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!
Showing posts with label Charlie Huveneers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charlie Huveneers. Show all posts
I was staying at Sané and Annabelle's epic Tetamanu Village and was fortunate to catch the magic moment when the sun reflects off the Sharks on an early morning incoming tide - and for you insiders, the first two clips are from the challenging trou aux requins in Apataki.
Notice how the Sharks are barely moving?
They are literally surfing the current - and here's the according paper courtesy of Yannis, Johann, Serge, Charlieet al, inclusive of how they use a conveyor-belt positioning system to ensure that the groups remain stationary over the most advantageous spots.
In brief and assuming I understand this correctly, those GWS don't turn up randomly but appear to favor (and hence possibly travel with) determined buddies and even form distinct groups that appear to persist for years. Nice to see Johann, Charlie and Andrew among the authors, and kudos to GSD member Rodney Fox Shark Expeditions for having enabled yet another stellar paper - and incidentally, congrats for the great new boat!
That was obviously several years ago, and today we know quite a bit more. Specifically, we have learned that although our dive has minor local impacts, effects at the ecosystem level remain negligible as our Bulls continue to roam and do neither get conditioned to coming ever more frequently, let alone residing here or changing their migrations or mating cycles, etc; nor do they in any way become dependent on our handouts - tho I was certainly wrong when speculating about the nutritional value of the Tuna heads! But be it as it may, the restaurant analogy remains fully confirmed.
And the part about the Bulls likely being solitary?
I still believe that in the case of those large reef-dwelling Sharks, and barring any cooperative hunting for which we have zero evidence, evolution would have selected against traveling with, and thus having to compete and/or possibly even share meals with conspecifics.
But then again, who am I to say.
I can't divulge too much - but I can say that 10 years after that post, we are finally about to reveal some conclusive evidence!
As a reminder, it showed that despite of being fed one ton of highly nutritious Tuna heads every week, our Sharks showed only negligible nutritional impacts, i.e. a) no evidence of bait incorporation by our non-resident Bull Sharks, whereas b) for some of our much more resident Whitetip Reefies, the Tuna incorporation was a mere 8–22%.
Consequently, we surmised that both species are not being harmed but instead continue to fulfill their ecological role practically unchanged.
All global cage diving regulations stipulate that the Sharks can only be teased but not fed, which far from being "good" let alone "eco", actually appears to harm them as they incur a metabolic loss as a consequence - and if our highly fed Bulls show no bait incorporation, there was never any way that the tiny amount of Tuna pilfered by those GWS would have any effect at all!
And then there is this, and I cite,
The provisioning attracts a number of animals, including birds,
teleosts and other chondrichthyans, some of which are potential white
shark prey items (e.g. yellowtail kingfish Seriola lalandi, bronze
whalers Carcharhinus brachyurus, and rays). However, the shark's unaltered
diet negates concerns that large groups of teleosts, encouraged
by the presence of bait and chum, create additional feeding opportunities
around the cage-diving operators....
Additionally, dive operators and scientists
have yet to witness attempted predation on any of the species attracted
by the bait and chum, despite close proximity and apparent ease of
capture (pers. com. A. Fox and A. Wright). This combination of observation
and dietary biomarkers negates the hypotheses that provisioning
creates additional or unnatural foraging opportunities for white
sharks around cage-diving operations.
Bingo - this is totally our observation, too!
Those prey items obviously know that the Sharks are there and remain highly vigilant - and having lost the element of surprise, those Sharks don't even bother trying.
And there you have it.
Well done Lauren and Charlie for having added another piece to the puzzle - and I may add, for once again exposing all those irritating unsubstantiated reservations by our detractors as being just that, and pretty much rubbish to boot!
Great job by Charlie in getting feedback from the quasi-totality of GWS researchers, which sure makes for an interesting assortment of names; great questions that obviously also pertain, mutatis mutandis, to other Shark species; and last but not least, great bibliography for further reading!
Austin and Charlie are certainly good guys and good researchers, and quite knowledgeable about the Shark diving industry, too; and with that in mind, I can most certainly refrain from delving in the nether regions of stuff like the infamous Kardashian Index (and here - anybody come to mind? Hint: "cites me") let alone level accusations of sesselfurzing or ultracrepidarianism, the more as the paper, albeit being a bit lean, is certainly nothing terrible.
And yet I am once again irritated.
First things first: those issues they mention are valid.
So yes, granted, there are challenges.
But we as an industry are on top of them and are continuously evolving and improving - and the only thing that is emerging here, is that terminally irritating fad whereby there appears to be grant money for all those people = mostly scientific lightweights, to come sticking their noses into our business unbidden!
Commercial and recreational overfishing, climate change, ocean acidification, pollution and habitat destruction are. Instead, we are certainly a part of the solution - even the worst ones among us! But yes we always need to learn, evolve and improve - and
this ideally via self regulation. And if not, then regulation is
certainly both opportune and necessary!
