You Are What You Eat - Paper!

Our Whitetip Reefies - happy, well fed and healthy!

And talking of Shark feeding.

And I cite,

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

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

Indeed - and we're mighty proud! :)

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

I must say that I'm really happy.

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

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

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

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

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

Bingo.

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

Long story short?

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

So well done team - this is just awesome!

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

Thank you!

And our detractors?

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

Anyway.

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

Let's go Shark diving!

Tiger Shark Movements at Tiger Beach - Paper!

You can visit the iconic Tiger Beach with GSD members Jim Abernethy Scuba Adventures and Epic Diving.

Good one!

Read this.

If I understand it correctly, it appears that the effects of provisioning at Tiger Beach are, if at all, minimal insofar as the Shark diving schedules appear to have an only negligible influence on overall Tiger Shark movements, and as the large majority of individual Sharks did leave for their annual migrations as already described many years ago.

And the four homebodies?

Maybe they just like it there, maybe they're in love with Jimmy or Eli, maybe they're just lazy or maybe that's just the "right" amount of Tigers in that area, who knows - plus, as our own research has shown, residency may be completely different in another year!

Long story short?

This is once again evidence that Shark tourism in general and Shark provisioning in  particular appear unproblematic at the ecosystem level whereas at finer scales, effects are, if at all, clearly sub-lethal. Granted it's merely a data point - but the evidence is certainly mounting!

And our increasingly irritating detractors? Like I never cease to repeat, come up with some fucking evidence or shut the fuck up! 

But I'm digressing as usual.

Enjoy Neil et al's interesting paper!

 

Shark Diving Tourism - Paper!

Absolutely agree! 

Finally!

I say, this is as good as it gets!

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

Required reading!

The global code of conduct and scoring system?

Absolutely agree! 

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

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

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

So, does this paper make me 100% happy?

Of course not! :)

Precautionary approach?

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

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

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

Or the bloody ban of flash photography!

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

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

And no - regulation is the very last resort!

But yes I'm digressing.

Not 100% happy - but 99.5% I am!

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

Bravo - job well done!

Florida Land-Based Shark Fishing - Progress!

From a presentation to the FWC - those Hammers are obviously moribund, or they could not be handled that way. Click for detail.

Behold!

Finally at their last meeting, the FWC has taken note.

So far, the staff have continued to derelict their duties and failed to adequately protect their vulnerable prohibited Sharks by cozying up to the shore-based fishermen, by never enforcing their very own rules and by never following up on the numerous complaints (and evidence!) of illegal activities, and have instead continued to belittle the concerns of the public; but in view of the overwhelming evidence presented, the commissioners have now decided that it was high time to draw up unequivocal regulations to stop the shenanigans. 

Yes they will take some time to draft and implement - but here's to the staff taking note that the status quo has become unacceptable and starting to finally fucking do their bloody job; and to the shore-based anglers to fucking clean up their act in order to avoid a total ban of their activity!

Kudos to everybody involved.

But whereas some of the usual shameless self-promoters are already taking public victory laps (shame on you Angela - you know who you are!), the real heroes prefer to keep anonymous - especially one incredibly impressive gal who has been busting her ass setting up a citizen initiative and coordinating much of the concerted effort.

She writes,

You know why this campaign has been different and successful?
Because I FIGURED IT OUT.

I didn’t just start screaming at FWC.
We respectfully communicated and I learned lots along the way.
I figured out how they were trying to handle the issue “education rather that regulation” and then spent 9 months on a daily basis illustrating to them why their approach wouldn’t work. I do know many people have submitted crap to the FWC over the years, that doesn’t do anything. We recognized this issue and immediately spent time and money to address the Commissioners at their meeting of July of 2017 = within one month of starting our group, and at that time we asked the FWC Commissioners to put land based shark fishing on a future agenda.

Here is where the hard work starts though.
We still have so much work to do.

Yes indeed you do.

There are several topics requiring detailed attention i.e. a) blood baiting and public beach safety, b) gear restrictions, c) handling of prohibited species, d) prohibition of shark fishing from man made structures and finally, e) potential licensing and permitting, and there are already efforts underway to properly address each of them.

Want to help make a difference?
Should you live in Florida, have the required knowledge and skills and want to lend a helping hand, you will have plenty of opportunities - and with most good people wanting to remain anonymous: if you don't know whom to contact, best address yourself to the ASC who will undoubtedly point you in the right direction.

Wishing you the best of luck.

And remember: less talking more doing!

Oh and more good news: there will be no harvest of Goliath Groupers!

