Ramsey: Shit Show in Hawaii!

Source.

Oh well.

I'm sure you've seen the news.

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

This could have been such an inspiring moment.

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Not gonna happen, alas.

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

But first, watch.

Source.

I mean, seriously, what a fucking fiasco!

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

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

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

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

Obviou$ly!

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

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

Anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

My blog my rules! :)

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

PPS - Martin here!

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

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

PPPPPS - Well said Danny! :)

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

PPPPPPPS - Indeed!

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

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

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

PPPPPPPPPPPS - more by Michael here and here!

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

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

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

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

Apex Predator Tourism - Paper!

Behold!

I say, not too bad = a big improvement over last time!

Yes it's once again one of those papers where the academic intelligentsia is meddling and wants to tell us what to do - but when put into context like they have done here, those recommendations do make much more sense. And it's obviously nice that they mention the SRMR, and they also do get extra points for mentioning Rick's SSD!

And the whole mumbo jumbo about the need for regulation?

When it comes to Shark diving, it remains highly irritating - but I'm really not gonna waste my time and try to reformulate what I've said here, so please go and read it there = far from being the rule, regulation all the way to bans (!) is only opportune at a very last resort, i.e. only once common sense, voluntary codes of conduct and self regulation have utterly failed!

And yes, Florida troglodytes, I'm totally looking at you!

Oh and.

Considering the current rampant biodiversity loss within all non-managed ecosystems, I personally find the reference to moral, ethical, and philosophical questions about the commodification of nature naive and highly disturbing - and I can certainly leave it at that!

The good news?

This fad appears to be petering out and from what I can discern, this is very likely one of the last papers on the subject - thankfully!

Anyway.

Judge for yourselves = enjoy the paper!

Red Meat?

Watch.

Yeah that would be a Shark attack.

It happened because, and I cite,

"Sharks like to eat fatty red muscle...” David said.

Indeed - especially Whale Sharks and Angular Roughsharks!

I mean, seriously, that statement has the same truth content and educational value as if I professed that Mammals like to eat Eucalyptus leaves - meaning plus/minus zero! Like Cristina (brava!), it really bothers me that we put all ‘sharks’ into one pigeon hole and ascribe the same basic behaviours to them all, seldom realising that there are more than 400 species of different sizes, living in different environments and showing different behaviours!

And then, I read

So why do sharks bite?
Shiffman says it’s usually a case of mistaken identity. “Sharks aren’t used to things being in their environment that isn’t food. When a surfer cuts through the water on his board, wearing a white suit, he can easily be mistaken for a seal,” he says. But most of the time, once a shark gets a taste of his bony human dinner, he backs off in disgust. “The ‘hit and run’ is a common bite — they take one bite and realize it’s not what they wanted to eat,” Shiffman said.

Really.

Same old same old, and equally totally misleading - except that apparently, surfers now wear white garb! I can categorically assure you that the Blacktips and Spinners that strike surfers in Florida and the Bulls doing the same in Reunion Island are NOT mistaking them for seals!

Likely, the Floridian Sharks act in perceived self defense or are maybe caught up in a feeding frenzy (read this!); and equally likely, those Indian Ocean Bulls are engaging in predation - but of course we will never know for sure!

Bravo David for the laudable intention of wanting to put Shark strikes in perspective - but the stubborn ultracrepidarianism, and this from a self-proclaimed dragon-slaying myth-busting fact-based researcher is really irritating!

And that Blue Shark?

Judging from the head shake etc, methinks this is an attempt at predation - but again, who knows. But divers hovering next to bait bins whilst being obviously oblivious of the dangers and of their surroundings are a recipe for disaster. If this is a fun dive, then OK, shit happens - if, like it appears, this is a commercial dive with tourists, then those lousy protocols need to be changed, pronto!
Remember this shit? It gets triggered by stuff like that!

Anyway, just sayin!

