

The strict self-imposed management actions and limited number of shark feeding operators at Shark Reef in Fiji, has resulted in minimal long-term effects on bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas) behaviour and diet, and is likely to have had no effects on health and fitness,

and that

Provisioning elasmobranchs, the activity deemed to have the most risk associated with it, can be effectively undertaken if appropriate management is in place (e.g. bull shark feeding at Shark Reef Reserve, Fiji)

But the paper is certainly also not good, either.
Like some of its equally irritating predecessors, it suggests that there is a problem urgently requiring third-party management = regulation, something I most strongly disagree with, especially when it comes to those forever maligned provisioned Shark dives.

It's same old same old.
Over the many years, I've blogged about the latter at nauseam and am actually tired tired tired of the bloody useless controversy - but here goes, just because this nonsense cannot remain unanswered.
Read the links!

1. Threats to Sharks and Rays (and their Habitats)

Sharks and Rays are not faring well.

At risk of stating the obvious: the biggest threats to their populations are:

• Overfishing (Targeted and Bycatch)
  Globally, overfishing of Elasmobranchs remains rampant due to widespread IUU and inadequate management, monitoring, enforcement and prosecution.
  Specifically, this equates to a yearly mortality of roughly 100 million Sharks that are  being killed for the fins, their meat but also other products like e.g. squalene. That is clearly unsustainable and also means that whereas some local conservation efforts have been highly successful, Elasmobranch  conservation appears to be largely failing at a global scale.
  And to add to the problem, we are additionally threatening Shark and Ray populations by equally overfishing their prey.

• Global Warming and Ocean Acidification whose impacts are both direct but above all indirect (= just a small example) as every single marine ecosystem in general and all Elasmobranch habitats in particular are being severely affected, and this generally negatively. And of course no Shark or Ray will survive if we destroy their habitat!


• Pollution
  Need I elaborate? And it's by no means only the plastic!


• Human Encroachment
  This results in habitat change and degradation, and also in conflicts all the way to triggering large and indiscriminate responses that may indeed threaten some local populations like e.g. in Australia, South Africa and possibly, Reunion Island.
  

And Shark and Ray tourism?

Yeah, right.

Think that in comparison, tourism is in any way a relevant factor?

Actually, on the contrary!

Not only does Elasmobranch tourism not endanger Shark and Ray populations - but in the overriding majority of cases, it contributes substantially to their protection all the way to being its principal driver!

To wit, even in the most infamous documented case of harmful Elasmo tourism, i.e. that of those Southern Stingrays on Grand Cayman, the population appears to be thriving as everybody there understands how valuable they are to the local economy!

So is everything perfect?

Of course not, see e.g. above - but it is certainly not catastrophic, either!

Specifically:

A. Overcrowding and Competition.

This can be a cause for concern.

Especially in multi-user sites, the competition between too many uncoordinated and/or unmanaged tourism operators can lead to excesses that can inconvenience or even harm the animals.

And if so, and only if the industry itself is not able, or willing to cooperate and to self-regulate, then the authorities may indeed have to step in with some common-sense regulations, like limits in the numbers of tourists and/or operators and/or vessels, or e.g. licenses so that the authorities can obtain some data and/or income for monitoring, or common sense codes of conduct, etc.

But regulation should always be the exception and not the rule lest it becomes stifling or even counterproductive!

B. Shark Feeding.

This is what we have learned over the many years.

• Shark feeding appears unproblematic at the ecosystem level
  All research into those baited Shark dives appears to concur that those dives have little to no effect at large spatial and temporal scales. It appears pretty clear that far from becoming dependent on the handouts, those provisioned Sharks continue to fulfill their ecological roles and also continue to follow their normal life cycles as in e.g. mating, pupping and migrating = there are no described major negative effects impinging on the viability of those populations.


• However, there are certainly effects at small spatial and temporal scales.
  Shark feeding often aggregates the animals, and this can have local consequences. As an example, take the increased aggression of those Lemons in Moorea; or the observed competitive exclusion of other Sharks in South Africa and possibly Fiji (= much has changed since that paper, and many of the intermediate Sharks are back, for reasons unknown); or those postulated local behavioral changes and marginally increased residency in Southern Australia. That said, the effects are clearly rather minor and don't appear to at all threaten local populations.
  
  And some of the other marine life may be affected insofar as they, too, may aggregate and partake in a meal = incidentally much like they do in countless other occasions ranging from organic waste being pumped into the oceans by discharges and e.g. rivers all the way to targeted feeding - and now please do tell me which has the by far greater impact!


• Plus, let's not forget the impact of the thousands upon thousands of people who feed and condition Sharks and other Fishes on a daily basis, i.e. the fishermen and spearos!
  Case in point:
  
  
  
  
  And this is being repeated, mutatis mutandis, countless times wherever there are fishermen = always and everywhere!
   
  --> C'mon, seriously: do you really believe that the incremental effect of a few dozen Shark feeding operators is in any way relevant to the health of Elasmobranch populations?

So let's please be crystal clear about the following:

Elasmobranch tourism does in no way threaten the survival of the populations of the Sharks and Rays it showcases - period!

2. Threats to People

Again, this is obviously about Shark Feeding.
As per the below table, the authors considers it to be extremely dangerous, and also postulate the urgent need for regulation owing to widespread lack of management.
Click for detail!

But if so and Shark feeding is so damn dangerous - how come that actually, we are not drowning in horrible injuries and fatalities?

See below!

So there, for the umpteenth bloody time.