B. When it comes to the whole fucking never-ending controversy about provisioning.
People who feed and condition Sharks are called fishermen - not a few dive operators: so please do focus on them and not us! And anyway, this is one of the safest underwater activities by far
= with one single fatality during thousands upon thousands of baited
dives, it is orders of magnitude safer than ordinary SCUBA!
Yes there are effects on the animals, the principal one being conditioning - but they are largely short-term, localized and sublethal, and in no way comparable to the threats Sharks face otherwise! But yes there too we need to minimize our impact - and guess what, most of us largely do!
C. And finally, to those researchers and NGOs.
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 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.
So, thank you gents - I know you mean well.
But now, if I may: could you please refocus your attention and notoriously scarce time on more pressing issues than whether Shark provisioning may also, gasp, condition and feed some Fishes!, and revert to doing research that actually helps us save some Sharks?
What followed were a Shark bite and then a devastating impromptu test - and yet the Garrisons and even more problematically, Craig O'Connell of questionable Shark Week fame have continued to defend the indefensible and conned the public (scroll down) into believing that the gizmos had been tested scientifically and proven to be effective, which they clearly never had.
But now those independent tests have been performed.
Bravo to Charlie, and big kudos to Andrew who continues to make GSD proud.
This is a great illustration of the test setup.
And this is the reaction of GWS' to the Shark Shield
(
Ocean Guardian
)
Freedom+ Surf which is actually the only repellent that worked, albeit only a measly 60% of the time which IMO just ain't quite good enough - or is it?
And the Banz?
And I cite,
Neither the
SharkBanz bracelet
nor
leash
affected
the behaviour of white sharks or
reduced
the percentage of baits taken.
These products rely on permanent
magnets
(Grade
C8
barium
ferrite), which
have previously been used to
overwhelm
the
electromagnetic sense
of sharks
.....
However, the distance from which sharks reacted to magnets in those studies
was small, typically less than 0.5 m
and the
effectiveness
of
the magnets decreased with increasing shark motivation.
Barium-ferrite
permanent magnets generate a flux that
decreases at the inverse cube in relation to the
distance from the magnet, from near 1000 G at the source to an amount
comparable to the
Earth’s magnetic field (0.25
– 0.65 G) at distances of 0.30
– 0.50 m,
showing how rapidly the magnetic field decreases. Sharks would therefore need to be
at less than 0.30
m for such magnets to act as real deterrents.
This suggests that magnets are unlikely to be
effective at deterring sharks because
they will only protect close
to the magnet, limiting
their
applicability
as personal deterrents...
Exactly what I said back then!
Incidentally, same same for the ludicrous Chillax wax!
Those of you who remember the episode of Mythbusters where Lemon Sharks were completely unfazed after ingesting balloons filled with mashed habaneros may remember that lacking that necessity, Sharks have simply not developed receptors for capsicain - so a concoction of eucalyptus, chilli, cloves, cayenne pepper, neem, tea tree oil, citronella, coconut, and beeswax was always gonna be a stretch. And it sure was.
Disappointed reaction here - and no, it just doesn't bloody work and sure ain't commonsense, either!
You can read the paper here, and here is a great synopsis by Corey.
Once again (re-read it!), this is not principally about the perpetrators that can (and should!) be taken to court. It's about the public as those things may actually lead to MORE Shark strikes because as Corey states
if a particular type of commercially available shark deterrent happens to be less effective (or completely ineffective) as advertised, it can give users a false sense of security, potentially encouraging some to put themselves at greater risk than is necessary. For example, some surfers and spearfishers probably ignore other mitigation measures, such as beach closures, because they ‘feel safe’ when wearing these products.
"Best practice" among cage diving operations apparently consists in just
teasing, but never actually handing any bait to the Sharks.
Were I a Shark hugger, I would immediately object that letting the
Sharks waste precious energy on fruitless "hunts" is to be rejected as
it is likely harmful to the animals.
Yup that would be yours truly a whopping ten years ago!
And now Charlie has concluded his investigation and comes to the following conclusion (emphasis is mine)
Although sharks are enticed to the cage-diving vessels with baits,
industry regulations do not allow operators to feed white sharks and
strict limits on the amount of bait and berley are now in place in South
Australia and at other white shark cage-diving locations (Bruce, 2015). Energy burden from the increased activity is, therefore, not rewarded
by regular bait provisioning.
Some baits can, however, be consumed when
sharks approach the baits using high speed or stealth (Huveneers et al., 2015).
The baits used in SA are composed of gills and stomach lining of
southern bluefin tuna and are not as energy-rich as white shark’s
natural prey while at these sites (e.g. pinnipeds). Whether the
infrequent consumption of these baits provide sufficient energy to
compensate for the increased energy expenditure associated with sharks
interacting with the operators would depend on the calorific value of
these baits and the frequency of white sharks successfully feeding on
the baits, both of which are currently unknown (Brunnschweiler et al., 2017).
