Oh for crying out loud!
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.
