Shout Out!

Watch this.

So here's the deal.

Mike Lever of GSD member Nautilus Liveaboards is traveling to Israel in order to participate in this year's edition of the Silence of the Sharks, and he is offering a gift certificate worth a whopping 1,800 bucks to any diver willing to travel there with him; plus, he has launched a children's poster competition.

Details here.

Having been asked to re-post, I'm happy to oblige.

I do this because Mike is a good man; because Nautilus Liveaboards is an awesome operator and member of GSD; because organizer David Pilosof is one of the few remaining mossbacks and deserves our respect; and yes, because the whole shebang features some pals, will likely cause no harm and is even likely to do a little bit of good.

So there you have it - do with it what you want! :)

PS: the  event has been postponed.

Eco-Terrorist on TED!

Yes I'm at it - again!

Watch this.

May this be a tad self congratulatory?

Yes most certainly - but that's just Shawn: incredibly passionate and incredibly eloquent! 

Plus, and that's the most important aspect: his uncompromising commitment to the cause, truly indefatigable efforts, superhuman energy levels, astounding output and above all, his unquestionable track record of success have certainly earned him every right to blow his own trumpet - especially when done in such an accomplished and charming way! :)

So bravo Shawn!

I'll take that anytime over the incessant oblique sniping by the petulant Dottore Ponzo che rima con stronzo!

Godspeed buddy, and thanks for all that you do!

Everybody hates those Activists - Paper!

Is this inspiring?

Surprised?

Me, not at all!

From the paper

Click for detail!

Activist and nonactivist perceivers may, however, respond differently to activist targets. 
Indeed, because individuals generally view ingroup members positively (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif 1961; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), activist perceivers may respond relatively favourably to ‘typical’ activists. On the other hand, because individuals have especially unfavourable impressions of group members who perform undesirable behaviours (Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1988), activist perceivers who condemn the use of militant methods to promote social change (e.g. ‘atypical’ activists) may react particularly negatively to ‘typical’ activists.

For many activists, the willingness to take a radical stand without regard for mainstream sensibilities is a point of pride. 
Indeed,environmental activist and author of ‘Tree Spiker’ Mike Roselle (as cited in Olafsson, 2009) defends his militant efforts to protect the environment, noting, ‘I don’t think there’s anything extreme about saying we have to stop pumping carbon into the air. If we’re extremists, so be it. The stakes are too high’ (para. 6).
The present research suggests, however, that such seemingly zealous dedication to a social cause may backfire and elicit unfavourable reactions from others. Indeed, individuals avoid affiliating with ‘typical’ activists and adopting the pro-change behaviours that these activists advocate because individuals associate them with negative stereotypes. 

Ironically and despite good intentions, therefore, the very individuals who are most actively engaged in promoting social change may inadvertently alienate members of the public and reduce pro-change motivation.

Bingo.

Said it a thousand times, and I spare you the links.

Synopsis here.

Sea Shepherd in the South Pacific?

First things first: read this.
The Fiji Blog is the official blog of Fiji's Ministry of Information.

What followed was a flurry of e-mails.
My friends being who they are, there was a lot of laughing, smirking and conspiratorial winking - so for the record: Beqa Adventure Divers have nothing whatsoever to do with that.
We are a foreign owned company and have no bearing whatsoever on what Fiji's government do and say. As Sea Shepherd HK's fiery Gary Stokes reveals, we limit our activities to feeding Sharks for money and to pursuing our ego-driven campaigns - and yes, we generally just stand on the sidelines and claim to be conservationists whilst having the audacity to critique others for actually doing something!
Well said!

PS! Gary has reached out & we're cool - I think. :)

Anyway.
What we did do, was to politely turn down a request by the SSCS for a few days of filming in the SRMR. As I said here, we want nothing to do with the dolphinization of Sharks, and we also certainly don't want to be in any way associated with Sea Shepherd's radical brand of conservation.
Having met him years ago, I don't like him much - but I do respect Watson for being one of the preeminent marine conservation activists. What I however hate are the personality cult, the hyperbole, the bullshit media, and the fanaticism and glaringly uncritical adulation by his devote followers - and let's not forget the simply atrocious poetry, barf!

Remember?
And if not...


Huge H/T to David!!!

Oh yes yes, I'm critiquing - again!

We were reinforced in our decision when a SSCS representative started making the rounds here in Fiji.
There was talk of an Animal Planet shoot, of two vessels coming here to hunt for illegal Shark finners, of roping in Ratu Epeli, of buxom bimbettes frolicking with Sharks etc. - in brief, some kind of Shark Wars, or whatever, combined with the usual self promotion by the Shark Angels, both of which I particularly despise.

But now, I read this.
Looks like someone has been listening, as this is really rather good, and kudos for that!

But is this the whole story?
You be the judge of that.



Well well.
Looks like nothing has changed after all.

I say, this is not the Pacific Way.
Nobody is asking anybody to put his life on the line (or was it, putting her life online? Detail detail!), and we down here have zero need for self-appointed deputy sheriffs, the more as this could once again lead to unwelcome political implications.
What we do require is intelligent, informed, committed and passionate people who help in advocating and then, implementing locally appropriate Shark management and conservation strategies, and this in a constructive, respectful and consensual way. This means hard, quiet and persistent work on the ground, and pursuing strategies that are diametrically opposed to Watson's interventionist approach.
This also means providing for resources for capacity building, monitoring, enforcement and prosecution - meaning time, talent and money and not foreign vessels playing policeman whilst starring for sensationalist reality shows.

