The same old Allegations

As so often, the Shark Divers have started a thread and I would like to pick it up as follows.

Fair Trade in Tourism South Africa is a respectable institution and their Trademark, a coveted distinction for Tourism operators of that country. Among many other things, it implies that the people whose land, natural resources, labour, knowledge and culture are used for Tourism activities, actually benefit from Tourism.
Sound familiar?
Look now further than the Shark Reef Marine Reserve Project with its holistic approach to Conservation.

FTTA have decided to look into Shark Tourism in South Africa and have published this important position paper on the matter.
Before I unleash, let me categorically state that it is a good one: balanced, fair, unbiased, pragmatic, it explores the full scope of the issues at hand and draws the right conclusions. FTTA are the first ones to admit that they are no experts in Shark Tourism and carefully avoid taking any positions with respect to the usual controversies.
This of course is the way it should be and they need to be commended for that approach.

And yet, the usual allegations raise their ugly head unchallenged.

Let me try and sum up the current state of affairs, at least how most of us in the Shark Diving Industry see it. Yes I've already blogged about it but if left unanswered, these allegations will, and have already developed into Urban Legends, and then, the "Truth".
It's all about memetic Evolution - check it out, fascinating.

But first, lets get rid of the question whether Shark diving increases the risk of Shark incidents.
Duh?
Yes of course it does!
And so does swimming, surfing, spear fishing, whatever!
The simple reason for that is that Shark incidents have one precondition: Sharks and people have to be in the same place at the same time, that place being the Ocean. Equally obvious is the fact that there will be some correlation between the number of people frequenting the Sea and the number of incidents - thus, any increase in people implies an increase in risk.
This is so trivial, it is painful!

What to do?
Well, how about looking at the airline industry: aviation increases the risk of plane crashes (Hellooo.....). Confronted with such mind-boggling insights, do we run and close down the industry? Or, do we instead require that commercial airline operators conform to the strictest safety procedures possible?
This is precisely what has to be asked from us. And let me re-iterate that safety procedures will always remain species- and situation-specific and will always imply a judgment call by the operator.

Now, to the actual debate, this in order of increasing complexity.

Yes, many of us do use bait to attract the Sharks.
Although Shark diving in unbaited conditions is certainly possible, predictable encounters can only be expected where the species are resident (or maybe, territorial) - as in Grey Reefs and Silvertips; or, where the lay of the land, or special conditions aggregate the Sharks - as on the sea mounts in the eastern Pacific, during the yearly congregations of Whale Sharks in the Caribbean and Australia or at the cleaning stations of Thresher Sharks in the Philippines.
Other than that, one is left to the vagaries of chance encounters : great when conducting coral dives but just not quite good enough to justify mounting a commercial operation specifically targeting Sharks.

The issue this raises is that of Conditioning.
By that, one implies that luring in the Sharks will change their behavior - well, again, Yes........... Why otherwise would we bother doing it?
The natural behavior of most Sharks is not to approach divers unless specifically motivated to do so - and that's precisely what we are trying to achieve, to motivate them. Incidentally, in our specific case, we also try to condition our Sharks to follow a uniform and largely predictable routine and to stay away from the clients.

"Best practice" among cage diving operations apparently consists in just teasing, but never actually handing any bait to the Sharks.
Were I a Shark hugger, I would immediately object that letting the Sharks waste precious energy on fruitless "hunts" is to be rejected as it is likely harmful to the animals. But of course, that would be totally besides the point - the point being that common wisdom has it that this will prevent the Sharks from associating humans with food via so-called positive reinforcement. We shall come on to that later.

Apparently, according to the FTTA paper (and news to me), some quarters even contend that just teasing, but never feeding the Sharks could even be regarded as negative conditioning: the frustrated animals will learn to avoid those situations.
Sound plausible to you? Would the cage divers use that technique and bother to schlepp along all that bait if they believed it would eventually chase away the Sharks?
C'mon........

Leaves Conditioning via Positive Reinforcement, the big no-no.
Yes, I confess, this is precisely what we do!
We reward the Sharks whenever they approach, very much in the hopes that over time, more and more of them will turn up for a meal - which of course, being smart Apex Predators, they do!
We do so in order to show them to our clients - as opposed to, as I shall never tire to repeat, Fishermen who do exactly the same thing in order to catch and then kill them.
Get the hint? Who has the way biggest, and most negative impact on the animals? Are we going to abolish fishing as a consequence? I wish!

But now, the saga continues: apparently, feeding the Sharks teaches them to associate humans with food.
It is never said expressis verbis, but the subliminal message is that the so conditioned Sharks will not only associate, no, they will learn to regard humans as food and then start devouring anybody chancing to enter the waters they live in.
All intuitively plausible - but is it really so?
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinist, so please allow me to cite the Great Man himself: "Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science."

Why "humans"?
If we disregard the bait which is clearly the primary attractant and conditioning factor, is it not fair to assume that the strongest conditioning factor may well be the engine noise? Is it not so that some operators have learned to rev up the boat engines to "ring the dinner bell", and this with great success?
And if so, So What?

The "what" apparently is this.
This kind of signal, or even the mere presence of humans, are supposed to trigger a Pavlovian reflex: the Sharks will become excited, motivated and hungry and this will precipitate the abovementioned nefarious consequences, especially when no food is being offered.

And this is precisely the very point where Intuition is leading to Conjecture and Myth.

Nothing whatsoever, not the objective data about Shark incidents on, or in the vicinity of Shark feeding locations, nor the collective subjective perceptions of all Shark Diving Operators I've ever talked to supports in any way those allegations. This despite the fact that one would expect precisely that to happen, as a result of an increase of potential encounters and thus, risk - remember the first trivial argument?

To make an example, what we experience on our Shark Dive is this.
When we get to Shark Reef, we start by baiting the surface where the Trevallies, Rainbow Runners and Bohars (but never any Shark!) will hit the bait and, we believe, attract the Sharks to the resulting commotion. Upon getting into the water, we may, or may not, see some of our non-resident (at least not at the depth and location where we feed) animals: Tiger Sharks, Bull Sharks, Lemon Sharks and Nurse Sharks.
Have they been attracted by the engine noise? By the action at the surface? By us entering the water? Or did they just happen to be there anyway? Frankly, we don't know - yet. But we're working on it.
During the dive, the numbers of Sharks will increase as we continue feeding the big fish and later, the Sharks themselves. But once we decide to stop the feeding, the Sharks will retreat and disappear within minutes - not get frustrated and attack us in retaliation. This after close to ten years of positive reinforcement.
And when we go to Shark Reef without food, some Sharks may turn up for a quick cursory flyby but then disappear, never to be seen again.

Mind you, the above is merely our perception.
Interestingly enough, having once taken along an anti-feeding advocate and scientist, these very same observations did not dispel, but instead reinforce her reservations. As always, perceptions turn out to be highly subjective.

This can only be resolved by proper scientific research.
Remember the Scientific Method?

To the readers in general: watch this space!