A. Public Safety Considerations.

• There is no geographical correlation between Shark feeding and Shark strikes.
  Re-read this. In brief and with maybe the exception of SA, the vast majority of Shark strikes occurs in locations where there are no Shark feeding operations (like e.g. Florida, California, Western Australia, Reunion or Recife, Brazil)  - which is even more surprising if one considers that most of those dives have been established in places that are known for their healthy Shark populations!
  And even if there were some correlation, it certainly does not equate causation = there is a grand total of zero evidence that Shark feeding endangers the public at large!

• Shark strikes are a human tragedy but a statistical non event.
  They are so freakishly rare (= in fact, please show me a known cause of human mortality that kills less people!) that they will always elude proper science; and by the same token, they will continue to happen irrespective of our efforts to prevent them.


• And again, let's not forget the fishermen and spearos, see above!
  Re-read this (yup that would be more than 10 years ago!) - case in point e.g. here, and then e.g. here and here for the spearos, among many, many such examples! Think that in comparison, a few Shark diving operators are in any way relevant ?

But of course there are some caveats.

• Location matters.
  Many Shark dives have been being established where there are already Sharks, meaning that objectively speaking, the risk profile is unlikely to change - but perceptions matter and like in the case of population centers like, say, Cape Town or Playa, the diving activity and associated increased publicity of Sharks can lead to conflicts with the other local ocean users. Consequently, as a rule, the feeding locations need to be as remote as possible and should definitely not be established e.g. right in the middle of population centers or right in front of popular beaches etc.


• Obtaining the required social license and stakeholder involvement are crucial.
  The local stakeholders need to become an integral part of these projects - and this not only through regular awareness, education and consultations but also by letting them partake in the financial windfall, both indirectly but very much also directly. This will help avoid unnecessary risks (eg by having locals avoid the feeding sites), help protect the animals and ensure crucial local support when the inevitable problems will arise.


• Get in the research.
  The best argument against many of the intuitively plausible reservations of our detractors are strong scientific data. As an example, when people got bitten by Bull Sharks in Cancun and everybody tried to blame the Shark feeding operations in Playa, the operators there had the data showing that they were only feeding females whereas the Bull Shark population in Cancun was only comprised of males. Or in our case, our Bull Shark data show conclusively that we are neither causing residency nor any dependency on our handouts - which right now is helping us make the argument that the present reduction in Shark feeding due to Covid-19 is not endangering our beachgoers!

B. Safety of the Participants.

This is a different matter altogether.
Contrary to the public at large that may be unaware and/or unsupportive of, and thus be subjected to Shark provisioning, anybody partaking in Shark feeding dives knows what they are getting themselves into, and is thus implicitly approving of the activity and possibly even assuming the associated risks.
Still, we strongly advocate that the operators of commercial dives need to keep their clients (and their employees!) safe - and if not, they need to be held accountable.

The following considerations apply.

• Feeding protocols.
  Like I often state, it is often not about the WHAT but about the HOW.
  Shark provisioning creates its own risks, and those risks need to be managed - meaning that all protocols should be chosen in function of minimizing the impact on both the animals and the habitat, and on maximizing the safety for the participants but also the public at large. E.g., everybody will hopefully agree that creating humongous chum trails or dumping indiscriminate amounts of bait to create feeding frenzies is probably a bad idea. Here at BAD, we run a tightly choreographed dive with stringent safety protocols that is often hailed as a template for sustainable Shark feeding, see the citations at the top. Or as another example, we go to great lengths to condition the Bulls never to come to the surface, lest we get accused of endangering other aquatic recreationists.
  In brief, we need to be in a position to demonstrate that we are always striving to conduct our dives in the safest possible way - think, Airline Industry!


• Shark bites will nevertheless happen.
  As Sharks feeding is risky, the risk will sometimes eventuate - and there is really nothing whatsoever we can do about it apart from protecting ourselves (= steel mesh!) and then dealing professionally with the consequences - and if we do, I am convinced that the consequences will be minimal.
  Case in point: it didn't quite happen like that - but a client did get bitten despite of arguably the industry's most stringent protocols, and no degree of management would have prevented it. And he obviously survived because we were prepared in terms of training, medical supplies and evacuation protocols, as everybody should be!

• There are Shark strikes and Shark strikes.
  Whereas Shark provisioning is certainly a dangerous undertaking requiring skills and circumspection, everybody in the industry agrees that the cause for bites during provisioned dives is either a) self defense, b) competition or c) mistakes - not predation = those bites can be serious, but the consequences of a fully fledged predatory attack would be something else altogether!
  Exception - but the guy was certainly asking for it!


• Yes we certainly condition the Sharks, and yes they learn, and this very fast indeed - but they learn to eat bait, not humans!
  It is also absolutely plausible to assume that provisioned Sharks may have learned to e.g. associate the boat noise with a subsequent feeding opportunity, and will thus aggregate when they hear the vessels, or when the operators rev the engines in order to "ring the dinner bell".
  But "turning up" does not equate "attacking"!


• And finally, with one single fatality (or possibly two) recorded in thousands upon thousands of Shark feeds, baited Shark dives are many orders of magnitude safer than SCUBA!
  This is because contrary to ordinary diving where people are routinely being thrown into situations that can prove to be treacherous, baited and provisioned Shark dives are nearly always supervised and choreographed = help is always quickly at hand.
  Also, and provided that (!) we act responsibly, yours truly and every single Shark diving operator I've ever asked have made the observation that the conditioned Sharks become positively tame, meaning that the risk of a bite is lower not higher!
  Case in point: look no further than Florida and Tiger Beach, home of troglodytes, Shark molesters and media whores, and scene of ever stupider shenanigans by self-promoting Shark whisperers and awareness raisers - and yet nobody is being killed as those poor Sharks are quite obviously unendingly tolerant and forgiving!