Long story short?
Better change the playbook - or you'll be quickly celebrating the requiem for Operation Requiem!
My honest advice - free of charge!

PS: David - brilliant!
PS2: Patric on the Watson Doctrine & con-ninnies here!

And the saga continues...

Is the Tide turning?

Pro-Shark advocacy in Asia - good enough?

Check this out!



Great Job!
Good factual information, no hyperbole and especially, no mention of the dreaded phytoplankton - plus, good comments re finning vs fishing bans! And, I even discern the logo of our friends of Matava who must have done something right! :)

Quick comment.
Fiji has issued a statement of intent but is not a Sanctuary quite yet - like I fear Raja Ampat where the MPA is being advocated but not quite yet legislated. Correct?

But overall, yes, progress so far has been fabulous!
Which begs the question, where do we go from here?

Activism in Asia?

I must say, I'm quite impressed.
We host many Asian divers and although those people are certainly not mainstream insofar as they all love the ocean and probably even Sharks, it is good to hear first hand about the notable developments in Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. These changes are most certainly the result of the relentless advocacy by grassroots activist organisations like the HK Shark Foundation that have achieved much with little financial means but with a lot of passion and also inventiveness to compensate for it.
Kudos!

Will it be enough to ultimately save Sharks?
I frankly remain skeptical for the usual reasons. I fear that the bulk of the consumers does not hail from the educated elite and that hundreds of millions of potential consumers in the hinterlands, in mainland China, Taiwan and Japan are either not being reached or will not be swayed and will thus continue to drive the demand and thus the business of killing Sharks. The track record of trying to save animals by educating the Asian consumers sure sucks as witnessed by the latest appalling news for Rhinos from Vietnam and Africa.

But who am I to say.
There is always hope, and I'm also hearing about other strategies which I'm not at liberty to disclose but where chances for making a real impact appear higher. As long as these grassroots initiatives are local and thus locally credible, and as long as they don't detract from what I consider to be the principal job, ie to protect the Sharks where they are being fished, I cannot but applaud!

Fin Bans?

Apparently, this is the next big thing.
Pioneered by Stefanie and Senator Hee in Hawaii, initiatives aimed at banning the possession of Shark fins are popping up all over the US and its Territories, and Canada. I generally support them - but like Patric, I do question the way this has led to a ground swell of anti Asian statements among the more rabid activists. The leaders of those projects do have a responsibility here and they would be well served to publicly and unequivocally condemn those undertones. After all, we are claiming to be walking the high road here - correct?

And then there's this.
Copy/paste, and this badly, is not good enough I fear. When I speak to the most prominent advocates in this field, the one word that keeps popping up is clusterf8%K: sloppy legislation, ridiculous fines (California: USD 100 - 1,000 - WTF?), total lack of coordination, ego wars.
We can and need to do better!

Note: compare to this brand new post on Shark Defenders!

But the party may well be over..
If the Californian law suit against the ban succeeds, the whole concept risks crumbling like a house of cards or Colliers dreaded domino effect, meaning that once a precedent has been set, other existing bans may be affected as well!

Yes the cultural argument is pure hogwash, this is purely about the money.
But, it is an argument - and do we really know whether the bankrupt State, its Governor and its AG have any wish to invest money, time and passion into mounting a vigorous defense?
I'm sure I'm stating the obvious here: the Shark conservationists must provide for an amicus curiae and if so and after the frothiness of self promotion following the ban: who will take the lead in what promises to be a tedious protracted and costly undertaking and above all, who will fork out the necessary dollars?
Crowdfunding? Show me!

Finning Bans?

Please re-read this.
Those bans are difficult to enforce and increasingly, they do not save Sharks, or certainly not enough of them to make a difference. Also, they are being abused by the authorities in order not to do what really needs doing but is much more politically difficult: to enact the necessary Shark fishing bans.
Which brings me straight over to

Legislation?

That's the way to go.
Whether partial or total, fishing bans do save Sharks.
I was happy to see the partial successes in Europe and in the RFMOs like ICCAT but of course, more needs to be done. I am also very impressed by the successes in Florida and am frankly dismayed at the lack of any according activities in the other coastal states - or am I missing something here?
Yes it's tedious, difficult and requires being willing to compromise - but it saves Sharks and isn't this what we're all aiming for?
Any takers?

Sanctuaries?

Well that's obviously by far my preferred solution.
But... and without wanting to in any way detract from the spectacular successes: so far the going has been relatively easy and may continue to be just that in some additional island countries that are dependent on tourism but above all, where there is no important and thus powerful fishing industry. But the number of those countries is limited and beyond that, there will be significant push-back, meaning that positive results will be less easy to achieve.

Fiji?
Fiji is proving to be the first test case of whether rock solid conservation and economic arguments will ultimately prevail over those interests - and lemme tell 'ya, the jury is still very much out on that one, and this despite of a Fisheries Department that understands and is very much in favor of sustainability and marine conservation!
Fingers crossed!