PS: thread here - agree agree disagree who knows! :)

North Carolina Shark Attacks- Interview with Neil!

Good stuff!

But first, and I cite,

"Scientists believe that most shark bites are a case of mistaken identity. From below, a surfer in a black rubber wetsuit looks a great deal like a seal, for example," explains David Shiffman, a PhD candidate at the University of Miami's Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy. 

Really - and if so, who exactly?

Last time I checked, "mistaken identity" was an -incidentally untested and untestable- hypothesis proposed by John McCosker when it came to explaining why GWS attack surfers on surfboards - not some generic statement about any Shark in any situation!

And assuming that David meant "by mistake": is that even plausible considering the Sharks' preternatural senses that we're usually so proud to illustrate? What scientists do believe is that most Shark bites are not predatory in nature - which is only logical considering that the very vast majority of Sharks (like e.g. Caribbean Reefies) pursue prey that is orders of magnitude smaller than people! But there are heaps of other possible reasons, read that first link, for why Sharks could bite people - and genuine mistakes are probably the very last of them! And guess what: in most cases, we'll never know why, exactly, they did strike - which is one thing the majority of scientists will certainly agree upon!

Would this be yet again one of those stupid attempts at rehabilitating Sharks by asserting that they have no bad intentions, or the like?

Which brings me over to this.

It's part of this thread, already mentioned here.

Christopher Neff There is no scientific evidence to support this - Gruber (1987) notes that shark bites are not feeding events

Gruber (1987) huh.

Doc has sent me Gruber (1988), published in Naval Research Review and entitled Why do Sharks attack Humans. Therein I find this - the only possible explanation for it being that Doc did radically change his mind one measly year later! :)

Click for detail!

Anyway.

Whilst the young padawans need to urgently stop making public pronouncements about topics they obviously got no clue about, Neil (and, mostly, Lawrence) shows us how to do it right - especially when you're a scientist!

Enjoy - and well done!

Hooking Great Hammerheads - two!

Interesting tag - are they any good? Source.

Remember this kerfuffle?

David has now posted this further clarification.

It once again undermines how the Hammerlabs are trying to minimize the impact of catching those endangered and extremely fragile GHHs.

Quite impressive - thanks for sharing!

Huffington Post - Retraction!

Bravo David - again!

Looks like that stupidity has been retracted.

Editor's note here!

Sed scripta manent.

Stupid article by the Earth Doctor here, idiotic video here.

And how about this shit that claims the exact same nonsense - or this drivel that once again operates with totally unsupported assertions.

And the list goes on and on!

Retract that too?

Or let bygones be bygones and instead, permanently retract the embarrassing scribe?

Huffington Post - promoting Pseudoscience?

Source.

Bravo David for debunking this utter stupidity!

His ProTips here, and here is a follow-up.

The breathy dude?

Nah I'm really not gonna waste my time - the self-professed Earth Doctor just another insignificant loon trying to be somebody in Sharks and wasting everybody's time with his pulled-from-the-arse pronouncements and his propaganda for the SSCS.

Coming to you from the exact same school as this shit - need I say more!

But shame on the Huff Post for continuing to lend him a platform.

I really thought they were better than that.

PS - turns out that they are not.
PPS - have they retracted the story? See comments thread!

Touching Sharks - Wildlife Harassment?

Source.

OK, first rant of the year.

This is thorny - but I just got to get it off my chest.

It concerns this hypocritical article by the increasingly irrelevant Executive Director of the increasingly irrelevant Shark Angels, and this comment by David.

Da che pulpito?

When it comes to Andersen, meh.

It is merely a continuation of this hypocritical rubbish, and instead of further debasing myself, I can certainly keep it with Martin who states.