And there you have it.

When it comes to those Shark feeding dives, I remain convinced that regulation makes only sense in those multi-user sites suffering from overcrowding, and this only when the industry is not able, or willing to cooperate and self regulate, like what is quite possibly  happening in Playa.

Other than that, any incidents are already suitably covered.

Since the participants are most certainly willing, those ubiquitous liability waivers should be allowed to stand in minor cases. And any grossly negligent harm to customers can be adequately prosecuted under existing local legislation, whereas existing OHS regulations will suffice to deal with any failure in training and protecting one's employees.

And that is plenty sufficient.

Possible exception: those new commercial free-diving ventures!

Free diving with large predatory Sharks in baited conditions used to largely be private undertakings but it is now being increasingly offered commercially. From this vantage point, this is bringing about a whole new set of specific risks (= foremost of which the great vulnerability of the customers at the water surface) that the paper appears to completely neglect.

This is novel territory that needs to be closely monitored, the more as those operations are mostly shoestring and largely improvised (and IMO highly sketchy), and with no relevant assets = nothing much to be had should the obvious risks end up eventuating.

But then again, nobody so far has died despite of all the stupid shenanigans, so who am I to say!

3. Long story short?

What really disappoints me is this.
We are in the middle of the sixth, anthropocene mass extinction requiring all hands on deck in order to try and stem the ongoing catastrophic loss of biodiversity - and yet some quarters find it fit to continue wasting scarce resources in terms of time, brain power and possibly also money on these irrelevant trifles.

The actual physical footprint of our industry is tiny.
And yet, we punch way above our weight in terms of outreach but also Shark and Ray conservation and research, and as such are an important agent for positive change = far from being a problem, we are very much part of the solution!
So why this exasperating fixation on wanting to meddle with what we do?

Yes, sure: we need to operate responsibly.

As ecotourism operators, all of us need to strive to have the smallest possible negative impact on the animals and their habitat, and we also need to operate safely - and the vast majority of us actually do!
Furthermore, we continue to learn from our mistakes, and continue to improve and refine our procedures, like we always have. In fact, we now even have an association of industry pioneers, leaders and trend setters that routinely discuss issues and develop solutions - like right now, we are developing Covid-19 protocols!

And if not, the market will do what markets do.
This is a small community where there are no secrets, and notorious transgressors will be quickly weeded out as no travel agent and/or tourist will book dives with operators that are known to be unsustainable and/or exploitative and/or life threatening = which is why I continue to strongly support the establishment of a rating system akin to what has been proposed here! 

But enough said - like I said, I'm tired of this shit.

In concluding (yes, finally!) let me cite myself.

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, and 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! :)

2025 - PS!!!!: Talking of Tiger Beach, you may want to research this and watch this. 

In brief, a SharkSchool participant was literally ripped to pieces in a Shark feeding frenzy. 

In my professional judgement, the tragic incident was 100% due to the lousy procedures, blatant incompetence and gross negligence of the operator(s) - and yet from what I can discern, there has been zero introspection by the local industry, and the same lousy procedures continue completely unchanged, and this despite of an ever-increasing complement of demented Tiger-redirecting free-diving sharkitarians, courtesy of the teachings of Ramsey & Co! 

And yes, I can certainly leave it at that!

 

Sustainable Shark Diving?

Really?
 

And now, to that post by RickMac.

But first.

Avuncular? WTF!

That's a whiff of a pico-fraction of a galaxy removed from Yoda, and I don't like it a bit - but then again, coming from the guy at the top, should I even care?
But I do like this - spot on!

Anyway.

Lemme cite.

My very personal and subjective (although I also suspect accurate) summary on what I’ve observed to date is that there is money to be made on shark dive tourism and it is a powerful incentive to “get in on the action,” regardless of experience and awareness of lessons learned.  And like all businesses, there’s a continuum of what I would consider sustainable practice… some are deeply invested in good training, supervision, and safety and some are in it to simply turn quick profit.

Indeed, astute observation!

Now, this is frankly nothing new.

Yours truly and back then, Patric Douglas of Shark Diver have been blogging about the future of Shark diving for years, and for the need of the industry to reform and move towards a more long term sustainable model. Back then, we were being decried as troublemakers and party poopers - but ten years later, the public appears to be shifting towards a more authentic and holistic experience, and much of what did preach back then is now increasingly being proffered in the mainstream. With that in mind, this is a great chance to elevate Shark diving to the next level.

Plus, now, we dispose of the science.

Not of just two papers like Rick asserts but actually, of quite a few. They all come to the conclusion that whereas there are certainly local effects, Shark provisioning appears unproblematic at the ecosystem level i.e. over large spatial and temporal scales, meaning that overall, the impact on Shark populations is negligible to nil.

Not convinced?

Don't speculate - show me the fucking evidence to the contrary and no, rubbish like this doesn't count! And incidentally, no, the Shark feeding in Playa did not precipitate the attacks in Cancun. The Bulls in the Riviera Maya are sexually segregated = provisioned females in Playa and non-provisioned males in Cancun!

And since those events, progress has been remarkable!

Just sayin'!

But of course those local effects are eminently relevant.

It is there where we will discern the biggest discrepancies based on the specific protocols, or lack of, of the operators, and it is there where the various initiatives will hopefully have the biggest impact, by emphasizing the good and reforming the bad.

And yes, some notable NGOs are starting to take notice.