Marine Protected Areas?

Absolutely - the bigger the better!

Policing, Enforcement and Prosecution?

Once again, please read this.
This where the rubber will hit the road in the long term: it is costly, difficult and frustrating and I fear that it will be an ongoing commitment for a very, very long time indeed as 7 billion people, and counting, will continue to exert relentless pressure on global resources and ecosystems.
Yes there's a glimmer of hope and good people are looking for solutions - or I wouldn't be doing this, the more as I'm not personally invested in the future.

But let there be no doubt that it's gonna be hard so let us all develop some over-arching game plan - or we will be running like headless chickens from one flash point to the other without ever tackling the underlying problems!

Other?

Shark Free Marinas anybody????
Remember?

That was two years ago and really, nothing has changed.
Seriously, how pathetic is that! Where are all those thousands upon thousands of advocates and sharktivists that populate all those pages? Having done it many a time: this is easy, all you have to do is walk to one of the marinas around where you live and start talking! Anybody can do it and for the marinas, it's free, it's easy and confers brownie points - and it does save Sharks!
Not a single listing for Oz and NZ - are you kidding me???

Anyway.
Just my 2¢ as always - do with it whatever you want!

Shark Finning Bans - good enough?

Stuff is happening in South & Central America.
Chile has banned Shark finning in 2011; Costa Rica and Colombia are establishing a task force to combat Shark poaching; as of January, shark finning is illegal in Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and the Dominican Republic and the Shark fin trade is being monitored.

Yes this is progress - but is it good enough?
According to this interview with Rándall Aráuz of PRETOMA, the principal shark fishing vessels operating in Costa Rican waters hail from Taiwan, Korea, China and Japan. With the at least tacit complicity of the Institudo Costarricense de Pesca INCOPESCA, they have been exploiting loopholes and flaunting the Costa Rican finning bans for years by first landing the fins at private docks and then re-routing the trade through Nicaragua when that became illegal.
This is big business, smells of corruption and organized crime and is thus difficult to combat.

And then, there's this.
As those big foreign fleets are depleting what used to be their traditional fishing grounds, the small artisanal fishermen are increasingly becoming desperate. As anybody who has ever dived there knows, the Pacific coast of South and Central America has been the scene of widespread poaching for Sharks for years. The principal targets are the protected Shark hotspots, i.e. the Galapagos, Gorgona, Malpelo, Coiba, Cocos and the very remote Clipperton, and the principal perpetrators are small long lining and drift netting vessels from Ecuador, Colombia, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Mexico, often once again at the expense of the local fishermen as per this interview from the Galapagos.



It really is a vicious circle.
The poaching triggers more poaching and whenever the perpetrators are being caught but then released as in this ignominious case in the Galapagos, it only reinforces the perception that all of this can be done in total impunity. And as the prices for the fins increase and markets for Shark meat and Shark products expand, it becomes increasingly economical to land the animals with the fins attached - and this even when the meat is being sold for a mere pittance or dumped in land fills as is apparently already happening in the US.
The result: the Sharks continue to be killed in record numbers - meaning that those finning bans are (valid) ethical causes but do not anymore save Sharks, at least not in sufficient numbers to really make a difference.

Solutions?
As I wrote here, the finning bans are archaic and ineffective, the latter because they require a huge amount of monitoring, enforcement and prosecution that often simply do not exist - and of course, the fishermen know that all too well and will cleverly exploit any weaknesses in the system. It's a matter of resources but also, of the necessary political will.

Hence my advocacy of Sanctuaries.
These must encompass the fishing per se but also address the enormous issue of Shark bycatch by prohibiting determined particularly harmful techniques - and within the country and its EEZ, the legislation must also prohibit the possession and trade of Sharks and Shark part all the way to import and export bans. Plus as I never cease to repeat, anybody engaging in advocacy in lesser developed countries has also a moral obligation to contribute to capacity building in monitoring, enforcement and prosecution.

This I believe is the best strategy.
Compared to the partial solution of finning bans, it is also BY FAR the easiest and cheapest to monitor and enforce as it is comparatively simple insofar as any commercial activity involving Sharks becomes illegal by definition.

Or as Matt Rand says

“Enforcement at port does not require additional -infrastructure, and additional training costs for customs and port officials can be minimal,” he says. “For this reason, Pew advocates for measures that prohibit the possession, trade, or sale of sharks or shark products as part of a nation’s shark sanctuary regulation or legislation. With no way to legally land or export sharks or shark fins at domestic ports, the incentive to target sharks is reduced, if not completely eliminated.
Boats catching sharks are forced to go farther and use more fuel to get to ports where they can offload their catch.”

Finning bans, although certainly better than no legislation at all, are often little more than band-aid solutions aimed at appeasing the environmentalists whilst not tackling the politically difficult issue of reducing Shark mortality, something that would pin the authorities against the lobby of the fishermen. Thus, finning bans often come at the direct expense of further-reaching legislation that would effectively save Sharks - and isn't that what we should be aiming for?
In brief, they are poor Shark conservation.

You may want to think about it next time you see one of those petitions.
For the Sharks, we can and must do better.

The Huffington Post - Correct but also, totally Wrong!