PS - Hannah Medd here: yes it has been a dedicated FEW, see her reply to Austin's comment!

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!

Ramsey: Shit Show in Hawaii!

Source.

Oh well.

I'm sure you've seen the news.

Three very large and very rotund female GWS were seen feasting on a dead Sperm Whale floating off Oahu.

This could have been such an inspiring moment.

• One could have marveled at the exceptional serendipity of witnessing such a rare and wonderful natural event, as per the beautiful and respectful description of who experienced the first mesmerizing encounter.


• One could have mentioned Michael and Nicole's seminal paper about the life cycle of the NE Pacific GWS population, and speculated whether those females may be actually pregnant (not a given!) and bulking up in the SOFA and beyond like described therein, or whether they may just be very chubby after gorging on whale meat.


• One could have marveled at the fact that not one but three such large females have made it to Hawaii and speculated about the possible reasons (Climate Change? El Niño? Just happenstance? An outbreak of Wanderlust?), and could have tried to identify them based on Nicole's Guadalupe ID Guide (= that Shark with Ramsey is not Deep Blue). 


• One could have reminisced about this small paper about very large GWS scavenging on whales, and wondered whether the placid disposition of those Sharks may have been an indicator for postprandial torpor.


• One could have mentioned all the scientific questions that still remain unanswered.


• One could have even wondered about the wisdom, or lack of, of dive operators throwing in all those unprotected snorkelers atop large scavenging Sharks, and this in open ocean - and about the uncritical willingness of those punters to be thusly thrown, see further below!


• Hell, one could have gone so far to engage in idle speculation about why those mamas did not chomp on the aforementioned punters! The torpor and/or energy preservation, coupled with a far easier, better smelling and way juicer meal nearby? An already nicely filled belly? No search image for humans as prey? Too much commotion? No attack on alert prey by what is essentially an ambush predator?  Pervaded by the Aloha Spirit?

Not gonna happen, alas.

Like she has obviously intended, the token disrespectful self-promoting bimbette and her selfish shit show have sucked all the oxygen out of the room.
But thankfully and likely not as intended, the reactions by the public are overwhelmingly negative - and have you seen how now she is squirming and obfuscating trying to justify her feat?
Girl, dozens upon dozens of people have far more experience with Sharks, have done far more for them, and yet never put themselves in the foreground!
 

But first, watch.

Source.

I mean, seriously, what a fucking fiasco!

No don't worry, I'm not gonna unleash.

I'd rather defer to others who are way more intelligent and have spoken up much more clearly and politely than I ever could, to wit Michael Domeier's post about the total hypocrisy of "Ocean" Ramsey. 

Indeed, see any resemblance whatsoever between Ramsey's sanctimonious description and her frantic barging in ahead of everybody else and harassing the Shark in the above video?

You may also want to read and above all, understand this post about the likely consequences of that selfish shit. But Oliphant will do every I can to make it happen again! 

Obviou$ly!

And the fucking, old and tired Raising Awareness, yada yada?

Michael and David are absolutely correct: this is nothing but a serial Shark molester harassing a Shark (watch - did anybody say 6 meters? Hmmmm....), and this solely to pose for image$!
But you sure gotta love the praise by the hypocritical King of Shark Porn for the hypocritical Queen of Shark Molesting - legendary shark conservationist my ass!
And poor Riley STILL just doesn't get it!

Anyway.

It's same old same old - really hardly worth a mention were it not for those poor naive fans and followers who are being conned by the slick media and all those insufferable platitudes, and continue to admire all those hypocritical media whores and their disrespectful feats.

So, people, THINK - especially you researchers and operators who continue to associate with, and even defend those folks despite of all the evidence!

In diesem Sinne - let's go Shark diving!
Respectfully!

Comments Policy: please post your comments here and not on FB. 

FYI this is not a chatroom, comments are being monitored and I reserve the right to publish, or to delete whatever I please - and no, this got nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with Dunning-Kruger!

My blog my rules! :)

PS - Indeed (and here).. and this is just sad....

PPS - Martin here!

PPPS - well yes maybe - but then again, coming after a decade of  very public Shark harassment, it sounds hollow; the more as the punters that are so obviously clue- and reckless may be taking those risks precisely because of all the publicity, and glorification of her feats, and the public belittling of the associated dangers!

PPPPS - Patric here. Well said, Sir - eloquent and totally on point as always!
And I cite, The same stunt with bears, wolves, tigers and gorillas would land you in jail, if done with the exact same shark at Guadalupe Island you would be fined and jailed. 

