Blog about "The World's best Shark Dive" by Beqa Adventure Divers.
Featuring up to eight regular species of Sharks and over 400 different species of fish, Shark diving doesn't get any better!
Now Ericet al have doubled down with this further publication that specifies possible techniques for first, a) establishing a data base of potential perpetrators and then, b) identifying and removing individual problem Sharks after they have attacked a person.
Well what can I say.
Like I've already stated here, I am absolutely convinced that problem individuals do indeed exist, much like what has been shown with large terrestrial predators. And I'm equally of the opinion that removing them selectively (whatever that means) would ultimately be vastly preferable over indiscriminate broadcast culling - though having said that, there are obviously other solutions (like eg hazing, etc) that would need to be exhausted beforehand!
But that's the theory.
In general terms I remain unconvinced that individual profiling and selective removal is a practicable solution for large geographical areas featuring thousands of potentially dangerous Sharks, like, say, the USA or Australia. There methinks that one will need to continue trying to reduce the risk and mitigate the consequences - but by the same token, one will have to accept that the odd Shark bite is ultimately just simply inevitable and part and parcel of coastal living.
And in comparatively small areas?
Interesting to see Cocos and Reunion mentioned in the paper!
I've said what I wanted to say about both situations back then and really got nothing to add - maybe with the exception that Reunion looks like an ideal testing ground, the more as there is already an adequate scientific infrastructure allowing for the proposed broadcast DNA sampling and visual identification. So by all means, go for it - tho bon courage trying to establish a feeding station like suggested! :)
Anyway, all very interesting indeed!
Knowing Eric, something is likely brewing - and if so, godspeed, Fair Winds and Following Seas and all!
Following their epic dives in Tetamanu and the many experiments they have made, the team around Laurent Ballesta have published their observations about the interactions between the Grey and Whitetip Reefies when nailing that Grouper spawning aggregation.
We are pleased to share our latest paper in @ESAEcology
Using an unprecedented number of nocturnal underwater observations, we report for the 1st time an heterospecific foraging association of two shark species and describe its outcomes & benefits (1/3)https://t.co/ZAvWejMUnspic.twitter.com/QXfSllmEu1
They are just that bit bigger and bolder than the other reefies, and will thus tend to dominate any competitive exchange, much like described in this paper from Osprey Reef.
And here in the Reserve, they will equally try to dominate the other reefies during the shallow feeds, something we try and counteract by hand feeding selectively so that the Blacktip and Whitetip Reefies always get their fair share.
A Mega Mouse has arrived in the wave of the left coast of the wave!
The size is 6 M strong, and it is simply surprising!
It's a deep-Sea Shark, so I stocking up immediately after the record, but I swam to the deep place and went to the deep place!
Movie-by F
Translation by Google! :)
From what I can discern, this is from Tateyama, Bōsō Peninsula, Japan - apparently the Megamouth was trapped in a net and released.
Anyway.
Not quite an epic natural encounter like this - but still!
What a great animal - I hope she makes it!
Thing is, opinions are like assholes: everybody got one.
Look no further than Dunning Kruger and you will quickly discern that that's just simply not good enough. If you wish to be taken seriously, you really got to inform yourself before making public pronouncements - and no, educated guesses and random unrelated factoids do not qualify!
The big sharks are neither resident to the feeding sites, nor are they "territorial" = they have never only been hanging around Shark Reef or for the matter, Pac Harbour but instead, they have been visiting sporadically but have otherwise roamed all across Fiji, e.g. we have tracked them all the way to the Rewa, the Yasawas, Ba and even Vanua Levu. In fact, those mentioned Tiger Sharks are known to make astonishing trips of hundreds of miles that take them into open ocean where they then fall victim to the long liners = and you have all seen those jaws, and those of the Mako Sharks at the Suva handicraft market! But I'm digressing. In brief, nothing whatsoever has changed and our Sharks continue to roam the entire archipelago completely unperturbed, like they always have! Paper here, blog post with explanations here.
But more importantly, their food intake on the Shark dives has always been negligible = they have never depended on our handouts and they have never stopped hunting and are not now having to change their behavior, let alone venture out of their nonexistent "territory" because we feed less and they are "going hungry" or such nonsense. In fact, we note no different behavior and/or increased aggression, or the like during our dives. Paper here, blog post with explanations here.
Again, this is scientific evidence = fact.
In brief, there is no factual basis for speculating that any increased Shark sightings on the beach are due to changes in the Shark feeding schedules - and please don't comment that you disagree as there really is nothing to disagree about = you may, possibly, be entitled to your opinion but you are certainly not entitled to your alternative facts unless backed by solid evidence!