Squalus suckleyi, North Pacific Spiny Dogfish. Photo by Andy Murch (elasmodiver.com).

From the article.

Even if one doesn't like the taste or idea of shark fin soup, what is at stake is the individual's right to choose what to eat within the confines of the law, regardless of whether its production is offensive to some campaigners, celebrities or politicians.

The attempt to prohibit shark finning is an example of our illiberal times, where private activities such as eating are fair game for criticism and moral posturing.
It's an easy target for organisations such as PETA who have lost the public argument over the use of animals for other ends such as medical research and are looking for cheap victories elsewhere. It also reflects the difficulty we have in understanding where our food comes from and our estrangement from its production. Finning may be uncomfortable to watch but how easy would it be for most of us to watch what happens in an ordinary abattoir?

I say, not so fast, Mister!
This article has been obviously spawned by the shenanigans of those idiots over at PETA in particular and in general, by the dumbing down of Shark Conservation whereby some quarters have chosen to frame the narrative as an issue of cultural preferences.

It is of course not.
From a conservation standpoint, everybody, and that very much includes the Asian consumers of Shark fin soup and of Whales, is more than welcome to eat whatever they please - provided that what they eat is being harvested sustainably and produced and dispatched ethically!
Nothing whatsoever to do with individual rights and personal taste!

Finning is of course an ethical abomination that needs to be stopped.
But other than that, and I am of course repeating myself: when advocating Conservation, we need to always be pragmatic, fact based, solution oriented and willing to compromise. That also implies accepting that people fish for Sharks provided that it is done sustainably.

Still not at all convinced about the latter.
But, there is now the certification of the fishery for the recently described North Pacific, or Spotted Spiny Dogfish by the MSC . Everybody I'm sure will be watching - but should this really prove to be fully sustainable, I fully expect those fins to eventually turn up in California (hear hear!) following the recommendation of the Ocean Protection Council (scroll to bottom of link)!
And guess what: that's perfectly OK, the more as in Spiny Dogfish, the whole animal is utilized as the meat is much sought after and exported to Europe.

Long story short: we need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot.
Please!

Shark Attack or Accident?

Ever so often, Bruce goes and gets himself a human.

Not that he really likes to.
Humans taste awful - but ever since Bruce’s Ultra-Great-Great Uncle’s chance meal of a rare Homo erectus rafting out of Africa 1.5 million years ago instantly cured him of his gout, snacking on humans for medicinal purposes has become a valued family tradition.
When mum isn’t watching, Bruce spits it right back out but sometimes, as her nature would dictate, she insists on lurking nearby and he’s got no choice but to close his eyes and swallow.
Once, he tried pretending to make a mistake and munched on some Seal instead - alas to no avail: as everybody knows, Bruce is endowed with preternatural senses and thus infallible, and his cheating earned him a severe scolding along with a double helping of human.
Yukk!!

Other than that, Bruce is just being you good old average killer.
Most of the time, he will just lurk, stalk and devour and generally engage in his usual unpredictable and hence, misunderstood behavior.
Sometimes however, when in need of a dental make-over, he will go and bite a propeller (which he obviously knows for being a propeller) or a Shark diving cage (which he obviously knows for being a Shark cage) to make space for a brand spanky new set of replacement teeth.
Or, he will decide to hone his hunting skills by knowingly chasing after some decoy or surf board which being infallible and endowed with preternatural senses, he instantly recognizes for what they are.
And sometimes, when afflicted by human-induced stomach bloating, he will voluntarily (and knowingly) swallow old tires, anchors and even license plates to re-establish his buoyancy.

And when particularly boisterous, he will sneak up on some unsuspecting diver, scare the bejeesus out of him and then nibble at his strobes which owing to his infallible, and preternatural senses, he obviously recognizes as being strobes – all good fun really, and well within the unpredictable, misunderstood and yet, preternaturally infallible behavioral spectrum of any member of Bruce’s tribe!

Have I completely lost my mind?
Quite - but what has actually prompted me to write this stupidity is the frustrating comments thread on this article about Jimmy’s book.

Among the commentators, it comes at no surprise that I discover the token Shark conspiracist and voyeuristic parasite Richard Harris.
Like any self respecting roach, he has not simply gone away but keeps crawling back out from his hidey hole, this time to bite at Jimmy’s ankles.
Oh well, all Harris has once again managed to do, is to prove that he’s nothing but a pathetic bottom feeder – not to worry.

Drudown on the other hand is crafty.
Apparently equally obsessed with the same morbid fascination for Shark attacks, he is obviously intelligent, erudite and very well documented on the specific subject – oh, and very very self enamored on top of that! It’s not the first time that I come across his propositions and actually unpleasantly remember his comments on an old and unfortunately, hence deleted thread on SouthernFriedScience as being basically a carbon copy of the present ones.

His modus operandi is essentially, to provoke the Shark conservationists by depicting Sharks as man eaters and then, to smugly pick apart any inevitable dissenting opinion.
The latter is of course easy: like it or not, the man is absolutely right and anybody denying the obvious, a fool: some species of Sharks have attacked and eaten people, period! And the fixation on calling everything an accident - pure Ritter!

The bulk of his ranting is however nothing but smug pseudoscientific BS.