Spending time interacting with cage-diving operators might also
distract sharks from normal behaviours such as foraging on natural,
energy-rich prey like pinnipeds. Combined, these suggest that the
increased energy expenditure associated with cage-diving interactions
might not be compensated for by either bait or natural prey consumption.
One could, therefore, argue that white sharks should be able to feed on
some bait to compensate for the energetic losses resulting from
interacting with cage-diving operators. Bioenergetic models (e.g. Barnett et al., 2016)
would, however, be necessary to accurately assess the likely effect of
cage-diving on white shark energy balance and whether such compensation
is necessary or beneficial. Beyond the potential for short-term energy
intake, other aspects of food provisioning (e.g. quality of food,
potential for changes in foraging behaviour) would also need to be
considered.
Good one - and obviously, totally not surprised!
This is now the second paper (re-read this!) stating that NOT feeding is probably not a good idea - and whereas I concur that further investigation into the precise energy balance, etc may be beneficial, we should really not caught up in minutiae and finally do the right thing.
So what's it gonna be?
Now that the evidence is in, will the regulators in Australia and elsewhere do the right thing and allow for proper feeding of those Sharks - or are they going to continue cow-towing to those in the populace who will contend that it would lead to more Shark attacks, and the like?
Remember that when it comes to feeding and conditioning Sharks, 99.999% is being perpetrated by the fishermen and not us - so assuming that it really is a big problem (spoiler = it aint: these are the real problems, with overfishing being the principal threat to Shark populations) let's maybe first look there! !
Those are Western Australia's Rules for Shark interactions by Aquatic Eco Tours. “Aquatic eco-tourism” is defined as tourism relating to fish in their natural environment and includes the viewing or feeding of fish but does include the taking of fish.
Yup that would be yet another production for Shark Week barging in and rubbishing yet another location. And surprise surprise: like he has e.g. already done in Fiji, the Bahamas, Guadalupe and New Zealand, the hypocritical king of Shark porn is once again smack in the middle of it all.
Just great isn't it.
And let's be crystal clear about it: this is not fucking CinemaScience(I mean, seriously!!!) or environmental filmmaking let alone conservation = this is illegal, unethical and exploitative rubbish perpetrated by human garbage - and let there be no doubt that Discovery Channel is certainly an accomplice, too!
Anyway, not surprised - but it sure is a crying shame seeing Charlie's name associated with that shit!
And like an old broken record let me repeat
Here are my own questions to fellow Shark diving operators, researchers and conservationists.
Are we going to continue pretending this aint happening?
Are we going to continue watching that shit?
Are we the operators going to continue enabling it?
Are we going to continue giving our business to operators who do?
Are we going to continue associating with those people?
To wit, Juerg and Charlie's latest little publication about our serial observations of Mrs. Jaws: maybe a bit lean for a conventional scientific publication but certainly interesting - or not?
And there are also videos!
Methinks this one where she was swimming around with a fishing popper lure is when the whole fiasco with the chronic infection really started to get serious - and this recent one with the grotesquely deformed jaw breaks my heart whenever I see it, as it really bodes ill for her faculty to feed successfully. Here's to me being mistaken - but we haven't seen her in a while and I'm frankly not very hopeful alas!
This compares to 42.2m for Fiji, 18m for Palau or a whopping 109m for the Bahamas - or maybe not quite as this paper only looks at direct expenditures. This also compares to the value of 2.2 bn dollars attributed to Australia's dive-related spending for marine tourism.
Frankly, I'm not terribly impressed.
Considering the size of Australia's tourism industry but also, the sheer potential bearing in mind Australia's enormous coastline and wide array of marine habitats, and its large number of Elasmobranchs, this is really just a pittance. But it is what it is - and if I were to venture an explanation (which I am not), I would certainly want to explore the effects of Australia's Shark attack phobia but very much also that of its stifling regulatory framework.
Because a) Charlie is one of the good guys, because b) it involves GSD member Rodney Fox Shark Expeditions and especially, because c) this is important research for the Shark diving industry.
If you remember those papers by Barry Bruce, there were small localized effects with possible ramifications for the fitness of the animals and the ecosystem, and Charlie is now embarking on a quest to come up with some solid evidence.
After Richard and Adam's lastest Whitetip Reefie paper, I very much suspect that those GWS may be expending a tad too much energy on those fruitless hunts (see here = 2008!) - and if so, is anybody taking bets on whether the authorities will then allow for a modicum of, gasp, proper feeding as they should? :)
And since everybody tells me that the behavior of those GWS is miles removed from that of their placid cousins in Lupe - why isn't anybody seeing them hunt those Sea Lions?