And this?
Sorry, nope, that's not correct, either!
Shark populations reproduce slowly and take a long, long time to recover = a single year since the export ban is just too short to have had any notable effect. But more importantly, recent research shows unequivocally that fishermen are targeting smaller Reef Sharks and also the riverine Shark nurseries - not for the fins but for the meat!
Especially the latter bodes really ill for Shark populations = in fact, for what it is worth, over the past few years we've experienced less and not more Sharks!
So what about those mysterious Shark sightings.
Firstly, that big blue expanse in front of the Nanuku Resort is called "Ocean".
That happens to be where Sharks live, and an occasional sighting is only
normal and should be no cause for alarm but rather, for joy as
Sharks are an indicator for healthy marine ecosystems! In fact, the beach in front of
the resort is a nursery for tiny baby Blacktip Reef Sharks that are
actually very cute and perfectly harmless. Is that what the staff have
seen? If so, go have a look as they are adorable! And in the past, there have also been reports of Tiger Sharks patrolling the shallows in front of the Pearl at early dawn. All that is normal and part of living on the coast, and it behooves us to act accordingly, see below.
Secondly, it is important for a aquatic recreationists to make responsible decisions. The
ocean can pose many dangers, from currents, waves, and undertow to
encounters with species that can cause injury to humans, whether they be
sea urchins, cone snails or even Sharks. Learning how to swim (!), not swimming in rough seas,
not swimming early morning or at dusk and not swimming alone are some
considerations. This is especially important now that the schools are
closed and many children go to the beach = perhaps instead of being
unduly alarmist, it would be a better idea to explore hiring/training
life guards to monitor the most popular beaches?
But there could also be cause for concern.
I ignore whether there is really any actual increase in sightings, and if so, whether it means that there is a higher influx of Sharks - or whether it simply means that there are more observations due to more people being on the beach.
And, are those Sharks small and harmless or big and potentially dangerous?
Anyway, let's assume the former = that there are more Sharks.
If it's not the Shark feeding dives: what may have changed to trigger such a phenomenon?
IMO look no further than Covid-19!
When we did our tagging, one surprising result was that the bulls would aggregate in front of the Navua river (= receiver # 12) in the early evening, and this irrespective of tide. Only later did we discover the reason, i.e. people trying to avoid paying the rates by dumping their trash into the river, and that the Sharks had learned to take advantage of the windfall much like a pack of stray dogs would raid unsecured garbage bins. May this be an increasing phenomenon as money is tight, also with respect to the Qara-ni-Qio? And what about all the trash that is notoriously being left behind by the beachgoers, and then gets washed out to sea by the high tide? May this be attracting Fish and consequently, their predators, too?
Have you noticed the many pop-up Fish vendors on the side of the road, and the many ads for fresh Fish in the social media, etc? All along the coast, many, many more people than before are fishing - for fun, for kanakana but also in order to supplement their income by legal small-scale commercial fishing but unfortunately, also by illegal commercial fishing and poaching in the MPAs including Shark Reef. We know the perpetrators and also the enablers, i.e. we know who fills the tanks of the gang of scuba diving spear fishermen, who sells them the spear guns and who fences the poached seafood etc - but tackling these things take time and for now, the shenanigans continue unabated. Anyway, all this massive ubiquitous fishing, spear fishing and cleaning the catch directly on the coast is bound to attract Sharks, like it does everywhere else. And if you spear fish and are not careful, you may well end up having one of those close encounters described by Jonathan - not because of us but because that is what happens everywhere around the world, see here and here among many, many such examples!
Anyway, where I'm coming from is that fishing and spear fishing close to, or directly at the picnic beaches is just simply unconscionable, and must stop. You have all seen it with your own eyes - next time, do something about it!
And there you have it.
More facts and action - and less opinions, speculation and idle claptrap!
Mind you it is by no means terrible, the more as it correctly states that
The strict self-imposed management actions and limited number
of shark feeding operators at Shark Reef in Fiji, has resulted in
minimal long-term effects on bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas) behaviour
and diet, and is likely to have had no effects on health and fitness,
and that
Provisioning elasmobranchs, the activity deemed to have the most risk associated with it, can be effectively undertaken if appropriate management is in place (e.g. bull shark feeding at Shark Reef Reserve, Fiji)
But the paper is certainly also not good, either.