Yes, maybe

With regards to "accidents" resulting from alleged "mistaken identity", this misguided “theory” totally disregards the shark’s uniquely adapted perceptive faculties OTHER than sight, e.g., ampullae of lorenzini, hearing, smell and lateral lines. By virtue of natural selection, ALL of these enable sharks to quickly identify and differentiate potential meals. The human being does NOT emit the same electro magnetic current as a seal, a turtle or any marine creature… There is no scientific evidence supporting "mistaken identity" nor is it subject to the scientific method.

And yet, Sharks continue to make obvious mistakes and ingest and attack a large variety of inedible items with electromagnetic and other signatures that are completely different from their habitual prey – the principal, and fatal one being fishing lures!
And why have they not learned (having had time immemorial to adapt) to aggregate on our beaches that are teeming with suitable and largely defenseless prey, but continue to engage in the cumbersome and frustrating business of hunting Fishes and Seals instead - maybe, because that’s what they normally prey on?

As to the following, what can I say

Yet because the human/h. erectus has been in ocean for over 1mm-2mm years, we are part of the marine food chain...as a competitor and prey item for a handful of sharks… Until someone can disprove my theories, I don't care if you head the ISAF, bunk science is bunk science… Why don't you enlist your favorite shark guru and have them rebut my theories right here…

It’s of course utter rubbish, as in sutor ne supra!
First and foremost, and contrary to religion and all those whacko new age and conspiracy theories, science (as in the abovementioned scientific method) does not work that way!
Nobody has to disprove anybody’s theories, it's very much the contrary: in science and truth-finding in general, he who advances a hypothesis has the onus of proving his assertions - and no, rhetoric is no scientific proof, however erudite it may be!

But for the sake of the stupid argument: Drudown wants to make us believe that Sharks have somehow learned to specifically identify humans as prey items, and that that knowledge has been passed down through the generations ever since Homo erectus rafted out of Africa (?), or whatever.
By world of mouth? Or has the knowledge been imprinted genetically – and if so, through which mechanism and owing to which selective evolutionary pressure?
Right…

But I’m digressing as always.
I’ve said it before, any explanations for the causes of Shark attacks are ultimately nothing but hypotheses that may, or may not be plausible but will forever remain untested and thus, scientifically unproven – for obvious reasons!

Plus, really, who cares!
By any metrics, Shark attacks are freak events, an utter nothingness when compared to the deluge of tragedies afflicting humankind – so can we all please stop hyperventilating?
Yes the stupid stereotypes, the voyeuristic trolls and the public’s fascination with Shark attacks are a reliable source of income for the tabloids and Discovery Channel and thus particularly irritating – but let’s face it, that’s just how people are.

What however really frustrates me is that it is us, the Shark conservationists, who ultimately provide a platform for the paparazzi like Harris and Drudown, and the stupid Con-troversies!

As Drudown correctly remarks, there is nothing mutually exclusive about conservation and the truth!
Like many of their terrestrial counterparts, some species of Shark sometimes feed on humans despite the fact that people are not their primary prey - and guess what: it’s totally OK!
It makes them neither Bad nor Good, they are just being predators!

So why our denial, our massaging of numbers, our politically correct lingo, our constant belittling of the risks, our pseudoscience and stereotypes, our unhelpful demonizing of the fishermen? Does anybody really believe that it is helpful?
Do Lion conservationists resort to lying and disinformation when trying to protect Lions?

Thing is, the truth is on our side anyway!
Far from being the stalking, ever-hungry killers, even the biggest predatory Sharks appear to be unendingly tolerant of aquatic recreationists in general and divers in particular. As somebody who has logged thousands of cage-less baited dives with some of the most maligned species, I fully concur with Jimmy when he says that they are nothing but smart, graceful, interesting and COOL – and frustratingly shy on top of that!
And let me add that I never, ever had the feeling that they were sizing me up as a potential meal, ever!

Having said this, one must however never forget that they are at the same time incredibly powerful and potentially lethal!
Shark attacks will continue to occur as long as people will continue to frequent the Oceans. Most will be hit-and-run strikes by small piscivorous Sharks and some, accidents like the tragic death of Markus Groh – and a tiny minority will be genuine predatory events.

The sooner we accept that and abandon our failed marketing, or whatever, the sooner we can start educating the public about the true nature of the animals we love.
It has worked with the big terrestrial predators and I have no doubt that over time, people will come to appreciate the big predatory Sharks for what they really are: potentially lethal and awe inspiring but at the same time, fascinating and once you get to know them better, even endearing – and above all, essential for the health of their habitat and tragically endangered.

As to those trolls – without our stupid clamoring, they are nothing!
As they say where I come from: Raglio d’asino non sale in cielo!

Enough said.

Dear Mary

Bravo Terry: great Photography amidst a deluge of forgettable pics from Lupe!

I must apologize for the delay in answering your comments.
Thing is, we’re currently incredibly busy (95% doing, 5% ranting) - and I felt that I needed to devote some time to formulating a more exhaustive response.
So there.