To the colleagues amongst you.
Guys, we're in this together. This nonsense threatens all of us and needs to be stopped. We have the resources, animals, locations and opportunities enabling us to collect the relevant data. This may cost us some time and money, and we may well end up with answers we don't like - but if so, we will learn something new, as we should always be willing , and eager to do.
And we will get even better and safer in the process.

Let's do it - it's the only way forward.

In a Nutshell

You may have noticed that we're currently working on a new website.

That requires a whole lot of editing and when adding a page about Shark Diving, we've come up with the following. In a nutshell, it summarizes our current beliefs about our Shark Dive and Shark Diving in general. "Current", as in Panta Rhei: all is in flux and we shall never stop learning!
Yes, including the links, that's a mighty big nut! More like a coco de mer!

About diving with Sharks

Worldwide Shark populations are being slaughtered at an unprecedented scale and Shark Reef Marine Reserve is one of the few places left where one can regularly observe several species, some of which in impressive numbers.

Some of the Sharks you will observe are rightly considered to be largely harmless, like the Tawny Nurse Sharks, the Whitetip Reef Sharks, the Blacktip Reef Sharks and even the Sicklefin Lemons which we have found to be extremely placid despite of their size, reputation and teeth-studded grin.
Some other species are more problematic, like the unpredictable and competitive Grey Reef Sharks and the fiercely territorial Silvertip Sharks.
The Bull Sharks and the Tiger Sharks however are clearly a class in their own. They are Apex Predators who grow to an impressive size and have a notorious reputation for attacking humans.

You will be diving without the protection of a cage and in close proximity to the animals.
Accordingly, one of the most-asked questions we have to address is: how safe is it?

Safety is our main concern and we believe that we have devised a set of procedures aimed at preserving the unique experience of being in the water with these charismatic animals whilst making The Shark Dive as safe as we possibly can - both for you, our valued customer, but also for our feeders who interact with the Sharks on a daily basis.
These procedures include

• All clients must attend our detailed and exhaustive Dive Briefing where we explain the dive site and dive, our procedures and where we address any questions and concerns.
• All participating divers must be fully qualified and divers with less than 30 open water dives must be specially supervised by one of our Dive Masters.
• We shall allow no more than 20 customers on any such dive.
  
• The Shark Dive is essentially a show where you will be led and positioned to witness the feeders interacting with the Sharks. We do not allow personal exploration and all participants are required to observe the same dive profile and bottom times.
• By the same token, we do not allow any personal interaction with the Sharks. When conditions permit, selected clients will be escorted closer to the animals in order to enable them to capture images. The decision to do so resides exclusively with us and each client will be supervised by a member of our staff.
  
• Everybody is required to wear dark, full body wetsuits and black gloves (provided by us) and all shiny or brightly colored gear is not allowed.

Our rules are being constantly reviewed and adapted to new insights or changing conditions.
As an example, the ever increasing numbers of Bull Sharks have prompted us to re-design the layout of the "Take Out", to change the feeding routine whereby the feeder is now flanked by "bodyguards" and to completely discontinue the routine of letting anybody position himself in the "pit". That location is now exclusively reserved for professionals, and that only on "mellow" days.

Shark Diving however is not recreational SCUBA diving and will always carry a special risk that cannot be excluded by even the most stringent safety measures. You will be diving with wild and potentially lethal predators and the unexpected can happen at any time.

Whereas we shall do our utmost to always try and keep you out of harm's way, it will ultimately be your decision, and thus your assumed risk, to engage in this potentially dangerous activity. You will be required to act responsibly, to remain vigilant and to alert us to any problematic situation that may arise.

We have blogged extensively about our protocols, Shark diving and the complex issue of feeding and conditioning Sharks and we invite you to go and read those posts. They are

About our procedures: Diving with Sharks
About baiting, feeding and conditioning: Pundits and The same old Allegations
About Shark diving: Quo Vadis, Shark Diving?
About diving with macro predatory Sharks, also: Totally agree!
About interactive Shark dives: Interactive, Touching the Sea and Stupid
About our newest procedures: Swamped!
About the Shark Diving Industry: Bon Appetit!

In general terms, please always consult our Blog to keep abreast of any new developments.
Thank you.

Undercurrent on Shark Feeding!

Yes we feed Sharks - Terry-fic pic by Terry Goss!

Gotta hand it to the folks at Undercurrent.
Starting with the idiotic title, they have managed to post the by far most preposterous piece of utterly stupid anti Shark feeding shit published by a dive magazine, ever.

WTF has happened?
What has possessed Ms Richardson to provide a platform for the ramblings of the anti industry zealots instead of trying to remain impartial like in the past? Tell you what happened: she clearly doesn't have the slightest clue about Shark behavior (poor innocent Cristina's Caribbean Reefs are not solitary but gregarious) or the Shark diving industry and its protocols, and is obviously increasingly believing and parroting what the clowns she is interviewing are feeding her.

Case in point, Ralph Collier.
No Vanessa, Ralph is neither a researcher, nor a scientist.
He is the prototype of what the Swiss call a Sesselfurzer, as in "someone who farts from a couch", very much reminding me of the Shark-hating voyeuristic parasite. His claim to fame is to head his Shark Research Committee (are there any other members?) whose only research consists in recording GW attacks on the Pacific coast of the US and publishing the statistics in a series of forgettable amateur publications. Like Ritter with whom he shares an affiliation, or whatever, to the SRI and the GSAF, he is the ultimate Shark pornographer who professes to be furthering Shark conservation but then ultimately reduces Sharks and their life history to one single aspect, that of Shark/human interactions, meaning Shark attacks.
Having been elevated to rank of "Shark expert" by the misguided invitation of the Egyptian authorities, he is now obviously basking in the limelight and being invited to run his mouth on topics about which he obviously doesn't have the slightest shred of knowledge, let alone expert competence.

What Collier spouts is not new.
It's basically a textual rehash of his interview on the atrocious Red Sea Jaws where he asserts that feeding Sharks will lead to attacks on innocent bystanders. The "proof": one single video showing divers hand feeding one single OWT with Fish stored in a fanny pack - which according to Collier has led that Shark to subsequently attack the hands and buttocks of two victims, leading the great researching scientist to derive a general rule pertaining to all Sharks in the Red Sea!
Howz that for taking intellectual and methodical shortcuts!

So we're looking at a shark habituated to human beings for getting food, and humans had taught the shark where the food was. And this occurred frequently in the Red Sea. With overfishing in the area, sharks have to come up to the reef area to feed, and now associate food with the human form. It's very much like training your family dog. When it sees your hand, it sits up to get a bite of that treat.

Right!
That's EXACTLY what trained family dogs do: they sit up whenever they see a hand (notabene, a hand that does not hold any food!), meaning all the time, and when hungry, they run out of the house and randomly bite the hands (and very possibly even the ass!) of passers by!
Which obviously begs the question, does Collier own a completely crazy dog - or may he be simply pompously bloviating without the slightest knowledge about the behavior of either dogs or Sharks.
You be the judge of that.