Like some of its equally irritating predecessors, it suggests that there is a problem urgently requiring third-party management = regulation, something I most strongly disagree with, especially when it comes to those forever maligned provisioned Shark dives.
It's same old same old.
Over the many years, I've blogged about the latterat nauseam and am actually tired tired tired of the bloody useless controversy - but here goes, just because this nonsense cannot remain unanswered.
Read the links!
1. Threats to Sharks and Rays (and their Habitats)
At risk of stating the obvious: the biggest threats to their populations are:
Overfishing (Targeted and Bycatch) Globally, overfishing of Elasmobranchs remains rampant due to widespread IUU and inadequate management, monitoring, enforcement and prosecution. Specifically, this equates to a yearly mortality of roughly 100 million Sharks that are being killed for the fins, their meat but also other products like e.g. squalene. That is clearly unsustainable and also means that whereas some local conservation efforts
have been highly successful, Elasmobranch conservation appears to be
largely failing at a global scale. And to add to the problem, we are additionally threatening Shark and Ray populations by equally overfishing their prey.
Global Warming and Ocean Acidification whose impacts are both direct but above all indirect (= just a small example) as every single marine ecosystem in general and all Elasmobranch habitats in particular are being severely affected, and this generally negatively. And of course no Shark or Ray will survive if we destroy their habitat!
Pollution Need I elaborate? And it's by no means only the plastic!
Human Encroachment This results in habitat change and degradation, and also in conflicts all the way to triggering large and indiscriminate responses that may indeed threaten some local populations like e.g. in Australia, South Africa and possibly, Reunion Island.
And Shark and Ray tourism?
Yeah, right.
Think that in comparison, tourism is in any way a relevant factor?
Actually, on the contrary!
Not only does Elasmobranch tourism not endanger Shark and Ray populations - but in the overriding majority of cases, it contributes substantially to their protection all the way to being its principal driver!
Of course not, see e.g. above - but it is certainly not catastrophic, either!
Specifically:
A.Overcrowding and Competition.
This can be a cause for concern.
Especially in multi-user sites, the competition between too many uncoordinated and/or unmanaged tourism
operators can lead to excesses that can inconvenience or even harm the
animals.
And if so, and only if the industry itself is not able, or willing to cooperate and to self-regulate, then the authorities may indeed have to step in
with some common-sense regulations, like limits in the numbers of
tourists and/or operators and/or vessels, or e.g. licenses so that the
authorities can obtain some data and/or income for monitoring, or common sense codes of conduct, etc.
But regulation should always be the exception and not the rule lest it becomes stifling or even counterproductive!
B.Shark Feeding.
This is what we have learned over the many years.
Shark feeding appears unproblematic at the ecosystem level All research into those baited Shark dives appears to concur that those dives have little to no effect
at large spatial and temporal scales. It appears pretty clear that far from becoming dependent on the handouts, those provisioned Sharks
continue to fulfill their ecological roles and also continue to follow
their normal life cycles as in e.g. mating, pupping and migrating = there are no described major negative effects impinging on the viability of those populations.
However, there are certainly effects at small spatial and temporal scales. Shark
feeding often aggregates the animals, and this can have local
consequences. As an example, take the increased aggression of those Lemons in Moorea; or the observed competitive exclusion
of other Sharks in South Africa and possibly Fiji (= much has changed since that paper, and many of the intermediate Sharks are back, for reasons unknown); or those postulated
local behavioral changes and marginally increased residency in Southern Australia. That said, the effects are clearly rather minor and don't appear to at all threaten local populations.
And some of the other marine life may be affected insofar as they, too, may aggregate and partake in a meal = incidentally much like they do in countless other occasions ranging from organic waste being pumped into the oceans by discharges and e.g. rivers all the way to targeted feeding - and now please do tell me which has the by far greater impact!
Plus, let's not forget
the impact of the thousands upon thousands of people who feed and condition Sharks and other Fishes on a
daily basis, i.e. the fishermen and spearos! Case in point:
And this is being repeated, mutatis mutandis, countless times wherever there are fishermen = always and everywhere!
--> C'mon, seriously: do you really believe that the incremental effect of a few dozen Shark feeding operators is in any way relevant to the health of Elasmobranch populations?
So let's please be crystal clear about the following:
Elasmobranch tourism does in no way threaten the survival of the populations of the Sharks and Rays it showcases - period!
2. Threats to People
Again, this is obviously about Shark Feeding.
As per the below table, the authors considers it to be extremely dangerous, and also postulate the urgent need for regulation
owing to widespread lack of management.