Considering the dead-set opposition to any form of Shark feeding I've encountered in the past, this is certainly progress. I'm not a fan of breathy announcements and will not comment on Rick's name-dropping which is both partly inaccurate, premature and certainly not for him, nor for me to do - but yes, this may or may not eventually result in an initiative to develop a common code of practice and if so, I for one would certainly welcome that! 

This however with the following caveat.

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!

But again - at this stage it's nothing for me to comment about and certainly not fodder for social media! 

And then, there is now Global Shark Diving.

We did the soft launch at DEMA and the response has been simply overwhelming. Like I said, potential new members are undergoing a meticulous screening process and will only be accepted if they are already truly invested in conservation and research. Failing that, any aspiring members will first have to establish track record and will only be considered once they are able to produce tangible results on the ground. Our principal asset and the one factor setting us apart from similar ventures is market leadership and credibility - and we will certainly not risk losing that because of shortcuts due to friendship or economic expediency.

But worry not: more members are going to be announced very shortly indeed!

And BAD?

We will continue to do what we've been doing all along, and that is to lead from the front. We may or may not be the best - but we're certainly among the leaders in Shark ecotourism and have every intention of keeping it that way!

The establishment of Fiji's first national marine park via a ground-breaking public-private partnership has been a great milestone. But of course the proof is in the pudding, and we have no doubt that for it to succeed and be picked up elsewhere, the honor bestowed upon us needs to translate into a lot of hard work on the ground. To that effect, we have started establishing new baselines by recording the current coral cover and conducting a census of all the Fishes and Sharks. We will also considerably enhance enforcement by conducting more frequent patrols and by training further honorary fish wardens. And finally, we are currently developing yet another project that will hopefully have repercussions Fiji-wide and even abroad.

So, keep watching this space.

Like always, it's not a matter of making announcements but of coming up with actual results - and I can say, so far so good!

To be continued!

To Feed or not to Feed!

Yawn - right? :)

But this is really rather good.

It's a collection of interviews about the ever controversial topic of provisioned Shark dives - and to my great surprise, it's overwhelmingly pro-industry, and even the reservations by some are well informed and as such, absolutely legit.

So bravo Scuba Diver - considering some of the moronic comments fielded in support of the WA Shark Cull, this was certainly timely!

Oh and they did interview yours truly.

True to her job description, Alice Grainger the charming editor did some brutal editing, and the result is uncharacteristically concise, this probably much to the relief of the readers.

No such luck for you!

Here's the interview, unabridged.

What has you experience been with the provisioning shark dives you run at Beqa?

How do you approach the controversy surrounding this divisive issue?

Let me try to address the second question first.

It touches on two aspects – one ethical and one factual.

Ethical considerations.

Some people oppose provisioned shark dives for ethical reasons, stating that they are inferior to natural encounters, and that they demean the animals.

This may surprise you – but I don't advocate Shark feeding!

On the contrary, I'm very much of the opinion that nothing beats the awesome experience of witnessing Sharks doing their natural thing, like in, say, Palau, Malapasqua, the Sardine Run, Ningaloo, Fakarava or Cocos!

But of course those predictable natural aggregations are rather rare.

Plus, some of those Sharks are very shy, meaning that the encounters, although highly rewarding, can be very brief indeed. Other than that, encountering Sharks in the wild is difficult for some species and all-but-impossible for others, meaning that in most cases, anybody wanting to showcase them to paying customers will have to resort to some form of baiting.

This is what we do in Fiji - not because we are “for” it but because it is a necessity and because we believe that it is neither harmful to the Sharks and their habitat nor to the humans, a fact that is increasingly being corroborated by recent research, see below.

Factual considerations.

People who oppose baited shark dives claim that they are harmful to the sharks and their environment, and that they teach sharks to associate humans with food, which in turn will lead to increased shark strikes on people.

When presented with such opinions, it is best to look at the evidence – and the evidence looks as follows.

• Shark feeding appears unproblematic at the ecosystem level.
  All present research into those baited Shark dives appears to concur that those dives have little to no effect at large spatial and temporal scales. It appears pretty clear that far from becoming dependent on the handouts, those provisioned Sharks continue to fulfill their ecological roles and also continue to follow their normal life cycles as in e.g. mating, pupping and migrating.


• There's no geographical correlation between Shark feeding and Shark strikes.
  In brief and with maybe the exception of South Africa, the overwhelming majority of Shark strikes occurs in locations where there are no Shark feeding operations - which is even more surprising if one considers that most of those dives have been established in locations that are known for their healthy Shark populations! And even if there were some correlation, it certainly does not equate causation!

But of course there are some big caveats.

• There are certainly effects at small spatial and temporal scales.
  Shark feeding often aggregates the animals, and this can have local consequences. Documented examples of those local effects include increased aggression among sharks, competitive exclusion of other species by dominant sharks, or those postulated local behavioral changes and marginally increased residency of Great Whites in South Australia. Those effects however are strictly localized, and none of them has been shown to impinge on the fitness of those provisioned sharks, nor do they unduly alter their environment.


• Conditioning via positive reinforcement likely happens.
  Sharks are certainly smart and it is absolutely plausible to assume that they may have learned to associate the boat noise with a subsequent feeding opportunity - and should food be presented at the surface, it is equally plausible to assume that they could be popping up next to other boats in the area! Those are certainly considerations any responsible shark diving operator has to keep in mind.


• Location matters.
  Many Shark dives have been being established where there are already Sharks, meaning that objectively speaking, the risk profile is unlikely to change - but perceptions matter and like in the case of population centers like, say, Cape Town or Playa del Carmen in Mexico, the diving activity and associated increased publicity of sharks can lead to conflicts with the other local ocean users. Consequently, as a rule, the feeding locations need to be as remote as possible and should definitely not be established e.g. right in the middle of population centers or right in front of popular beaches etc.