The rule is simple.
To know about the specific behavior of an animal, you need to observe that animal when it is engaging in that specific behavior, and this over an extended period of time. If you unable to do so (and I betcha that Collier's personal experience with Sharks is limited to maybe a few cage dives with GWs at best), you need to talk to the people who do, or read what they publish on the subject.
The people who feed Sharks and who observe Sharks that are being fed are some divers, several Shark diving operators and a handful of Shark researchers - and thousands upon thousands of fishermen and spear fishermen!

Surprised about the latter?
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!

But I'm not here to deflect and obfuscate.
I'm certainly not about to give you the spiel about how we, the Shark diving operators educate the public and contribute to Shark conservation, as it got nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether divers feeding Sharks leads to an increase of attacks on people who do not partake in those events, like Collier asserts.
That is a testable hypothesis.

The first of the possible tests is simple.
A. Are there more Shark attacks on the public at or around Shark feeding sites compared to similar control sites.

Let me start with a pathetically trivial statement.
In order for there to be a Shark attack, a person and a Shark will have to be in the same place at the same time. Thus the incidence of attacks will inevitably depend on the following variables: the number of Sharks and the number of people present in a determined location; and also, the activity and behavior those people and the Sharks are engaging in.

With that in mind and considering that feeding Sharks will aggregate some species, one would indeed expect an increase in Shark attacks in the vicinity of Shark feeding sites - but when one analyzes the details, it is not quite that unequivocal.
In 12 years of feeding Sharks here in Fiji, we have witnessed

• a staggering increase in the number of Bull Sharks that roam wide ranges but regularly visit Shark Reef once they have discovered that it's a good place;
• a negligible increase in the number of the much more resident Greys, Whitetips and Blacktips, a species that does not roam and is thus not likely to be attracted from locations afar;
• but then, a decrease in the number of intermediate Sharks like the Silvertips, Lemons and Nurses, and possibly even Tigers;
• and with the exception of one single fly-by by a spooked Great Hammerhead, zero sightings of any other species, this despite of the fact that we regularly introduce 2-300 kilos of yummy bloody bait and despite being situated on the fringes of 300m deep Beqa Channel and of Beqa Lagoon that are all being prowled by a plethora of other Sharks like Zebras and Hammerheads but also pelagics like OWTs, Silkies and Duskies.

And what about Shark attacks?
There are only two Shark feeding operations in the country, Beqa Adventure Divers and the guys down the road, and we both conduct our Shark dives on the southern coast of Viti Levu facing Beqa Lagoon. Documented Shark attacks in the vicinity: a big fat zero, ever.
The few documented Shark attacks have happened in Taveuni where Tigers Sharks prowl the coast of the current-swept Somosomo Straights; in the mouth of the Sigatoka River where surfers insist on frolicking on a break despite of murky water and the occurrence of large Bulls and Tigers; and in various locations where spear fishermen have defended their catch, often at night.

Anybody wanting to venture a guess about the results from elsewhere?
More importantly, would any of the bloviating Shark attack experts please care to comb his collection of data in order to prove or disprove a causal connection? Maybe for once act like what they purport to be, forgo their idiotic ad hoc speculation and engage in the onerous task of following the scientific method instead?

B. What about the risk of Sharks biting people during Shark dives?

Let's go back to the above trivial statement and variables.
When it comes to baited Shark diving, the obvious, and equally pathetically trivial rule is this.

• the more Sharks are present, the higher the risk of a Shark bite
• the more divers are present, the higher the risk of a Shark bite
• the more dives are being conducted, the higher the risk of a Shark bite
• the closer the divers and the Sharks interact, and the more frequently those interactions occur, the higher the risk of a Shark bite

So, yes, unequivocally, Shark diving increases the risk of a Shark biting a person!
And the question of baiting versus non baiting? Yes, of course baiting increases the risk, as it draws in more Sharks and leads to closer interactions!
Duh!

The consequences? Please re-read this.
Some divers are happy to experience Sharks when and where they occur naturally. Others wish to predictably experience other species that are highly skittish and/or do not aggregate naturally and thus need to be attracted with bait. Assuming that baiting does not harm the animals, and so far, nothing indicates it does, it's not a matter of prohibiting baited Shark dives, it's a matter of ensuring a maximum of safety by adopting the best possible safety protocols!
Is there a residual risk - yes of course there is, especially for us in the front line!

But what about the motivation for those bites?
Please re-read this. It is, to the best of my knowledge, what we know about why Sharks bite people - and please correct me if you think I'm wrong.

With that in mind, I assert that nearly all of those bites are not predatory in nature.
Contrary to the plethora of bloviating Sesselfurzer, I look back on nearly 40 years of diving and on thousands of Shark dives, most of which in baited conditions. In all those dives with dozens of different species in different situations world wide, I have never been in a situation where I had the impression that a Shark was sizing me up as potential food, not one single time - and incidentally, everybody in the industry I have talked with shares the exact same observations.

I have however been subjected to multiple threat displays, this by Grey Reefs exhibiting agonistic hunch displays, by Silvertips becoming stiff and jerky and more recently, by large dominant Bull Sharks gulping and ramming me with their snout.

I have also witnessed several Shark strikes.
All but two were by Sharks biting the people directly handling the bait. All of them were characterized by one or more of these factors: competitive, frenzy-like situation; bad visibility; lack of concentration/distraction of the feeder; feeder being bitten in his left hand which was holding more bait; non-dominant, sub-adult animal barging in.
The two remaining strikes were retaliatory bites by Silvertips on people denying them access to bait, very much like the famous incident where a Silvertip bit Dinah Halstead in PNG.

Consequently, our procedures include the following

• all divers wear dark full body wetsuits and especially, dark gloves as pasty white hands sticking out of dark wetsuits may be mistaken for bait, especially in low visibility
• we maintain a clear separation between the customers and the Sharks
• the feeders wear chain mail gloves to minimize the effects of accidental bites
• we hand feed in order to always control the bait and to be able to withhold food once we deem that the animals are starting to behave competitively. In situations that become too tense, we temporarily interrupt our routine, retreat and wait for the animals to calm down again - which incidentally, they always do
• the feeder is flanked by bodyguards monitoring any dead angles and gets rotated out after ten minutes in order to prevent lapses in concentration
• there is only one feeder acting as the focal point for the animals, and he only ever holds a single piece of bait
• we do not feed in bad visibility of less than 10 meters and are particularly alert when the visibility drops, as we have observed that this is when the Sharks (who do not see through murky water any better than we do) tend to be particularly edgy as they have to rely on their other, less precise senses when approaching the feeder
• nobody but us approaches the bait bin, ever

Which brings me straight back to Richardson's stupidity.
It mentions two Shark attacks, that on Groh and that on Jimmy.

Jimmy was apparently bitten by a Caribbean Reef, a competitive, edgy and strictly piscivorous species, whilst handling bait in murky conditions. These to me are perfect preconditions for a mistake by the animal.