PPPPPS - Well said Danny! :)

PPPPPPS - great post by Michelle here - torpor included! :)

PPPPPPPS - Indeed!

PPPPPPPPS - more hypocritical rubbish by the King of Shark Porn. Well, maybe there would not be such a need to change perspectives and creating massive global awareness had you not been so successful in creating the media that demonize Sharks in the first place, to wit e.g. this horrible piece of horse manure you produced!

PPPPPPPPPS - sweet, we got ourselves a tussle among Shark bimbettes! How quaint! I swim with them for pure enjoyment = not for camera? Right, hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

PPPPPPPPPPS - and we got ourselves yet another beauty! Yay! This would be one of Mauricio's illegal out-of cage freedivers  scientific collaborators (case in point!) disparaging another - by posting a pic of the illegal irresponsible and selfish behavior that certain individuals have been promoting as conservation science for years... Again, how quaint!

PPPPPPPPPPPS - more by Michael here and here!

PPPPPPPPPPPPS  - And for god's sake, whether you believe Lemuria is modern day Hawaii or not, leave the poor dolphins alone! Figure out how to talk to them from the shore or something. Hahahahahahahahaha!

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPS - the bloody Whale carcass has drifted back onshore - and hopefully stays there!

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPS - and we got ourselves one more visitor - which begs the question, what is going on: is this exceptional or is it the norm, and we are just finding out about it now? 

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPS - The question is, how can we interact with animals and leave their habitat better than we found it? This is why shark diving and shark tourism in marine protected sanctuaries (where fees collected by dive operators and government go towards habitat preservation) are an inspiring alternative. Hear hear!

Shark Strike in the Azores - Debate!

Oh for crying out loud!

Have you seen this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not so fast, says Juerg.

Here is his reply, unabridged.

Shark Attacks and Shark Diving 

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

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

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

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

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

Juerg Brunnschweiler, PhD ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

And this is the riposte by the authors.

In Reply to Shark Attacks and Shark Diving

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deep concern huh.

My take?

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

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

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

So there.

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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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

Long story short?

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

And yes I can leave it at that.

Not impressed and once again, rather pissed off!

Lemon Shark petting: Conservation?

I really can't believe I'm doing this - again!
Anyway, watch - story here, rebuttal here.

So the troglodytes are molesting petting a Lemon.

No idea why the Shark is letting this happen. Maybe, like Cristina and Jimmy's Sharks, it likes the sensation, or has developed a special bond to some individual diver - or maybe it has been taught that this is conducive to getting a tidbit from the bait crate you can discern in the lower right hand corner. Who knows. But it seems to have initiated the contact, there is certainly no forcing, and  the animal is completely free to leave at any time, just like it does at the end of the clip.

Is this dangerous?

Yes quite possibly - but if so, only moderately so.

Blondie is clearly a conditioned Shark that is highly habituated to divers and likely to be rather forgiving; but she might once have a bad day, or get fed up of the effusions, and nip the handler. And if so, I can promise you that everybody will state that the diver was an idiot that had it coming, and that will be the end of it. 

Blondie will not get killed, there will be no Shark cull, and Shark conservation will be in the exact same place it was before the bite. Remember  - and did anybody go on a Nurse Shark killing rampage as a consequence?

Contrary to what Rick sometimes preaches, Sharks are not Bears and fed Sharks are not dead Sharks - at least not so far. I'll be happy to revise my position should anybody show evidence to the contrary - but right now, it's just yet more unsubstantiated speculation. Please, people: tone down the breathy ultracrepidarianism!

So - is this conservation?

Does it help dispel the myth and assuage the Jaws-induced nightmares of the populace like those folks want us believe? And if so, will it help reduce Shark mortality like asserted by the awareness raising and myth dispelling legions of self promoting image hunters, daredevils, media whores, mermaids, Shark huggers and bikini bimbettes etc that continue to propagate like fucking rabbits?

Nothing so far has helped, so lemme try a different approach.

Do people hate Tuna? 

Or Sea Cucumbers? Or for the matter, do they hate Tomatoes which they are now recklessly dispatching after having been traumatized by the Attack of the Killer Tomatoes?

I mean, seriously.

Tuna and Sea Cucumbers are being wiped out because fishermen target them preferentially - not because they hate them but because catching them is highly lucrative. And the exact same thing is happening with Sharks - and I can assure you that not a single commercial fisherman will give a flying f#@k about Blondie and her molesting Addict!

And conversely, we do protect Lions and Crocs and Tigers and Polar Bears and other big dangerous predators without denying that they are dangerous!