• Feeding protocols.
  Like I often state, the problem is not what one does, it is how one does it! Shark provisioning creates its own risks, and those risks need to be managed - meaning that all protocols should be chosen in function of minimizing the impact on both the animals and the habitat, and on maximizing the safety for the participants but also the public. E.g., everybody will hopefully agree that creating humongous chum trails or dumping indiscriminate amounts of bait to create feeding frenzies is probably a bad idea. Or as another example, we here go to great lengths to condition the Bulls never to come to the surface, lest we get accused of endangering other aquatic recreationists. In brief, we need to be in a position to demonstrate that we are always striving to conduct our dives in the most responsible way possible.

Which brings me straight to the first question. 

From the outset, our principal aim was to further shark conservation and research, for which we established the Shark Reef Marine Reserve in Fiji in close cooperation with local stakeholders and the relevant authorities. 

When it comes to the tourism component, we want our customers to experience being in the presence of such awesome animals with a maximum of enjoyment and a minimum of risk, as provisioned shark dives will always remain inherently dangerous undertakings – meaning that we do not allow interactive encounters or what has been dubbed “extreme shark diving”. Instead, we treat them to a carefully choreographed show where they remain essentially spectators, and endeavor to instill a sense of awe and appreciation that will hopefully motivate them to become shark conservation advocates. 

Our experience has been overwhelmingly positive. 

In ten years of operation, our protocols have led to zero incidents with our customers, and only very minor ones with our staff that operate in the front lines, this owing to the fact that the feeders wear protective gloves, dispose of bodyguards and generally follow very rigid safety protocols. The clients appear happy, the reef and the sharks are thriving, and the local community and the authorities are highly supportive, meaning that we are really very satisfied.

Yeah I know I know - same old same old.

But maybe worth repeating, lest we get too complacent!

Shark Feeding - attack the Unknown!

And attack she did, and know she did little!

And I cite.

Evidence indicates sharks have the capacity to become conditioned. 
As a result, shark ecotourism has the potential to create an association of humans with food, ending in increased attacks.

Right.

Have you seen this crap?

Sarah the student from Wellington has perused a random selection of irrelevant papers (and none of those that are relevant, see the links below!) - and now she thinks she knows something about something and has posted her opines on the university weblog site.

So there, for the umpteenth bloody time.

• There's no geographical correlation between Shark feeding and Shark strikes.
  Re-read this. In brief and with maybe the exception of SA, the vast majority of Shark strikes occurs in locations where there are no Shark feeding operations (like specifically Western Australia!)  - which is even more surprising if one considers that most of those dives have been established in locations that are known for their healthy Shark populations!
  And even if there were some correlation, it certainly does not equate causation!


• Shark feeding appears unproblematic at the ecosystem level
  All present research into those baited Shark dives appears to concur that those dives have little to no effect at large spatial and temporal scales. It appears pretty clear that far from becoming dependent on the handouts, those provisioned Sharks continue to fulfill their ecological roles and also continue to follow their normal life cycles as in e.g. mating, pupping and migrating.

But of course there are some big caveats.

• There are certainly effects at small spatial and temporal scales.
  Shark feeding often aggregates the animals, and this can have local consequences. As an example, take the increased aggression of those Lemons in Moorea; or the observed competitive exclusion (and here!) of other Sharks in Fiji and possibly SA and TB; or those postulated local behavioral changes and marginally increased residency in Southern Australia.

• Conditioning via positive reinforcement does likely happen.
  E.g., Sharks are certainly smart and it is absolutely plausible to assume that provisioned Sharks may have learned to associate the boat noise with a subsequent feeding opportunity, a fact that is being exploited by several operators - and if the food is being presented at the surface like in the case of GWS cage diving, it as equally plausible to assume that they could be popping up next to other boats in the area!
  But "turning up" does not equate "attacking"!

• Location matters.
  Many Shark dives have been being established where there are already Sharks, meaning that objectively speaking, the risk profile is unlikely to change - but perceptions matter and like in the case of population centers like, say, Cape Town or Playa, the diving activity and associated increased publicity of Sharks can lead to conflicts with the other local ocean users. Consequently, as a rule, the feeding locations need to be as remote as possible and should definitely not be established e.g. right in the middle of population centers or right in front of popular beaches etc.

• Feeding protocols.
  Like I often state, it is often not about the what but about the how.
  Shark provisioning creates its own risks, and those risks need to be managed - meaning that all protocols should be chosen in function of minimizing the impact on both the animals and the habitat, and on maximizing the safety for the participants but also the public. E.g., everybody will hopefully agree that creating humongous chum trails or dumping indiscriminate amounts of bait to create feeding frenzies is probably a bad idea. Or as another example, we here go to great lengths to condition the Bulls never to come to the surface, lest we get accused of endangering other aquatic recreationists.
  In brief, we need to be in a position to demonstrate that we are always striving to conduct our dives in the most responsible way possible - but provided that (!) we we act responsibly, yours truly and every single Shark diving operator I've ever talked to have made the observation that the Sharks become positively tame, meaning that the risk of a bite is lower not higher!

And then, there's this.

• There are Shark strikes and Shark strikes.
  Whereas Shark provisioning is certainly a dangerous undertaking, everybody in the industry agrees that the cause for bites during provisioned dives is either a) self defense, b) competition or c) mistakes - not predation! Exception - but the guy was certainly asking for it!