Groh was apparently positioned right next to the bait cage, meaning that the Bull Shark that bit him may have been engaging in behavior aimed at deterring a perceived competitor.
Furthermore, once the Shark destroyed the bait container and a lot of sand was kicked up in the process, it was trying to navigate in very reduced visibility and water saturated with fish juices, thus losing its sense of orientation and possibly mistakenly biting the first solid object it came across, i.e. Groh's leg. Was it really exactly so - dunno but it is certainly plausible.

And the Ritter attack?
The interpretation of what triggered it (= a stupid guy doing stupid things with macro predatory Sharks) keeps changing but to me, it's rather irrelevant anyway: this is clearly a predatory attack where the animal first tested and then devoured Ritter's calf.
Accident my ass!

C. Last query: are Sharks that are being fed by divers (and what about those that are being fed by fishermen and spearos?) more prone to bite people than unfed Sharks.

This is what Collier is asserting and Richardson is parroting - and of course what is being really asserted, is that fed Sharks will not engage in just any attack, but that they will be conditioned to perpetrate predatory attacks on humans.
This is of course a tricky one to document - notabene one way or the other!

There is of course no such thing as a generic "Shark" engaging in generic "Shark behavior".
Instead, Sharks are very different behaviorally both when it comes to species but to complicate matters, even when it comes to sex and age within the same species, all the way to pronounced individual character traits that can be shaped by individual experiences.
Also, the behavior of a species can be very different in different locations or at different times of the day, etc.

But having said that, I can share the following.
Our flagship species, i.e. the Bull Sharks that frequent Shark Reef have been fed for the past 12 years and are undoubtedly one of the most conditioned population of predatory Sharks on the planet.

Bull Sharks are very timid and hardly ever approach divers.
But we want our customers to experience them, and this is the reason why we resort to luring them in with bait, and to reward them whenever they approach one of our feeders in the way we like, i.e. from the left and slowly.
This is called training by positive reinforcement and I can assure you that contrary to all the pledges to the contrary that are meant to appease the tree huggers, all Shark diving operators feed the Sharks when trying to attract species that are shy and in locations where those species do not aggregate naturally. Teasing only just does not work long-term as the animals are not being rewarded and will simply stop coming.

It is thus fair to state that by feeding our Bull Sharks, we are conditioning them to approach people and thus engage in behavior they would not normally display.
But here's the catch: we observe that unlike Collier's demented family dog, our Bull Sharks will not simply approach just anybody: instead, they will only approach determined people, and this mainly only when those people are proffering food!

Example?
Look no further than when we are training a new feeder. For weeks on end, he will be standing next to the bin brandishing his treats - and the Sharks will look him up but never take a single bite! Talk about an exercise in total and utter frustration!
Eventually, a single animal who is very likely not one of the old-timers but instead a newbie who doesn't yet know anybody else will take a first offering and be forever linked to this one particular feeder. Only over time, some of the other Sharks will deign to come in for a snack, however really only when they have no other choice because their favorite human happens to have a day off.
Incredible - and yet, it's totally true!

Or here's another example.
I've been diving the Fiji Shark Dive since 2003, first twice and now, up to five times weekly.
I never feed the Sharks. What I do, is to observe and film them as part of our ongoing long-term monitoring. Over a very long period of time and by proceeding in very small increments, I have been able to attain a status whereby the Sharks appear to tolerate and at times largely ignore my presence, allowing me to roam freely among them without any discernible effects on their behavior.
But when people other than me or Rusi venture in front, the Sharks will inevitably retreat - unless we accompany them, and even then, their behavior will be decidedly more diffident!

And lastly, we observe this.
We frequently dive Shark Reef for other reasons, be it in order to service our moorings or because we are monitoring its health and changes in the composition of its population of Fishes.
The Bulls live deeper in the channel and when we don't carry any bait, chances of seeing them are extremely slim and limited to occasional fly-bys by single individuals. We have even mimicked the exact dive profiles of our Shark dives, as a control, and thus without any bait - again with the exact same result that the Bulls were simply not interested.

So much for the assertion that fed Sharks will approach and attack people - and this after 12 years of conditioning them to the presence of divers!

Granted, this only applies to the specific Bull Sharks that frequent the SRMR.
But until somebody comes and proves that a specific individual Shark that has been fed has increasingly attacked people in un-baited conditions, nothing will ever convince me that what I'm experiencing in Fiji does not apply to all Sharks that are being fed by divers anywhere!

There you have it, that's my take - thanks for your patience in trying to follow my rant.
Still think that Collier is an expert on Shark attacks in the Red Sea?

And what about Undercurrent?
Looking forward to reading Part number two - and very much hoping that Ms Richardson will start talking about the real problem that is besieging Sharks, i.e the global fishery targeting their fins! Not that I believe she will after this total fiasco.
But then, as they say, hope springs eternal!

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!

The Impact of GWS Cage Diving - Paper!

Source.

Bingo, and I cite,

"Best practice" among cage diving operations apparently consists in just teasing, but never actually handing any bait to the Sharks.
Were I a Shark hugger, I would immediately object that letting the Sharks waste precious energy on fruitless "hunts" is to be rejected as it is likely harmful to the animals.

Yup that would be yours truly a whopping ten years ago!

And now Charlie has concluded his investigation and comes to the following conclusion (emphasis is mine)

Although sharks are enticed to the cage-diving vessels with baits, industry regulations do not allow operators to feed white sharks and strict limits on the amount of bait and berley are now in place in South Australia and at other white shark cage-diving locations (Bruce, 2015).
Energy burden from the increased activity is, therefore, not rewarded by regular bait provisioning.

Some baits can, however, be consumed when sharks approach the baits using high speed or stealth (Huveneers et al., 2015).
The baits used in SA are composed of gills and stomach lining of southern bluefin tuna and are not as energy-rich as white shark’s natural prey while at these sites (e.g. pinnipeds). Whether the infrequent consumption of these baits provide sufficient energy to compensate for the increased energy expenditure associated with sharks interacting with the operators would depend on the calorific value of these baits and the frequency of white sharks successfully feeding on the baits, both of which are currently unknown (Brunnschweiler et al., 2017).
Spending time interacting with cage-diving operators might also distract sharks from normal behaviours such as foraging on natural, energy-rich prey like pinnipeds.
Combined, these suggest that the increased energy expenditure associated with cage-diving interactions might not be compensated for by either bait or natural prey consumption.

One could, therefore, argue that white sharks should be able to feed on some bait to compensate for the energetic losses resulting from interacting with cage-diving operators.
Bioenergetic models (e.g. Barnett et al., 2016) would, however, be necessary to accurately assess the likely effect of cage-diving on white shark energy balance and whether such compensation is necessary or beneficial. Beyond the potential for short-term energy intake, other aspects of food provisioning (e.g. quality of food, potential for changes in foraging behaviour) would also need to be considered.

Good one - and obviously, totally not surprised!

This is now the second paper (re-read this!) stating that NOT feeding is probably not a good idea - and whereas I concur that further investigation into the precise energy balance, etc may be beneficial, we should really not caught up in minutiae and finally do the right thing.

So what's it gonna be?  