Like I said, it's same old same old.

Jordan wants to sell Shark dives, and the Shark Addicts want to be somebody in Sharks, or whatever; and in order to generate the required noise and $$$, they are not satisfied to partake in what could otherwise be awesome wildlife encounters, but are instead resorting to those gratuitous, tired and I believe, totally disrespectful antics.
Nothing exceptional mind you - but instead of trying to play the conservation card by showcasing those stupidities and publicly blasting NOAA, etc, they should maybe also first have a real hard look at their own impact, i.e. at whether feeding = aggregating Lemons in unprotected federal waters right outside of protected Florida waters may make them part of the problem rather than part of the solution?

Just sayin'!

Let's go Shark diving - respectfully!

Hammerhead Pups?

Oh for crying out loud.

What a load of crap.

Those are of course Remoras, Likely Sharksuckers, Echeneis naucrates - which in itself is interesting as I don't recall having  seen a Remora on a Scalloped Hammer, ever!
And anyway - that Shark got claspers!

You can read the whole nonsensical story here.

And here's the video.
Shark fishing off a swimming beach - great idea!

Hammers are protected in Florida, and this is not catch-and-release but instead, it is an appalling case of harassment, likely for taking the usual fucking pictures, that has likely resulted in the Shark's disorientation and ultimate death - so this should be ample evidence for taking those morons to task.

Shark Sanctuaries: only Spin?

Polynesia Shark Sanctuary - the latest and biggest!

Oh for crying out loud!

Have a look at this shit.

Shark Sanctuaries: Substance or Spin? 

As Shark populations collapse and public concern rises, some national governments have established shark sanctuaries. 

These countries, such as Marshall Islands, Maldives, and Venezuela, have been touted to be “safeguarding” (1) and “protecting” (2) sharks. The Marshall Islands sanctuary was hailed as the “strongest legislation to protect sharks we have seen” (3). Fiji bucked the trend recently by deciding not to declare their national waters a sanctuary, thereby attracting press attention and criticism (4). 

This raises the question: What are shark sanctuaries, and does their creation result in effective shark conservation and management? 

Given that studies show shark populations are declining mainly as a result of overfishing (5, 6), no-take marine zones might seem like a logical and effective way to curb mortality and boost populations. However, what constitutes a sanctuary varies among countries, and often is not synonymous with no-take zones. For example, the Marshall Islands bans commercial fishing yet allows small-scale fishing of sharks (7). The Maldives has banned commercial fishing only in waters out to 12 nautical miles (8), and Venezuela has banned commercial shark fishing in less than 1% of their waters (9). 

Even with sufficiently protective bans, shark sanctuary creation is only the first step; the real challenge is ensuring effectiveness through strict monitoring and enforcement (10, 11), which requires sustainable financing. 

Indeed, Fiji’s offshore fisheries officer stressed difficulties with monitoring and enforcing a total ban on shark fishing (12). Alternatively, allocating capacity toward scientific data collection would allow experts to evaluate effectiveness of management measures and inform long-term regional and global population assessments. 

Shark sanctuaries provide hope, but there is no scientific evidence that they are effective—yet. Even worse, the positive press attention surrounding shark sanctuaries may preclude more effective conservation management. 

Sanctuaries should not substitute for rigorous, science-based management. 

LINDSAY N. K. DAVIDSON Earth to Ocean Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, Canada. E-mail: ldavidso@sfu.ca

Even worse?????

Just great isn't it.

What a fucking disaster!

Local fisheries, of Sharks and otherwise, are at a fraction of 1960ies baselines, fisheries management in most developing countries is either non-existent  or severely lacking - and this stupid chit has the audacity to go sniping against Shark sanctuaries, playing right into the hands of the fishing industry?

What is this, the bloody uprising of the nerds?

Had the bloody fish management intelligentsia done their bloody job and bloody managed our fish stocks sustainably, there would be no bloody need for us conservationists to advocate sanctuaries and bans in the first place! 

How about you get off your fat arses, stop trying to cover up your own track record of dismal failures and for once go and do the job we all pay you for with our hard earned money! How about you come up with some results instead of wasting everybody's time with your stupid uhhming and aahing! How about no more expensive and useless committees and junkets, paper shuffling and procrastination but some actual field work, hard decisions and tangible progress instead! How about finally invoking the precautionary principle everybody agrees upon in theory but nobody has the guts to implement!

If I had it my way, each and everyone of you would have been kicked out of the door a long time ago - would have been real good fun to look at you trying to survive out there in the cold, with real timelines, deliverables and personal accountability!