Here is the problem with what Julie says.
She is known to the public, because of all the pictures of her, touching sharks. Now she says that she wishes some of those pictures would not be so public and that other people would not touch sharks. So let me get this straight, after she got her fame by touching sharks, she doesn't want others to do the same and she says it's not an ego thing? She does however have no reservations about using that fame when it suits her. I guess she just doesn't want others to get in on the action. She also is talking about sharks, like they are all the same. Well, it does say that she's an expert, so it must be true. It couldn't be that there are sharks that are social and touch each other and others that don't do that, at least not without eliciting a violent reaction. I wish we would just stop paying attention to all these wanna be shark whisperers and self proclaimed experts. Just because someone touches a shark, or goes outside a cage, where it is not legal, doesn't make them an expert.

Could not agree more!

And how about David's comment.

But first things first: I really, really like the guy! 

He's passionate, intelligent, witty, eloquent and incredibly erudite - but like I've just told a common pal, the young padawan needs a reminder that erudition is not always a substitute for experience!

This is what irks me.

Wildlife harassment is a legal term that in essence states, don't interfere with the wildlife unless authorized to do so, and by that metric alone, David is of course 100% correct - that is, provided that those Shark interactions are covered by the law! Are they? Because, again, no law no harassment - detail detail!

At the same time, however, much of David's research and that of his lab are predicated upon catching and manhandling Sharks - which albeit being perfectly legal, undoubtedly useful and sometimes even vitally necessary and thus not wildlife harassment in the legal sense, is nevertheless often brutal and does subject the animals to an experience that is orders of magnitude more traumatic than anything which is being reproached to the divers!

And if so, is David really in a position to lecture others?

Plus, there is this.

Contrary to David's sweeping statement, those different interactions between people and Sharks are by no means equivalent - maybe under the law (provided that it exists!) but certainly not in fact!

When Jimmy posted his video of Tarantino, a prominent researcher sent me a message telling me that he hated the anthropomorphizing but that he was wondering about the Shark's motivation as it was hard for his science brain to comprehend that video clip.

I did really appreciate that. In my experience, most Shark researchers understand very little about Shark behavior and human-shark interactions, this because behavior in general is difficult to describe to start with but above all, because far too few of them have spent enough time with the animals to properly understand them in the first place! There are obviously notable exceptions, like Juerg or after close to a year diving with us, El Diego - but it is glaringly apparent that David ain't one of them and I must really say, sutor ne supra! 
 

We in the Industry, on the other hand, spend heaps of time with the Sharks but often lack the training to properly describe what we experience, and often get too emotionally attached to the animals to continue being objective.

Be it as it may, take the example of our Rusi.

He has now logged 20,000 plus dives with those Bulls - d'ya think he may have learned something about them, and that it may be worth listening to what he's got to say? Or to Cristina? Or for the matter, to Jimmy?

So what about those interactions.

What we and from many many conversations, our peers have learned, is that everything is situation specific. One thing we all agree upon, is that especially when it comes to those large, long lived carnivorous species, any two Sharks are as different as any two people. At least on those regular baited dives where many of the regular Sharks appear to be highly conditioned and tolerant of the presence of divers, there are clearly individuals that seek personal interactions whereas others clearly want their space all the way to retaliating against people that are too pushy.
Obviously much of that behavior is mediated by the bait - but there are occasions where getting fed does not appear to be the primary motivator and where we then inevitably resort to the dreaded anthropomorphizing by defining the Sharks as being  friendly, or cheeky, or sneaky, or cute. Pathetically unscientific I know - but nevertheless, something is going on, and the fact that it hasn't yet been described scientifically does in no way detract from the fact that it exists, that it is noteworthy and that it warrants further investigation!

So, which interactions are acceptable and which not?

The way I see it (and granted this is highly subjective) it really depends on the actual situation but also on the motivation of those people, see e.g. here where I also state that what may be OK today may well become obsolete in the future. Assuming the Shark does not get injured (and it rarely does), it really boils down to an ethical debate - and there, sensibilities and opinions will inevitable differ.
But before anybody thinks that I generally welcome those interactions - I generally do NOT! Sharks are no pets and the ocean is no fucking petting zoo - and abusing them as underwater scooters is an abomination!
 