Now that the evidence is in, will the regulators in Australia and elsewhere do the right thing and allow for proper feeding of those Sharks - or are they going to continue cow-towing to those in the populace who will contend that it would lead to more Shark attacks, and the like?
Remember that when it comes to feeding and conditioning Sharks, 99.999% is being perpetrated by the fishermen and not us - so assuming that it really is a big problem (spoiler = it aint: these are the real problems, with overfishing being the principal threat to Shark populations) let's maybe first look there! !

Anybody taking bets?

Anyway, enjoy Charlie's paper!

To be continued no doubt!

Feeding Bull Sharks in Fiji - the Paper!

This pic by Doug is so good that I catch myself using it time after time again - click for detail!

Finally!

Stating that I'm mighty proud would clearly be the understatement of the year!

Opportunistic Visitors: Long-Term Behavioural Response of Bull Sharks to Food Provisioning in Fiji
Juerg M. Brunnschweiler, Adam Barnett

Abstract

Shark-based tourism that uses bait to reliably attract certain species to specific sites so that divers can view them is a growing industry globally, but remains a controversial issue. 
We evaluate multi-year (2004–2011) underwater visual (n = 48 individuals) and acoustic tracking data (n = 82 transmitters; array of up to 16 receivers) of bull sharks Carcharhinus leucas from a long-term shark feeding site at the Shark Reef Marine Reserve and reefs along the Beqa Channel on the southern coast of Viti Levu, Fiji. 

Individual C. leucas showed varying degrees of site fidelity.
Determined from acoustic tagging, the majority of C. leucas had site fidelity indexes greater than 0.5 for the marine reserve (including the feeding site) and neighbouring reefs. However, during the time of the day (09:00–12:00) when feeding takes place, sharks mainly had site fidelity indexes smaller than 0.5 for the feeding site, regardless of feeding or non-feeding days
Site fidelity indexes determined by direct diver observation of sharks at the feeding site were lower compared to such values determined by acoustic tagging. 

The overall pattern for C. leucas is that, if present in the area, they are attracted to the feeding site regardless of whether feeding or non-feeding days, but they remain for longer periods of time (consecutive hours) on feeding days. The overall diel patterns in movement are for C. leucas to use the area around the feeding site in the morning before spreading out over Shark Reef throughout the day and dispersing over the entire array at night. Both focal observation and acoustic monitoring show that C. leucas intermittently leave the area for a few consecutive days throughout the year, and for longer time periods (weeks to months) at the end of the calendar year before returning to the feeding site.

So this is it.

Like we never tire to say, BAD has essentially been established in order to manage a Shark research and conservation project and consequently, everything we do is geared towards those aims whilst generating just enough income to compensate the various stakeholders and ensure our long term survival.

So far so good - touch wood!

But of course the beginning was everything but easy.

I had reached out to Gary Adkison when formulating the Fiji Shark Project, and when Juerg lost his Bull Shark research site in the Bahamas, Gary suggested that he go check out the crazy dude who was trying to set up a Shark MPA in Fiji. I desperately needed to find a conservation-oriented researcher, something that in those times was far from common; and Juerg desperately needed to find a new and and above all, reliable Bull Shark research site for his Bull Shark Tagging Programme. We met, took each other's measure, liked what we saw and decided to give it a try.

Gesagt getan and the rest, as they say, is history.

That was in 2003.

Ten years and countless adventures, discussions and heated debates (!) later, I must really say that it was a match made in heaven. I really, really like and respect Juerg and the feeling is likely reciprocal, the more as we really completely see eye to eye on conservation matters (sometimes less so on research techniques), are completely result-driven and despise  bullshit - and we even share the same degree of incisive humor!

But I'm digressing as always.

Back then, Shark conservation was very much in its infancy and the exclusive domain of a handful of idealistic and rather clueless loons (and probably still is!), we were both essentially rookies, and progress only happened in baby steps and with plenty of setbacks. This also on the research side where the first generation of PAT tags was rather temperamental and where for ethical reasons, we had burdened ourselves with the challenge of trying to tag the animals underwater, first intra-gastrically and then externally.

But Juerg and Gary did persevere and eventually got it done - and this very much despite the vocal objections of your truly who developed an increasing distaste for the invasive techniques.

Love you guys! :)

At the same time, we started our long term monitoring.

This is a first (and by no means last!) look at our enormous data base where we have so far meticulously recorded close to 10 years, or approx. 4,000 individual baited Shark dives in the Shark Reef Marine Reserve. Over those years, we have named and monitored more and more individual Sharks and have been keeping particularly detailed records of presently approx 150 individual Bulls.

The paper is the comprehensive analysis of only one subset of those observations, i.e. simple presence/absence data, this in comparison to several years' worth of acoustic tagging data of the same 48 individual Sharks.

Thankfully it is open access - read it!

The take-away message as I see it is this.

This particular Shark dive has been operating continuously since 1998 and it is fair to state that if there has ever been a population of conditioned Sharks, it would be the Bull Sharks of Shark Reef.

And yet,

• Our Bulls remain wild animals.
  Once they have discovered Shark Reef, they do come back; but at the same time, it is quite obvious that they continue to roam the area and undoubtedly fulfill their ecological function like any other non-provisioned Bull Shark, much in line with what we postulated years ago - and now we have the peer-reviewed science to back it up!

• Effects at large spatial and temporal scales appear minimal.
  This is consistent with all research into provisioned Sharks, i.e. that there may well be conditioning on site but that typically, the long term migrations and life history in general remain largely unaffected.

• Feeding does not appear to significantly effect the Sharks' diel patterns, this with the only exception that they will spend more time at the feeding site on feeding days - however only to depart and continue their usual daily roaming patterns. Note the observation about night-time foraging at and possibly even within the Navua River - very interesting and eminently testable!

• Same-same for their propensity, or lack of, to approach humans.
  There are obviously pronounced differences at the individual level, something I experience on a daily basis - but despite of the fact that there are Sharks that are decidedly more friendly (or bold), it is equally true that none of them comes begging for food when there is no bait in the water. In fact, the observation that during the time of the day (09:00–12:00) when feeding takes place, sharks mainly had site fidelity indexes smaller than 0.5 for the feeding site, regardless of feeding or non-feeding days may be an indication for the fact that the presence of bait barely compensates for the notorious shyness of this species!

• Long-term exposure to feeding does not appear to cause any conditioning in terms of dependence on that food source.
  One could stipulate such conditioning if the data showed increased presence over the years - but the fact is that the data appear to absolutely negate that hypothesis, as e.g. illustrated by the site fidelity indexes for 2004-2011 of Crook, a friendly old-timer and voracious hand feeder., to wit 0.48, 0.20, 0.16, 0.24, 0.23, 0.22, 0.14 and 0.47  (Table S1), an observation that is consistent for all monitored Sharks.

• The Shark Corridor appears to confer a solid degree of protection.
  Yes the animals do regularly leave that area - but site fidelity indexes that are larger than 0.50 indicate that the protected area is apparently large enough to have a positive effect.

Long story short?