• And yes we certainly do condition the Sharks, and yes they learn, and this very fast indeed - but they learn to eat bait, not humans!


• And finally, Shark strikes are a human tragedy but a statistical non event.
  They are so freakishly rare that they will always elude proper science; and by the same token, they will continue to happen irrespective of our efforts to prevent them.

Anyway.

These stupid allegations are likely to hound us til the end of time - but it's disheartening to see them parroted by a young academic that is obviously a Shark-lover!

To be continued no doubt!

NZ - does Shark Diving endanger the Public?

Source.

Have you seen this?

And I cite.

About 10 to 15kg of berley was used in a cage dive, he said, which was less likely to attract sharks than the half-tonne of offal dumped by commercial fishermen.

Fishing operators cleaning their catch at the entrance to Half Moon Bay were more likely to attract sharks into the harbour, he said.

Bingo.

Let me once again cite myself.

Fishermen do not only feed Sharks by presenting them baited hooks; many of them attract and often end up feeding Sharks when they drag in struggling fish and when they subsequently clean their catch and throw the scraps into the ocean. Spear fishermen are notorious for attracting, and even conditioning Sharks when they shoot fish and often find themselves embroiled in a competitive struggle over their prey. These people number in the hundreds of thousands and if anybody should be examined for possibly causing an increase of Shark attacks on the public, it should be them - not the few dozen operators conducting baited Shark dives!

Plus,

• Great Whites are fully protected in New Zealand.
  If that protection is to make any sense, one must assume that consequently, less adult GWS are being killed and that the juveniles and subadults have a better chance of reaching the stage where they switch from a fully piscivorous diet to seasonal preying on Pinnipeds. If so, the number of Sharks sighted in the vicinity of those Sea Lion colonies may well be on the increase. As Stewart Island is slowly being recolonized by New Zealand Sea Lions, its attractiveness for GWS may equally be on the rise.

• Shark feeding appears unproblematic at the ecosystem level
  All present research into those baited Shark dives appears to concur that those dives have little to no effect at large spatial and temporal scales. It appears pretty clear that far from becoming dependent on the handouts, those provisioned Sharks continue to fulfill their ecological roles and also continue to follow their normal life cycles as in e.g. mating, pupping and migrating.

• There's no correlation between Shark feeding and Shark strikes.
  Re-read this. In brief and with maybe the exception of SA, the vast majority of Shark strikes occurs in locations where there are no Shark feeding operations - which is even more surprising if one considers that most of those dives have been established in locations that are known for their healthy Shark populations!
  And even if there were some correlation, it certainly does not equate causation!

But of course there are some big caveats.

• There are certainly effects at small spatial and temporal scales.
  Shark feeding often aggregates the animals, and this can have local consequences. As an example, take the increased aggression of those Lemons in Moorea; or the observed competitive exclusion of other Sharks in Fiji and possibly SA and TB; or those postulated local behavioral changes and marginally increased residency in Southern Australia.

• Conditioning via positive reinforcement does likely happen.
  Those GWS are certainly smart and it is absolutely plausible to assume that they may have learned to associate the boat noise with a subsequent feeding opportunity - and with the food being presented at the surface, it as equally plausible to assume that they could be popping up next to other boats in the area!
  The assertion that they may be following the boats ashore is however likely to be humbug - provided, that is, that nobody throws bait overboard on the way home!

• Location matters.
  Many Shark dives have been being established where there are already Sharks, meaning that objectively speaking, the risk profile is unlikely to change - but perceptions matter and like in the case of population centers like, say, Cape Town or Playa, the diving activity and associated increased publicity of Sharks can lead to conflicts with the other local ocean users. Consequently, as a rule, the feeding locations need to be as remote as possible and should definitely not be established e.g. right in the middle of population centers or right in front of popular beaches etc.

• Feeding protocols.
  Like I often state, it is often not about the what but about the how.
  Shark provisioning creates its own risks, and those risks need to be managed - meaning that all protocols should be chosen in function of minimizing the impact on both the animals and the habitat, and on maximizing the safety for the participants but also the public. E.g., everybody will hopefully agree that creating humongous chum trails or dumping indiscriminate amounts of bait to create feeding frenzies is probably a bad idea. Or as another example, we here go to great lengths to condition the Bulls never to come to the surface, lest we get accused of endangering other aquatic recreationists.
  In brief, we need to be in a position to demonstrate that we are always striving to conduct our dives in the most responsible way possible.

And then, there's this

• Obtaining the required Social license and stakeholder involvement are crucial.
  The local stakeholders need to become an integral part of these projects - and this not only through regular awareness, education and consultations but also by letting them partake in the financial windfall, both indirectly but very much also directly. Only this will ensure crucial local support when the inevitable problems will arise.

• Get in the research.
  The best argument against many of the intuitively plausible reservations of our detractors are strong scientific data. As an example, when people got bitten by Bull Sharks in Cancun and everybody tried to blame the Shark feeding operations in Playa, the operators there had the data showing that they were only feeding females whereas the Bull Shark population in Cancun was only comprised of males. Or in our case, our Bull Shark data show conclusively that we are neither causing residency nor any dependency on our handouts, see above.

Long story short?

I ignore the precise circumstances of those cage dives in Stewart Island. Intuitively, I am inclined to assume that they are being conducted responsibly, and that the location is sufficiently remote.

But there appears to be a problem of perception.

If I am correct in speculating that the islands may be attracting more GWS, it follows that  the risk for the Pāua divers may be on the increase. With that in mind, it may be wise to engage in some preventative measures, as in increased dialogue and data sharing with the fishing community all the way to maybe helping fund protective gear like Shark shields etc. And it may also be smart to re-engage with the authorities and the stakeholders, and ensure their support by developing a code of practice everybody can agree with!