First of all, I really want to thank you for having raised your voice in protest - and I commend you for having done it openly.
I know who you are and admire you for your passion, commitment, eloquence and intelligence. We’re clearly not on the same page on this one – but I very much welcome this discussion as I strongly believe that we will only progress by engaging in dialogue, some of which needs to be controversial and robust. And yes, that sometimes includes ranting, especially in the context of a blog like this one!
Let’s however never forget that in the big scheme of things, we’re on the same side and that this is a squabble between friends, not foes!

Let me try to put things into context.
As you know I’m basically a full-time Shark conservationist. I do what I do the way I do it , and I say what I say based on a specific set of assumptions.
Please bear with me if I try and describe them as follows.

Assumption 1

The Big Gorillas are Population Growth and even more problematic (and largely overlooked), the fact that everybody is striving to attain a “better” life which in practical terms translates into increasing one’s Ecological Footprint.
That is simply not sustainable and if left unchecked, the future looks grim indeed – as in: there will be no future!
If so, we will descend into Chaos and Anarchy, and Conservation will be the least of our concerns.

Assumption 2

One of the immediate consequences of the above is that Life expressed in terms of Biodiversity is experiencing a severe bottleneck, especially when it comes to terrestrial habitats where anthropogenic extinctions are rampant.
Hopefully, we will come to the conclusion that this is not what we want (Ed Wilson’s Biophilia) and if we do, the future will consist in some form of less diverse “Nature” which will however not just “be”, but which we will have to actively manage.
Yes that includes Shark stocks, too!

Assumption 3

When it comes to the Oceans, I believe that the situation is somewhat different.

I believe that we generally grossly under-estimate the size, fecundity and regenerative powers of Marine ecosystems.
Yes there’s widespread pollution, habitat degradation and blatant overfishing: but despite of our best efforts, it appears that we’ve “only” managed to exterminate a small number of Marine Mammals, no Marine Cetaceans and, possibly with the exception of some obscure deep-sea Sharks, zero Marine Fishes!

Yes the Cod, Orange Roughy and Chilean Sea Bass fisheries have collapsed and the Northern Bluefin Tuna appears to be critically endangered – but there are still Cod, Orange Roughies and Chilean Seabass and Northern Bluefins and if we just leave them alone, populations will very likely recover. We may pollute and bomb a Reef to smithereens: but just leave it alone, and it will miraculously recover within the shortest period of time.

Those, I understand, are the facts – I’m not saying that this is great and that we should thus feel free to continue to reap and pillage: but anthropogenic terrestrial and marine extinction rates are clearly very different.

Consequently, I advocate the creation of a multitude of MPAs (the more and bigger, the better) where Biodiversity can shelter in order to re-colonize the surroundings once we finally decide to just leave them alone.
That’s the good news.

Assumption 4

The bad news is that anthropogenic Climate Change and especially, its ugly cousin Ocean Acidification (read this!) may indeed tip the scale towards a total collapse of Marine habitats and related widespread Marine extinctions.
If so, all for which we so valiantly fight (and rant) will have been for naught.

But one has to choose one’s fights and like in the case of the Big Gorillas, this is not where I’ve chosen to be active. We at BAD are however certainly trying to make a (ridiculously small) contribution by always trying to reduce our Carbon footprint and advocating a greener lifestyle.
Let’s just hope that a Nobel Prize and an Oscar will prove sufficient to sway the masses (and the politicians!) to do the right thing – tho after Copenhagen, I’m far from believing that this is anywhere close to being a done deal…

Assumption 5

Species protection does not work. What works is habitat protection.

Assumption 6

I believe that the totality of resources (as in people, brain power, time and money) available to Conservation (and incidentally, to Research) is finite.
And not only that: the sum has been decreasing due to the global recession and also due to the plethora of other competing “worthy” causes, as in Haiti, AIDS, teenage pregnancies, poverty alleviation and-so-on-and so forth – many of which, alas, are directly contributing to making the Big Gorilla even bigger!

If the above is true, and I believe it is, we are looking at a classical zero sum game whereby if we invest any resources into a particular project, we are automatically crippling other projects.

To me, the inevitable consequence of the above is that we must define our priorities and invest those resources prudently and with a view to attaining the best possible results in the most effective and efficient way – very much like the ROI in the “real” world.
And like in the “real” world, we have an obligation to question the efficiency and effectiveness of those different projects and to hold the project leaders accountable - for their success but also for their failure, and this in absolute terms but also, in relative terms when compared to possible alternatives!

Take The Cove: all that hype and praise irritates me!
The movie decries the fact that some Japanese trap some Dolphins, a non-endangered species, in Japan. Some are exported for Dolphin shows; some are killed in unethical ways and then eaten. Certainly all very disturbing - but that's a (legitimate) animal welfare and not a conservation issue!

Did I hear: "sentient being"? And the Vaquita? Please read the link!
Couldn’t all those resources have helped in trying to reverse the decline of the Vaquita, maybe the most critically endangered Cetacean – the more as its demise is very much happening just south of the border? And who, please, is fighting for the Yangtze Dolphin?

Am I entitled to ask those questions?

I also believe that in this day-and-age, the only justification for investing those scarce resources into biological Research is that it directly benefits Conservation and that it satisfies the most stringent ethical imperatives.
And, we must strive to avoid redundant duplications (please, no more tagging of Pacific GWs!), we must oblige scientists to collaborate (which they mostly do) and we must ask that those scientists we finance produce regular results as expressed in scientific publications, etc.