Granted, strictly speaking, this only applies to Fiji Bull Sharks that are being fed in Fiji and not to "Sharks" in general - but after Aleks' paper on Caribbean Reefs and Neil's Tiger Shark paper, we now have one more indication that one cannot simply draw conclusions from other research showing conditioning, and possibly negative consequences for other species: not from those Lemons in Moorea, not from the Southern Stingrays in Cayman - and certainly not from teleost Fishes that appear to have a higher propensity for being conditioned, let alone the proverbial bloody Bears!

On the contrary and with the caveat that this may well be species- but possibly also situation-specific (see the Moorea Lemons where there may be procedural issues), it appears that those larger Sharks may just be a tad too smart for the simplistic cause-effect bullshit spouted by our detractors.

In fact when it comes to the risk they pose to humans, I'm of the strong opinion that provided that those baited dives are conducted responsibly, those "tame" Sharks pose less and not more of a threat! Yes I'm obviously speculating - but after thousands of Shark dives, I've earned myself the right to do so!

And their long term life history?
If there there is one constant observation among all papers analyzing Shark provisioning, it is that over the longer term, the animals keep their normal migration and mating/birthing patterns - e.g. think of the GWS in Lupe, the Playa Bulls and the Bimini GHH that are all seasonal irrespective of the fact that they are being fed! This is once again a strong indication that feeding causes no harm, at least not to the Sharks that are being fed.

Anyway - is this cool, or what!

Keep watching this space.

As I said, this is only the beginning, meaning that our data base contains the answers to many more questions. And, we're already conducting and are about to roll out several more new large multi-year projects that will hopefully lead to new important insights - especially about reproductive and possibly even natal philopatry that would greatly assist us in refining local Shark conservation measures.

In the meantime, enjoy Juerg and Adam's paper!

PS thanks Patric!
PS2: thanks Georgina!

About feeding Lemons in Moorea

Well well.

May Monsieur Mourier have an agenda?
Check out his pre-emptive statements about Shark feeding here.

Then, compare to excerpts of this new paper he has co-authored.

Behavioural response of the sicklefin lemon shark Negaprion acutidens to underwater feeding for ecotourism purposes
Eric Clua*, Nicolas Buray, Pierre Legendre, Johann Mourier, Serge Planes
*Email: EricC@spc.int

ABSTRACT: The feeding of marine predators is a popular means by which tourists and tour operators can facilitate close observation and interaction with wildlife.
Shark-feeding has become the most developed one around the world in spite of its controversial nature. Amongst other detrimental effects, the long-term aggregation of sharks can modify the natural behaviour of the animals, potentially increase their aggression toward humans, and favour inbreeding. During 949 diving surveys conducted over 44 months, we investigated the ecology and residence patterns of 36 photo-identified adult sicklefin lemon sharks (Negaprion acutidens). The group contained 20 females and 16 males. From this long-term survey, we identified 5 different behavioural groups that we described as “new sharks” (7), “missing sharks” (4), “resident sharks” (13), “unpredictable sharks” (5) and “ghost sharks” (7). In spite of in-and-out movements of some males and females, probably related to mating, the general trend is that residency significantly increased during the study, particularly in males, showing a risk of inbreeding due to the reduction of shark mobility. Intra and inter-specific aggression was also witnessed, leading to an increased risk of potentially severe bites on humans. Our findings suggest the need for a revision of the legal framework of the provisioning activity in French Polynesia, which could include a yearly closure period to decrease shark behavioural modifications due to long-term shark-feeding activities.

From the paper

INTRODUCTION

Large predators, which are potentially dangerous to humans and often feared, account for a substantial proportion of ecotourism activities based on animal sightings. However, because of their generally elusive nature and locally low population densities, such predators are often difficult to observe. Sharks are shy animals (Bres 1993), and provisioning is necessary to produce reliable and impressive aggregations of animals. The last decade has seen tremendous development of ecotourism based on the sighting of top marine predators (Orams 2002, Topelko & Dearden 2005). The practice of shark-feeding is widespread throughout the tropical and subtropical seas of the world, e.g. in the Bahamas, Fiji, South Africa, Australia and French Polynesia, and it is becoming controversial, with little consensus about how it should be managed.

Deliberate and long-term shark-feeding is suspected to generate problems for both animals and humans (Dobson 2006, Newsome & Rodger 2008). It may alter the natural behavioural patterns of sharks, generating biological (for the animal themselves) and ecological (for the ecosystem) effects. Provisioning may cause habituation to human contact and increase aggression towards humans by associating divers with food (Burgess 1998, Orams 2002). However, feeding wildlife can be a positive tool for assisting in the conservation of vulnerable and endangered species, through attaching economic value to wildlife and educating tourists about the need for conservation (Bookbinder et al. 1998, Halpenny 2003); it can also increase the probability of a shark encountering a partner as a result of aggregation (Orams 2002).

Despite the controversy, few, if any, comprehensive reports have measured the impact of shark-feeding, which is now widespread and growing around the world.
To date, studies have been conducted on the effect of chumming on white shark Carcharodon carcharias in South Africa (Johnson & Kock 2006, Laroche et al. 2007), as well as sandbar Carcharhinus plumbeus and Galapagos C. galapagensis sharks in Hawaii (Meyer et al. 2009). These studies all concluded that moderate levels of provisioning of cage-diving ecotourism probably had a minor impact on the behaviour of the sharks and no risk of increased attacks on humans in adjacent areas.

In South Africa, Johnson & Kock (2006) showed that conditioning only arises if white sharks gain significant and predictable food rewards, which only happens if operators contravene permit regulations prohibiting intentional feeding of sharks. White sharks are lured to the boat with baits (typically, mashed sardines and fish oil; Laroche et al. 2007) that are significantly different from their usual prey in the area, Cape fur seals Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus (Ferreira & Ferreira 1996).

In Hawaii, Meyer et al. (2009) showed that cage-diving activities did not increase the number of attacks on humans, probably due to the fact that the shark tours use a small amount of fish scraps, mimicking the activities of crab fishing vessels which have been operating in the same area for over 40 yr. In both cases, while some food is used to attract sharks to the cages for observation and photography, the quantities involved are small, so this activity cannot be considered as real ‘provisioning’.

Light baiting is also used at Aliwal Shoal (South Africa) for attracting tiger sharks Galeocerdo cuvier and allowing encounters with snorkelers in open water (Dicken & Hosking 2009).

However, the available scientific data focus on the economic value of the recreational activity, and do not address its effects on the behaviour of these potentially dangerous sharks (ISAF 2010).Bull sharks Carcharhinus leucas, another dangerous species (ISAF 2010), have been attracted to an ecotourism site in Beqa (Fiji Islands) since 2002 through a real feeding and conditioning process based on the release of several tuna heads during each dive (E. Clua pers. obs.); here again, however, the only data provided are socio-economic (Brunnschweiler 2010), with no reference to the biological issues of provisioning of carnivorous animals.

Given the controversial nature of shark-feeding, there is a critical need for empirical studies that focus on potentially dangerous sharks, and address both the potential disruption of their natural behaviour, which underpins their resilience, and the increasing risk of fatal attacks on humans (Garrod & Wilson 2006).