Click for detail!
But if so and Shark feeding is so damn dangerous - how come that actually, we are not drowning in horrible injuries and fatalities?
There is no geographical correlation between Shark feeding and Shark strikes. Re-read this.
In brief and with maybe the exception of SA, the vast majority of Shark
strikes occurs in locationswhere there are no Shark feeding operations
(like e.g. Florida, California, Western Australia, Reunion or Recife, Brazil) - which is even more surprising if one considers that most of those
dives have been established in places that are known for their
healthy Shark populations! And even if there were some correlation, it certainly does not equate causation = there is a grand total of zero evidence that Shark feeding endangers the public at large!
And again, let's not forget the fishermen and spearos, see above! Re-read this (yup that would be more than 10 years ago!) - case in point e.g. here, and then e.g. here and here for the spearos, among many, many such examples! Think that in comparison, a few Shark diving operators are in any way relevant ?
But of course there are some caveats.
Location matters. Many Shark dives have been being established
where there are already Sharks, meaning that objectively speaking, the
risk profile is unlikely to change - but perceptions matter and like in
the case of population centers like, say, Cape Town or Playa, the diving
activity and associated increased publicity of Sharks can lead to
conflicts with the other local ocean users. Consequently, as a rule, the
feeding locations need to be as remote as possible and should
definitely not be established e.g. right in the middle of population
centers or right in front of popular beaches etc.
Obtaining the required social license and stakeholder involvement are crucial. The
local stakeholders need to become an integral part of these projects -
and this not only through regular awareness, education and consultations
but also by letting them partake in the financial windfall, both
indirectly but very much also directly. This will help avoid unnecessary risks (eg by having locals avoid the feeding sites), help protect the animals and ensure crucial
local support when the inevitable problems will arise.
Get in the research. The best argument against many of the
intuitively plausible reservations of our detractors are strong
scientific data. As an example, when people got bitten
by Bull Sharks in Cancun and everybody tried to blame the Shark feeding
operations in Playa, the operators there had the data showing that they
were only feeding females whereas the Bull Shark population in Cancun
was only comprised of males. Or in our case, our Bull Shark data show
conclusively that we are neither causing residency nor any dependency on
our handouts - which right now is helping us make the argument that the present reduction in Shark feeding due to Covid-19 is not endangering our beachgoers!
B. Safety of the Participants.
This is a different matter altogether.
Contrary to the public at large that may be unaware and/or unsupportive of, and thus be subjected to Shark provisioning, anybody partaking in Shark feeding dives knows what they are getting themselves into, and is thus implicitly approving of the activity and possibly even assuming the associated risks.
Still, we strongly advocate that the operators of commercial divesneed to keep their clients (and their employees!) safe - and if not, they need to be held accountable.
The following considerations apply.
Feeding protocols. Like I often state, it is often not about the WHAT but about the HOW. Shark provisioning creates its own risks, and those risks need to be managed
- meaning that all protocols should be chosen in function of minimizing
the impact on both the animals and the habitat, and on maximizing the
safety for the participants but also the public at large. E.g., everybody will
hopefully agree that creating humongous chum trails or dumping
indiscriminate amounts of bait to create feeding frenzies is probably a
bad idea. Here at BAD, we run a tightly choreographed dive with stringent safety protocols that is often hailed as a template for sustainable Shark feeding, see the citations at the top. Or as another example, we go to great lengths to
condition the Bulls never to come to the surface, lest we get accused of
endangering other aquatic recreationists. In brief, we need to be
in a position to demonstrate that we are always striving to conduct our
dives in the safest possible way - think, Airline Industry!
Shark bites will nevertheless happen. As Sharks feeding is risky, the risk will sometimes eventuate - and there is really nothing whatsoever we can do about it apart from protecting ourselves (= steel mesh!) and then dealing professionally with the consequences - and if we do, I am convinced that the consequences will be minimal. Case in point: it didn't quite happen like that - but a client did get bitten
despite of arguably the industry's most stringent protocols, and no
degree of management would have prevented it. And he obviously survived
because we were prepared in terms of training, medical supplies and evacuation protocols, as everybody should be!
There are Shark strikes and Shark strikes. Whereas
Shark provisioning is certainly a dangerous undertaking requiring skills and circumspection, everybody in
the industry agrees that the cause for bites during provisioned dives is
either a) self defense, b) competition or c) mistakes - not predation = those bites can be serious, but the consequences of a fully fledged predatory attack would be something else altogether! Exception - but the guy was certainly asking for it!