But again, I don't know the precise circumstances.

Maybe all of that has already happened, and the current blowback is merely some noise by troublemakers.

But if not, some of the above may be useful.

Good luck!

Tiger Shark Migrations - it's complicated!

This is Adi.

Very interesting!

Check out this latest paper by Yannis Papastamatiou!

It's quite complex and you can find excellent synopses here, here and here. Quite understandably, those articles focus on the immediate practical implications, i.e. the possible correlation between some of those migrations and the higher risk of Shark strikes in the principal Hawaiian islands during the same period.

But that's not all.

Having read the whole paper, my take-away message is that the reality is far more differentiated as there appears to be great individual behavioral plasticity. Like our Bulls, some of those Tigers are more resident and some, more transient; and the purpose of those inter-island migrations appears to be twofold, i.e. seasonal pupping but also foraging, with the latter highly dependent on external factors like water temperature and chlorophyll concentration = likely availability of prey.

This is a great follow-up on the research by Meyer et al about those Tiger Shark movements and the subsequent papers about cognitive maps by both Meyer and Papastamatiou, explained here.

Fascinating stuff, and kudos to the authors for having collected this impressive body of evidence!

But is this the whole story?

For Hawaii, the answer is quite possibly yes.

But in other locations, those movements may be identical in principle (= due to foraging and reproduction) but different in practice, and I cite.

Tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) are large (maximum size 5.5 m) generalist foragers, which may function as keystone predators in some areas (Lowe et al. 1996, Heithaus et al. 2009). 

In high latitude locations such as Australia, tiger sharks demonstrate seasonal utilization of bays within larger home ranges, with water temperature being a likely driver of seasonal habitat use (Heithaus et al. 2007, Wirsing et al. 2007). 

However, within tropical areas with milder seasonal changes in environmental characteristics, tiger shark movements appear more ambiguous (e.g. Meyer et al. 2009a). 
Within the Hawaiian archipelago individual tiger sharks will frequently swim between islands of the chain using straight directed walks, although their movements lack any clear overall pattern, seasonal or otherwise (Meyer et al. 2009a, 2010, Papastamatiou et al. 2011). The exception appears to be remote French Frigate Shoals atoll (FFS) where some individual tiger sharks seasonally aggregate to take advantage of fledgling albatross chicks, although other individuals appear to remain at FFS year round (Lowe et al. 2006, Meyer et al. 2010).
Hence, tiger sharks have somewhat unique spatial ecology in that they demonstrate home ranging behavior over large spatial and temporal scales and perform both seasonal/directed and more aseasonal/ambiguous movements within this home range.

In brief, geographical location may have a huge influence.

In fact in places with large temperature swings like Florida and the Bahamas, Guy's and Neil's research shows that those Tigers engage in huge seasonal migrations smack into the middle of the Atlantic (possibly following equally migratory prey?) whereas in tropical Australia where the temperature swings are not so big, the migration activity is indeed much more ambiguous. 

And in Fiji? 

Dunno - but my hunch is that due to the big difference in our seasons, they would be behaving more like the Atlantic ones, however possibly with large yearly variations due to the ENSO!

Anyway, great stuff!

And with Domeier and Meyer having started a new Tiger Shark research cycle in Hawaii where they will deploy modern SPOT tags that will deliver multi-year tracks, we may be in for further surprises!

To be continued no doubt!

Moorea Lemons - one more Piece of the Puzzle!

 (A) Map of the study location. (B) The genetic network of adult lemon sharks. Each individual is indicated by a node labelled by shark ID. Circles and squares indicate females and males respectively and symbol size is indicative of the body length of the shark. Node colour corresponds to the three defined residency groups. Dyads sharing a first-order genetic relationship are connected by a line, with line thickness indicating the strength of the genetic relationship (proportional to R values). (C) Genetic degree (number of first-order genetic relationships an individual has) distribution within the population - click for detail!

Very nice!

Remember the Lemon feeding paper?

I was somewhat underwhelmed, and said so - which led to a personal visit by the very charming Eric Clua, and to a real interesting ongoing dialogue with Johann Mourier. And despite of a toothy (!) public debate between Juerg and Jon and the authors, everybody remains on best terms and is eager to share and discuss. That's how science advances and as Eric stated, everybody agrees that nous jouons dans la même équipe and that everybody profits by sharing ideas and engaging in spirited discussions.

And here is strike two - read it!

The feeding paper did raise the concern that the observed increased residency of some Lemons might lead to increased inbreeding - and from what I understand, this paper comes to the conclusion that it probably does not.

Whereas there are only about two dozen resident adult Lemons in Moorea, the species has evolved patterns to mitigate the according risk of inbreeding insofar as the Sharks will travel to both mate and pup (= migration), and that some individuals will travel to take residence in other islands (= dispersal), all of which is conducive to gene flow. Having said that, the degree of inbreeding of the Lemons in French Polynesia remains never the less relatively high, this likely due to small overall numbers and the relatively high isolation between islands and between archipelagos.

And the take away message after this rather epic 5y investigation?

I believe it boils down to this - and I trust that Johann will correct me if not.

• Like Juerg's Fiji paper, it once again confirms that provisioned Sharks appear to disperse normally, or as Juerg puts it, that
  Chumming and food provisioning are unlikely to fundamentally change movement patterns at large spatial and temporal scales, and seem to only have a minor impact on the behaviour of large predatory sharks; hence, the creation of behavioural effects at the ecosystem level seems unlikely.
  Obviously, this is the one aspect I'm most concerned about - and I sure hope that Johann will agree with this conclusion!