Ain't gonna happen is it.

Instead, we the conservationists will continue to have to allocate our time and our resources to try and clean up the mess you have caused. 

Want us to start pointing fingers and calling names?

So here's the deal.

We're all sick and tired of the continued lack of support by some quarters within the scientific community. Either become part of the solution or at least have the grace to finally shut the f up and stop trying to derail the process you have been too stupid and/or lazy and/or corrupt and/or cowardly to implement in the first place!

And start bloody earning the money you keep asking us for!

.

End of rant - Merry Xmas!

Lupe: pregnant GWS with Boyfriends?

GWS with boyfriends?

Oh for crying out loud.

Have you seen this?

So Deep Blue has a boyfriend; she and several other GWS that come to Lupe are pregnant; and they are now at danger of being killed by poachers when visiting the nursery grounds. And Mauricio wants to tag them in order to then help protect those nurseries.

How touching. 

If only this was supported by any evidence.

GWS litters have tested positive for multiple paternity = no boyfriend; GWS females at Lupe often feature mating scars = if they're mating they can't be heavily pregnant; Domeier's multiple satellite tracks do not show them coming to Lupe during pregnancy; most other specialists ascribe their girth to their age (like many other Sharks, GWS do bulk up as they get old) and possibly, recent predation = a full tummy. 

Re-read the paper by Domeier!

Long story short, methinks this is a load of crap.

I say, hombre: how about more real science and less media!

After all those years of countless donations and freebies from the Shark boats, how about finally coming up with some good old-fashioned quid pro quo = some scientific paper describing the movements of those GWS around Lupe?  Wasn't that the purpose of all that industry-sponsored acoustic tagging?

Yeah I know.

Writing papers is fucking boring, whereas all that playing at science = the television cameos, the junkets, the hanging out with the Shark crowd, and being popular on social media is much, much more exciting - but the output so far is thin, and I hear that the patience of the donors is rapidly eroding, as is the scientific relevance. Plus, is it really still satisfying to be used as the provider of permits, only to then play the token Mexican in those productions and in those papers by the gringos?

Just wondering!

New Shark Repellent Scams!

Source.

Have you seen this?

Right.

After a decade of scientific research (see any mention of the specific research undertaken by NoBite Technologies?), no less, and a swim in California, surrounded by hundreds of sea lions engaged in a feeding frenzy, in an area known to be frequented by great white, tiger (!!!), and mako sharks, those guys are so confident in the technology that they are giving a $1,000,000 No Bite Guarantee!

Wow!

But they don't have the 175,000 to finish producing the gizmo?

But the video is great!
A pal writes.

• Sound bytes grabbed from quasi shark alliance bumper stickers - check 
• Scared looking surfers - check 
• Technology derived from sketchy research - check 
• Footage of a bunch of reefies looking bored - check 
• Let's do this shi... Now, strap it on and be vewy vewy quiet. Avoid splashing and sudden movements ... 
• Disclaimer: not a guaranteed or proven shark deterrent. Do not immerse for longer than a few seconds. May not work on sharks trying to hug you. Practice aloha and dolphin noises.

And this shit?
Yes they want your money, too - and plenty of it! But fear not, this must obviously be totally legit because they got none other than Collier and Ritter (!!!) as consultants - need I say more!  :)
Through extensive testing, the signal for the SharkStopper' “Personal Shark Repellent” (PSR) has been proven to repel sharks up to 60 feet away, with a minimum protection of approximately 20 feet. 
Really? Show me the fucking data!

I say, these are once again nothing but brazen scams.

To be convinced otherwise, I would have to be presented with evidence = as in a peer-reviewed paper about the testing of, as a bare minimum, a) the success of the gizmo emitting specific Orca sounds in repelling a variety of Sharks, vs a control b) habituation effects c) the effects of hundreds of aquatic recreationists beeping away simultaneously in the ocean. Or failing that - how about producing a suitably verified test protocol!

Yeah I know - never gonna happen!

Incidentally, the bible states.

Crucially, most sounds can elicit withdrawal if they start suddenly and/or rapidly increase in loudness, including medium-frequency pure tones and even low frequency pulsed sounds that would otherwise attract sharks.
...
It is important to note that sharks quickly habituate to both attractive and repulsive sounds (Myrberg et al. 1969; Myrberg et al. 1978), which would mean that for any auditory-based shark repellent to remain effective it would have to be deployed only for short durations rather than being left on permanently. 

And in related news.

Remember Marine Dynamics' zebra decoy?

Check out the pic at the top - there it is, doing what it does best: attracting GWS!