As an example, I’m highly distressed when I hear that Taxonomy, the science that documents Biodiversity, is on the decline, to the point that an increasing number of Institutions are dropping it from the curriculum, that the current Taxonomists have issues of succession and that funding for expeditions is drying up.
Did you know that Jack Randall, the greatest Fish Taxonomist in history, is currently unemployed and unfunded? How is that possible???

And why are there so many competing research projects, NGOs and initiatives targeting the very same issues and incidentally, squandering so much money on aggregate overhead? How can that be beneficial to the cause?
In that regard, Kudos for having established the SSN – very much the way to go!

Now when it comes to Shark Conservation, which is what I do.

Assumption 7

I believe that apart from the doomsday scenarios of Climate Change and Ocean Acidification, the biggest threat to Sharks is overfishing.
In that, I’m partly contradicting my previous argument about the Ocean’s unbridled regenerative powers. I do this in view of the fact that Sharks have a much lower fecundity than most Fishes and that some populations seem to be quite small, as in, apparently, 3-4,000 in the case of GW and maybe even less for some deep-water species.

Assumption 8

I however also believe that the status of Shark stocks is not uniformly catastrophic but that it varies according to species and to regions.
The consequence is that in order to be credible and efficient, we should prioritize our resources in order to direct them to the preservation of those species that are most threatened.
Trivial – but are we doing so?

Assumption 9

The ultimate solution to overfishing is not prohibition, it is to fish sustainably.
This is a central theme of this blog.
The sooner we accept that, the sooner we'll be able to help the Sharks.

In a nutshell, I believe that killing Sharks for food is OK as long as it is done sustainably.
This means that where they are depleted, stocks must be allowed to recover and after that, fishing quotas must remain below the rate of replenishment. I believe that to be true of all fisheries, be it for Sardines, Tuna, Sharks or, yes, Whales!

The practice of finning however is a completely different topic: it is ethically reprehensible for being both wasteful and extremely cruel and needs to be stopped.

Assumption 10

I believe that the fisheries for Sharks (i.e. mainly for their fins) is supply limited, meaning that the demand for Shark Fins greatly outweighs the supply. This is why Shark fins remain one of the most expensive marine commodities.

No clue why the soup has gone down-market.
Maybe because the Shark fishermen catch more Sharks? Maybe because they have reduced their overhead/fin by becoming more efficient? Maybe because cheaper soups contain less desirable and thus cheaper fins? Maybe because there are less fins in one unit of cheap soup?

Anyway, if that is true, I believe that targeting the demand is a very very long shot indeed!
Take your example: 200 posters were noticed by 19% of Beijingers, of which 82% said that they would forego the soup – gives a penetration of 16%.
Now, as I said, if the demand were 4 times the supply, you would need a penetration of more than 75% before a single Shark (!!!) would be spared! How many eaters of soup are there? How many is 75% of that? How many posters would have to be deployed where? How much would that cost?
Is that realistic? Is that the best possible way of investing those resources?
And if it is not – may I criticize it?

One common friend sent me a message stating that when Shark conservationists squabble, no Sharks are being saved.
I disagree! “Squabbling” about the most efficient strategies does save Sharks if it improves the strategies and saves more Sharks! And again, this is never meant ad personam, at least not by yours truly – tho I understand that it may come across as such, which is deplorable but sometimes inevitable!

Anyway, with that in mind, I believe that Shark Conservation should target the supply side by concentrating on the Countries where the Sharks are being caught and exported from and where their demise is creating the biggest negative impact.
Yes that may sometimes be a long shot, too – but I strongly believe that given the right amount of resources and flanked by education and alternatives for the fishermen, it still is the better strategy.

I believe this to be true because it is in the ultimate interest of those Countries to preserve their stocks at sustainable levels and to avoid the collapse of their Marine Ecosystems.

The bulk of the consumers, on the other hand, must only contend with issues of availability and price, and if you’re lucky, with ethical considerations - IMO, not a very strong motivator for changing one’s habits.
Sure did nothing for Rhinos and Elephants, another supply limited commodity – whereas protecting them in Africa seems to work.

And talking of ethics: this is why I did propose the certified Shark Fin soup as an alternative to changing habits altogether.

With that in mind, I believe that the way to go is as follows – and yes, think “Rhinos and Elephants”.

A. The establishment of MPAs in order to preserve the Sharks’ habitats.
Here, I believe that we already dispose of a global network that needs to be activated, and that is us in the Dive Industry. Every single dive operator should be held accountable for protecting the resource he derives his sustenance from – this not only because it’s only fair and ethical, but also because it’s good business!

As an example, the single most photographed, filmed and loved Shark in the Universe is Emma.
So, why are all those countless Emma- and Shark-loving bigwigs not actively engaged in getting Emma and Tiger Beach protected – or are they, very much silently, petition-less and behind the scenes? Yes the “political” situation is complicated and some feathers may well get ruffled – but then, when was Conservation easy? And how much sweeter could success possibly be?
Or am I just ranting – again?