In French Polynesia, sharks are fed daily during diving activities. The main species involved, the sicklefin lemon shark Negaprion acutidens, can reach over 3 m in length and is considered to be potentially dangerous to humans (Maillaud & Van Grevelynghe 2005, ISAF 2010). This coastal shark is widely distributed in the Indo-Pacific, from Eastern Africa to French Polynesia. However, very little is known about the ecology of the sicklefin lemon shark in the Central Pacific. Despite its commercial value (Compagno 1984), only a few studies have been conducted in the Indian Ocean (Stevens 1984) and in Western Australia (White et al. 2004) besides a recent global genetic study (Schultz et al. 2008). The ecology of its sister species, the Atlantic lemon shark N. brevirostris, has been well documented during past decades (Gruber 1982, Chapman et al. 2009), mostly in the central Western Atlantic Ocean. However, while its early life has been extensively studied (Morrissey & Gruber 1993, DiBattista et al. 2007), very little is known about the adult stages of N. brevirostris and even less about N. acutidens.

Moorea Island (French Polynesia) is among the few locations worldwide where it is possible and feasible to have daily encounters with several wild adult sicklefin lemon sharks in their natural environment.
This characteristic provided us with an opportunity to investigate the behaviour and residency pattern of an adult population of this reef shark species through daily underwater observations at a provisioning tourism location. Here, we describe the population size and structure of this species, aggregated for ecotourism purposes at a site on the northern outer reef of Moorea Island. We divided the population into co-occurrence groups and describe the residence patterns and behaviour of these groups. We also tested the hypothesis that shark-feeding increases the fidelity of lemon sharks to the site, and discuss the potential long-term effects on population resilience and behaviour, including the risk of increased interactions with humans.
From the

DISCUSSION

…. Assuming similarity in the natural behaviour of these 2 sister species (Editor: Common and Sicklefin Lemon Sharks), our findings could be linked to an aggregating effect of shark-feeding, which decreases the mobility of animals, mainly the males, and may contribute to increased inbreeding.
This trend may lead to long-term loss of genetic variability in the Polynesian lemon shark populations, even though natural philopatry in N. acutidens, which would have been a detrimental factor, seems to be low (Schultz et al. 2008).

Increasing residency was a general trend for the shark population.
For all groups except Group B, which was composed of animals that disappeared, the linear regressions had positive slopes (Fig. 4), indicating an increase in shark abundance over time, and their site fidelity increased over the 44 mo, particularly for the ‘resident’ subgroups, C1 and C2 (Table 1). This means that, despite some sharks leaving and others arriving, the number of days with sharks present and the number of sharks at the site both increased. This trend is explained by the increased attraction of sharks by provisioning, suggesting that learning plays a strong role in optimising their food search (Guttridge et al. 2009). Our findings are consistent with similar situations where other elasmobranchs (rays) learned to associate specific locations with food rewards, with detrimental effects on their behaviour, and indirect effects on the surrounding marine ecosystems, leading to the concept of an ‘ecological trap’ (Corcoran 2006, Gaspar et al. 2008, Semeniuk & Rothley 2008).

In the case of lemon sharks, their increased site fidelity can have a negative effect on gene flow, as mentioned previously, and can also affect their role as top predators in the area, as shown for top terrestrial predators such as dragons Varanus komodoensis in the Komodo National Park, where provisioning was eventually banned (Walpole 2001).

Among the negative effects, we observed intraspecific interactions generated by the provision of a limited amount of food.
Not all sharks present during a dive acquired food, and this resulted in exacerbated competition among the animals. This pattern can lead to increasing the number of intraspecific dominance actions and the aggression of sharks to acquire food (Ritter 2001), as shown for rays (Semeniuk & Rothley 2008). Dominance is often driven by the size (length) of the sharks in social groups (Allee & Dickinson 1954, Myrberg & Gruber 1974). During several feeding sessions, the largest resident male, M04, appeared to be the most inquisitive, approaching the divers closer than any other individual did. Since males M07 and M18 were dominant in 2005, M04 definitely acquired increasing dominance behaviour with respect to other individuals, which turned into deliberate aggression towards other males when several of them were present. As was previously observed in 2005 for its 2 predecessors, from 2006 onwards M04 often arrived in the morning with fresh scars or notches that can be attributed to intraspecific fights (N. Buray pers. obs.). Aggression increased significantly when resident males came back to the feeding site after the mating period, probably in the context of a reorganisation of the hierarchy, as shown by serious wounds on males that were quite different in their severity and locations from those inflicted on females during mating (Fig. 5).

In natural conditions, sicklefin lemon sharks cannot be considered a gregarious species (Stevens 1984), except during the mating period, and animals usually feed separately. Therefore, intraspecific aggression linked to the feeding process, even though natural among carnivorous animals, can be interpreted as deviant behaviour, exacerbated by human activity.Although managers may consider this process of increasing intraspecific aggression to be acceptable among sharks, it represents a real issue regarding the safety of divers for whom the risk of accidental bites has increased critically (Burgess 1998). Between 1979 and 2001, 47% of shark bites in French Polynesia were experienced in the context of shark-feeding activities (Maillaud & Van Grevelynghe 2005). Although anecdotal, this was confirmed by a serious bite by shark M04 on the left hand, which was not holding any food, of the diver doing the feeding in January 2006 (N. Buray pers. obs.).

The results of this study indicate that in spite of the provisioning activity, several male and female sicklefin sharks seem to have left the study site while others came back to it for mating. This positive aspect from the perspective of maintaining gene flow between this shark population and adjacent ones is mitigated by the increasing pattern of residency for the overall population during the study. At present, the population seems to be a balanced mix of resident and non-resident individuals, which favours population mixing. However, if the resident sharks increase their numbers and their attachment to the feeding site, group living can generate costs for animals which are normally solitary foragers, such as injuries, predation, increased stress hormone levels and exposure to parasites due to increased transmission rates between individuals (Semeniuk & Rothley 2008).If supplemental feeding can be perceived as an artificial support to sharks by providing easy-to-access resources (Milazzo et al. 2006, Laroche et al. 2007), and can allow increasing energy allocation to other fitness-related activities such as rest and reproduction (Orams 2002), long-term unnatural aggregation can also have long-term fitness consequences for the population.
Because the studied population is small, daily aggregations at the same location could result in increased social interactions and increased mating between close relatives, reinforcing the risk of inbreeding. As lemon sharks are known for their polyandry (Feldheim et al. 2004), the potential negative effect on gene flow linked to the increasing residency pattern might be buffered by the multiple paternity process; this needs to be thoroughly monitored.

This factor, added to the development of aggression and incremental risk of accidental bites to divers, should lead managers to seriously consider a revision of the regulations on shark-feeding in French Polynesia in order to reduce these risks. An annual cessation of the feeding activity for several months, preferably encompassing the mating period, is an obvious solution. Whereas our study allowed us to draw these preliminary conclusions, additional field investigations are required to better understand the long-term effects of provisioning on shark populations.
Further work may also enable us to better understand the risks induced by feeding predators.