Yes we certainly condition the Sharks, and yes they learn, and this very fast indeed - but they learn to eat bait, not humans!
It is also absolutely plausible to assume
that provisioned Sharks may have learned to e.g. associate the boat noise
with a subsequent
feeding opportunity, and will thus aggregate when they hear the vessels, or when the operators rev the engines in order to "ring the dinner bell". But "turning up" does not equate "attacking"!
And finally, with one single fatality (or possibly two) recorded in thousands upon thousands of Shark feeds, baited Shark dives are many orders of magnitude safer than SCUBA! This is because contrary to ordinary diving where people are routinely being thrown into situations that can prove to be treacherous, baited and provisioned Shark dives are nearly always supervised and choreographed = help is always quickly at hand. Also, and provided that
(!) we act responsibly, yours truly and every single Shark diving
operator I've ever asked have made the observation that the conditioned Sharks
become positively tame, meaning that the risk of a bite is lower not
higher! Case in point: look no further than Florida and Tiger Beach, home of troglodytes, Shark molesters and media whores, and scene of ever stupider shenanigans by self-promoting Shark whisperers and awareness raisers - and yet nobody is being killed as those poor Sharks are quite obviously unendingly tolerant and forgiving!
And there you have it.
When it comes to those Shark feeding dives, I remain convinced that regulation makes only sense in those multi-user sites suffering from overcrowding, and this only when the industry is not able, or willing to cooperate and self regulate, like what is quite possibly happening in Playa.
Other than that, any incidents are already suitably covered.
Since the participants are most certainly willing, those ubiquitous liability waivers should be allowed to stand in minor cases. And any grossly negligent harm to customers can be adequately prosecuted under existing local legislation, whereas existing OHS regulations will suffice to deal with any failure in training and protecting one's employees.
Free diving with large predatory Sharks in baited conditions used to largely be private undertakings but it is now being increasingly offered commercially. From this vantage point, this is bringing about a whole new set of specific risks (= foremost of which the great vulnerability of the customers at the water surface) that the paper appears to completely neglect.
This is novel territory that needs to be closely monitored, the more as those operations are mostly shoestring and largely improvised (and IMO highly sketchy), and with no relevant assets = nothing much to be had should the obvious risks end up eventuating.
But then again, nobody so far has died despite of all the stupid shenanigans, so who am I to say!
3. Long story short?
What really disappoints me is this.
We are in the middle of the sixth, anthropocene mass extinction requiring all hands on deck in order to try and stem the ongoing catastrophic loss of biodiversity - and yet some quarters find it fit to continue wasting scarce resources in terms of time, brain power and possibly also money on these irrelevant trifles.
The actual physical footprint of our industry is tiny.
And yet, we punch way above our weight in terms of outreach but also Shark and Ray conservation and research, and as such are an important agent for positive change = far from being a problem, we are very much part of the solution!
So why this exasperating fixation on wanting to meddle with what we do?
Yes, sure: we need to operate responsibly.
As ecotourism operators, all of us need to strive to have the smallest possible negative impact on the animals and their habitat, and we also need to operate safely - and the vast majority of us actually do!
Furthermore, we continue to learn from our mistakes, and continue to improve and refine our procedures, like we always have. In fact, we now even have an association of industry pioneers, leaders and trend setters that routinely discuss issues and develop solutions - like right now, we are developing Covid-19 protocols!
And if not, the market will do what markets do.
This is a small community where there are no secrets, and notorious transgressors will be
quickly weeded out as no travel agent and/or tourist will book dives with operators that are
known to be unsustainable and/or exploitative and/or life threatening =
which is why I continue to strongly support the establishment of a rating system
akin to what has been proposed here!
But enough said - like I said, I'm tired of this shit.
We did not ask for this - and all this incessant nagging and lecturing
by people who ultimately have no clue about, and zero investment into
our industry is frankly becoming terminally irksome.
There is now a
whole cabal of incidentally mainly female researchers whose academic
niche (and thus career and thus income) is predicated upon being
considered ecotourism experts, or whatever, and who appear to be
operating with questionable agendas and also appear to desperately want
to meddle instead of waiting to be asked.
Anyway.
When it comes to the global Shark diving industry in general, there are now one excellent paper and one good one (both, incidentally, by experienced Shark divers!) and several that are not, see e.g. here and also here, and here with links. And now there is this.
That's plenty enough, thank you very much. And now, please, why don't you just fuck off - because we actually got work to do, salaries to pay and tourists to wow!