• That said, Lemons are not Bulls and French Polynesia is not Fiji.
  There remain some local effects that are a possible cause for concern, foremost of which the observed increased residency that could eventually result in lower numbers of Lemons dispersing which in this generally small population might have a significant negative effect on gene flow and thus the fitness of that local population.

• The second possibly negative effect is the observed increased aggression.
  I continue to question whether the observed increased brawling among male Lemons is really relevant in view of the animals' quasi magical healing powers. But what is certainly worrisome are the reports of increased strikes on humans, see the testimony by  Moorea Natural Diver Lover in the comments section here.
  To me, they are the direct result of poor procedures, foremost of which the surface feeding mentioned here. However Johann tells me that there's only one remaining operator that feeds the Sharks, so maybe that problem has been resolved - that is, provided that the operator is taking the necessary precautions which is not necessarily a given and certainly worth keeping an eye on!

All-in-all, a really brilliant job, and big kudos to everybody involved!

Shark Feeding - Part deux!

Helen and Fiji Bull Shark - pic by Michael Sealey of Biodiversidad Ibérica

Bless Helen!

Here is the second installment of her post.

I could not agree more - including the fact that there is a local effect, this however not so much precipitated by the bait that is actually all being eaten and mostly leaving Shark Reef in the stomach of the Bulls.which do not reside there. For them, those Tuna heads are just a snack, and not very nutritious at that, and I have no doubt that they continue to prey naturally and fulfill their ecological role in their habitat.

Like I said elsewhere, we are very mindful of our impact and have completely stopped any indiscriminate dumping of bait a long time ago. As a consequence, the composition of the Fishes has changed from a rather low species count of 260 that was being dominated by small scavengers and predators, to now 480+  that is highly representative of any (non-fished) fringing reef along one of Fiji's principal islands.

The effects I detect are more behavioral.

Juerg is writing a paper on the subject, so I don't want to preempt his findings on the subject, the more as I'm yet to see any draft. 

But apart from the obvious conditioning whereby we are actively teaching our Sharks to behave in certain ways, I believe that I'm observing inter-specific aggression all the way to competitive exclusion among the various Sharks. And also believe that we've interfered with the diel patterns of at least the Whitetips that are usually crepuscular but on Shark Reef, leave their hidey holes to come and feed at midday. 

But at this stage, I'm obviously speculating, and Juerg will also need to answer the question of so what - even if there's an effect, does that necessarily mean that it is bad?

Anyway, thank you Helen!

Her endorsement is far from trivial.

For years, Shark provisioning has been the target of much skepticism from researchers and NGOs alike, and only recently do I detect a slight shift in positions away from outright hostile to at least benevolently intrigued. This is largely due to the realization that baited Shark tourism, whilst certainly presenting its specific challenges (especially when conducted poorly!) is never the less  years ahead of the alternative = Shark fishing. 

And recent research is also showing that whilst local, hitherto unqualified and unquantified effects persist, effects at large temporal and spatial scales are negligible. 

Sharks, it appears, are just different.

Whilst bony Fishes show all the typical negative effects of conditioning that lead to the well known numerous bites by Groupers, Moray Eels all the way to those notorious swarms of pesky Sergeant Majors, Sharks simply don't do that - that is, provided that who feeds them does so responsibly, see the reports about beggar Sharks from, say, Tiger Beach!

Long story short?

Come and see for yourselves - this is still the top season for high numbers!

So, what are you waiting for!

David about Shark Feeding!

Great pic by Sasha - click for detail!

This was the first time I heard about David Diley.

Doug Perrine sent me the article and I thought, very cool - and the rest, as they say, is history.

And David is at it again!

Make yourself comfy, relax, take a deep breath and then read this post. It is as brilliant as it is long, meaning that you should really invest the time to read it in its entirety, and then probably read it once more - and no, I'm really not gonna weigh in, the more as BAD is being continuously mentioned as an example for best practice, which it frankly also is!

Plus, I don't advocate Shark feeding!

Surprised?

You shouldn't be. 

If you've paid close attention to this particular thread within this blog, I'm not at all of the opinion that it MUST be done. On the contrary, I'm very much of the opinion that nothing beats the awesome experience of witnessing Sharks doing their natural thing, like in, say, Palau, Malapasqua, the Sardine Run, Ningaloo, Fakarava or Cocos!

But of course those predictable natural aggregations are rather rare.

Plus, some of those Sharks are very shy, meaning that the encounters, although highly rewarding, can be very brief indeed.

Other than that, encountering Sharks in the wild is difficult for some species and all-but-impossible for others, meaning that in most cases, anybody wanting to showcase them to paying customers will have to resort to some form of baiting.

That's obviously what we do here in Fiji.

There, I'm of the opinion that it is neither harmful to the Sharks and their habitat nor to the humans, a fact that is increasingly being corroborated by recent research, this with the caveat that it only applies to large spatial and temporal scales.
But whereas there are certainly small scale effects like e.g. changes in species composition due to competitive exclusion by the boldest or most aggressive species, or the disruption of diel patterns in provisioned Sharks, there does not yet exist any substantiated evidence that those effects are harmful, at least not in the long term. That is, provided that there are some sensible protocols preventing excesses like those that have been recently documented for the Stingrays in Cayman!

As David correctly remarks, it's not so much about what the what but about the how!

But I said that I wouldn't weigh in.

Please go and read David's post.

Kudos mate, well said!