Hmmmmmm…
Quick ‘n dirty assessment: interesting - but both prejudiced and highly speculative!

But first things first: this is what I like.
Scientists are finally discovering the Shark feeding industry and publishing a first set of baseline studies, of which this is a (I believe: rather poor) example. And although I do not concur with the conclusions, see below, I do commend the authors for having taken the time to compile and analyze a long term set of data. As the always brilliant CJA Bradshaw remarks, monitoring has long been the ugly cousin of the fashionable experimenting and is only now being recognized as an invaluable tool for trying to decipher complex systems where causal relationships are not immediate and thus difficult to manipulate selectively.

Which brings me straight to my principal critique.
Where is the control group, as in a comparable group of Lemons that are not being fed? If they got nothing to compare them to: how can the authors postulate that any of the described phenomena are caused directly by the human interference and not due to chance variability, or to natural fluctuations in population, or to climate fluctuations like ENSO or the like?

But let’s quickly examine the allegations.

The observed increased residency may lead to reduced gene flow and inbreeding.
Indeed, maybe! But many Shark species, among which Lemons, do wander off during mating season and indeed, so did the studied animals! The increased residency during the remainder of the year is utterly irrelevant in terms of gene flow as the animals do not mate during that time – or are we to believe that Lemon Sharks may engage in protracted dating prior to having sex?
Plus – was the increased residency the direct consequence of the feeding, see above?

Increased intra-specific aggression.
Here, the authors blame the limited amount of food leading to exarcerbated competition; and on the other hand, they seem to postulate (?) that a higher concentration of resident Sharks led to more hierarchical fights and subsequent wounds in males.
Probably! But having witnessed how fast Sharks recover from horrific wounds contracted during the mating season, what is the point? Did any of the bitten Sharks die or end up being permanently inconvenienced as a consequence - and how does that compare to the “natural” mortality and/or bite frequency of non fed Lemon Sharks?

Plus, what’s that tale about M04?
M04 often arrived in the morning with fresh scars or notches (that were hence not contracted during feeding time!) that can be attributed to intraspecific fights (N. Buray pers. obs.). Interesting – but is it science?
Knowing that all individual Sharks have different characters: was he maybe just a notorious brawler – and not a very successful one since it was him, the supposedly dominant Shark, coming back with those wounds and not his assumed victims? And who did he brawl with: females or males?

Increased inter-specific aggression - what is the other species: humans?
If so, we learn that 47% of shark bites in French Polynesia occur during Shark feeds and that M04 bit a feeder in the hand. Both, we learn, prove that the risk of accidental bites has increased critically.

Well, gee, what a mind-boggling insight!
Tremendous development of shark dives is leading to more bites!
I’ve blogged about it in extenso here and don’t need to repeat myself more than that: the precondition for a Shark bite is that a human and a Shark be in the same place at the same time (hellooooo…) and thus, feeding sharks does indeed increase the risk of getting bitten and more Shark feeds will indeed lead to more bites!
This is so trivial, it is painful!

By the same token, the act of commuting in aeroplanes increases the risk of fatal plane crashes - yes, believe it or not: it does!!!
So going back to square one: do we prohibit aviation as a consequence? No, we ask that anybody engaging in the activity, especially commercially, follow a regimen of strict safety protocols!
Right?

Now, it just so happen that I’ve done a multitude of Shark dives in French Polynesia.
Many of them were Shark feeds with mainly Greys and Silvertips - and yes, I’ve also witnessed several of the Moorea Lemon Shark feeds.

Any Shark bites?
Certainly: four of them, one by a Silvertip and three by Grey Reefs!
The cause: multi-user sites combined with Gallic panache and improvisation: poor Shark diving briefings leading to unpredictable behavior of the clients, ever changing procedures and feeders, creative chaos and heaps of bravado, zero protection of the feeders and clients alike – in brief, the recipe for certain disaster!
With that in mind, the described bite comes at no surprise whatsoever!

BUT!
Was that bite by M04 really aggression – and if so, due to what? Did the behavior of the feeder piss off the Shark? Did the Shark mistake him for a competitor? Is aggression really the most plausible explanation?
Here in Fiji, all of our clients have to wear dark gloves. The reason is that anybody without gloves will get nailed by the ever greedy Giant Trevally and Red Bass who mistake the pasty hands sticking out of dark wetsuits for bait. This is not aggression, this is a mistake!
Would it not be much more plausible to assume that M04 might have made the exact same mistake when in a hurry due to a competitive situation?

Bull Sharks are not Sicklefin Lemons and anybody who knows about Sharks knows that different Shark species have very different behavioral traits and that one cannot make generic statements across species - and certainly not make comparisons to, of all animals, Komodo Dragons!

Case in point, this stellar interview with Aleks Makjkovic about her research with Caribbean Reefs in the Bahamas.



Keeping in mind the above caveat, this is what we do in Fiji in order to increase the safety of everybody:
- This is a one operator site, meaning that we can enforce a uniform protocol that is always highly predictable – for the animals, not us!
- By the same token, the people feeding are always the same, to the point that they have developed personal relationships with individual Sharks
- Feeders wear chain mail gloves and clients, full body dark wetsuits and black gloves
- There is separation between the large Bull Sharks and the customers (remember the precondition above!)
- There are extensive dive briefings so that the clients know exactly how to behave and don’t startle the animals
- There is ample food and the animals are conditioned to follow a set routine, meaning that we are trying to minimize competitive pressure. We also always control the amount of food being introduced, meaning that when we sense any incipient tension, we can discontinue the feed and wait until everybody has calmed down again.

Could some of it be replicated in Moorea! Sure!
Long story short: the obvious solution is not the annual cessation of the feeding activity for several months that implies the necessity to re-establish the feed, the relationships and the training of the animals - it is to improve the feeding protocols!

As to the other grievances about inbreeding and intra-specific aggression: not with our Bulls!

We’ve been keeping highly detailed tabs for 7 years now and none of the Bulls has taken up residency, let alone established a territory necessitating defense against conspecifics.
Instead, although the numbers continue to increase, we’re being faced with a continuous rotation of individuals who clearly lead a free life and are not dependent on Shark Reef for sustenance. Plus, they all vanish during the mating season which is a good indication for them doing plenty of walkabout and mixing of gene pools once they get horny!

The tally:
Bulls biting feeders: zero;
Bulls biting clients: zero;
Bulls biting Bulls: one documented case (we always have at least one camera rolling) where two homed in on a Tuna head and one very obviously missed the head and bit the other – yes, camera rolling! We have certainly never witnessed a single case of a Bull Shark resorting to biting in order to assert its dominance, and this in thousands of Shark dives – but then again, it’s a different species.
Fatalities among our 100 individually named animals, of a total of approx 300: only Jaws who has been missing since 2006.
All others are friendly, well fed and above all, locally protected - and I believe, perfectly happy!

Hence, what is the relevance of this paper to what we do and to Shark feeding in general?
You be the judge of that.