B. The establishment of pro-Shark legislation.
No widespread conservation is possible without the adequate legislative framework.
Achieving this is not trivial but certainly not impossible. Most Governments are open to good arguments, the principal one being that the indiscriminate slaughter of Sharks has devastating effects rippling down through the trophic chain, all the way to the demise of entire Marine ecosystems.

Generally, this consists in advocating sustainable fisheries and ideally, moratoriums (all the way to Shark Sanctuaries) as long as some stocks are too depleted or until there are sufficient data to determine sustainable levels.
The recent protection of Lemon Sharks in Florida is an excellent example of the former and the Honduran moratorium, an excellent example of the latter.
Kudos!

Can this be replicated in, say, Yemen? I betcha it can – but somebody has to go and do it! Who, and who’s going to pay for that?
And how about Ecuador, Colombia, Costa Rica and Mexico where the fishermen are slaughtering “our” Scalloped Hammerheads? Don’t know if it has: but if not, shouldn’t Sharkwater rather be translated into Spanish and be shown there, where it happens?

How many Shark fishing countries have no pro-Shark legislation and what can be done to change that?

C. Which leads me straight over to the need for effective enforcement.
Now this is really the biggest challenge of them all. Here, we are confronted with a lack of resources, often coupled with indifference and corruption, especially in lesser developed countries. This I believe is where we need to direct the bulk of our resources, be it in terms of personal efforts, funds and hardware but also, education and the establishment of alternatives for the fishermen.

In Fiji, we currently compensate the fishermen for not fishing in the MPA but also employ Fish Wardens who have the authority to enforce the law.
And we’re pretty big in outreach, via the local media all the way to a local PSA but also, our youth sponsorship program and presentations to local communities.
In the future, we would like to expand Shark awareness to the school curriculum – but we simply lack the necessary time and manpower and are thus currently trying to outsource it to one of the local NGOs.

D. We should also sponsor research so that our decisions are backed by objective data.
As you know, this is one of the cornerstones of our Fiji Project.

E. "Other"?

Shark Free Marinas Initiative anybody?
Yes the initiator may, or may not be the Antichrist – but is it saving Sharks? Incredibly efficiently so, as signing up costs precisely zero?
21 in Fiji – and how many in the USA? Australia? South Africa? Asia?
How about that for petty squabbling and tribalism huh.

Petitions?
My hunch is that they only make sense when coupled with real action “on the ground”.
Thus, I believe that the Florida Lemon Shark petition and the Hawaii Shark Preservation letter campaign were useful in reinforcing the arguments of the people pursuing those local projects. I believe that the Discovery petition was largely a flop because nobody really cared to go and pursue any direct follow-up with the network – though having said this, I hear that things there may be changing, hopefully for the better.
The other petitions, to me, are just a total waste of time – especially all those competing “stop finning” gigs! More than happy to be proven wrong though!

Activism?
Not convinced!
Conservation is about hard facts, hard and often tedious work, perseverance and commitment, often difficult negotiations.
Yes, and of course passion – but passion alone just aint good enough!

All-to-often, activism is just too hopelessly amateurish, too emotional, too little fact-based, too confrontational and too little solution-oriented. Too often, I fear that it harms rather than being helpful. Too often, I get the impression that the perpetrators are mainly interested in personal aggrandizement and that the initiatives are nothing but marketing stunts – and this includes many of those pro-Shark websites which are so long on pontificating and petitions and so short on results!

And what about our own ideologies and stereotypes. Very unhelpful.
“Sharks” are not “misunderstood”, at least not by the people who take the time to learn about them! People who don’t take the time to learn about dogs “misunderstand” them – wow, what a profound message!
Which species are we talking about anyway: Whale Sharks? Cookie Cutters? Swell Sharks?
Do we “understand” them?

Yes I’m being facetious - but seriously: our biggest capital is to be honest and objective, especially when we are trying to counter the anti-Shark stereotypes!
Romanticizing interactive encounters with large predatory Sharks is stupid and as such, bad marketing. Using numbers that are based on conjecture and untested (although certainly plausible) hypotheses is counter productive. Right now, the only verified number is approx. 30 to 70, which is 50 and not 100, full stop – and that’s just a number, it says nothing about sustainability which is all that counts!

Can we maybe just be a little more humble and less righteous, the more since Conservation is so complicated? Maybe progress towards more facts and less truthiness (read this!)?
Can we maybe just open our eyes and wonder at the magnificence of what is instead of trying to make things up?

In a way, it is the very deluge of platitudes, pseudoscience and exaggerated doomsday scenarios in all those pedestrian wannabee Sharkwater clones that has helped spawn rubbish like Shark Con – and I’m certainly gonna leave it at that, the more as I firmly believe that we should just ignore it and not contribute to its marketing by engaging in the usual vociferous con-troversies!

We are the amateurs.
Can we please listen to what the professionals are telling us – the principal message being that extreme positions (on both sides!) are inhibiting Conservation and appropriate Management measures?

There you have it Mary!
This is basically where I personally come from - and yes, alas, it includes a lot of skepticism!
But having said this, we’ve certainly come a long long way and I remain very hopeful that we will succeed in turning things around!

Dunno if I’ve managed to adequately address your reservations.
But I’m thankful for having been given the chance to put things into context.

You too, take care!