But instead of pontificating further, how about some examples.
Everything except for the science pics fulfills the definition of wildlife harassment - but maybe in real life, things are not so unequivocal but instead, a tad more nuanced?

Yes it's legal, yes it's research, yes the Tigers are incredibly resilient - but that line choking the gills is wrong wrong wrong! Source. 
 

No it doesn't harm the Shark - but is this really conservation like asserted - or rather, pathetic self-promotion or just simply stupid? Source.
 

I got no problem with this - zero! From what I understand, the animals come in voluntarily, and even compete for Cristina's petting because it is quite obviously enjoyable to them. Source.
 

Totally against. This is the forced tonic I've ranted about here. Source.

I actually find this endearing. This is Rusi giving Monica, a Shark he has been working with for the past 10 years, a little pat after she popped by and hovered within inches from his face on yesterday's dive.
  

Any questions? Source.

No no no - but that was then and I'm quite sure that they would not do this now - so here's to evolution! Source.

The problem here is that I'm not even sure that this is Cristina. There are now too many copycats and what was once unique and thus amazing has been trivialized and is increasingly becoming nothing more than a gratuitous stunt. Source.

And how about this one from Bimini!

Are you deeply outraged as always?

You shouldn't be because this is Grant = one of the good guys, stopping a Hammer that is getting way too frisky as per one of his comments here - and whilst fulfilling the definition of wildlife harassment, it is nevertheless perfectly OK!
As I said, things are generally way more nuanced than at first glance!

Which brings me straight to the juicy bit - what about Eli?

Over the years, several regular commentators on this blog have seen it fit to unleash a barrage of expletives on the poor guy. Except for the racial slurs that are unacceptable and also stupid (= his family was there long before the white man took possession and then invented the immigrant), I've let those comments stand - but most of the time, I don't at all agree with them. Many of those commentators that hide behind aliases are pals of mine, meaning that I know that whilst some of them simply genuinely abhor any form of Shark wrangling, others have history and are settling old scores whereas others are engaging in good old fashionable and rather gratuitous Eli bashing (and comments!) without having the faintest idea about who Eli really is.

And I also know that they're all gonna crucify me for what follows!

The fact is that Eli Martinez is one of my pals.

I really do like the dude. He's a really nice, personable guy, he's an accomplished Shark diver, he deeply cares for the animals albeit obviously in his own way, he is really very good at what he does and finally, he really understands Shark behavior and I really enjoy some of his insights, as do my staff - meaning that in my book, he too is one of the good guys and that I do respect him!

Mind you, liking the person does not equate liking everything he does - quite the contrary! It's not like we correspond a lot - but when we do, we often debate like crazy! And I also will not shy away from criticizing him publicly for some of his most egregious stupidities!

Yes he's certainly a macho that likes his extreme Shark diving, yes he likes to showcase himself manhandling those Sharks, both of which I'm certainly no fan of - but that doesn't make him a bad person, that's just who he is! And contrary to all those hypocritical media whores, the cheats and the charlatans I frankly despise, he does not pretend to be anything he is not!

And what about the flipping of those Tigers?

Yes once again it's wildlife harassment - but it does not harm the Sharks that appear completely unfazed and sometimes come back for a second helping. But of course it got nothing whatsoever to do with what I would consider an authentic wildlife encounter. In essence, it's not unlike Cristina's vertical non-tonic: whereas years ago it may have been irritating but nevertheless also fascinating, now Eli's pals are increasingly trying to one-up and out-trick him (and e.g. here) meaning that what was once unique is now a rather gratuitous circus trick, to the point that TB is now the prime example of an iconic dive site that is completely going to shit because instead of having a common code of conduct, the craziest and most disrespectful inmates are running the asylum!

Do I like it - certainly not!

Do I hate Eli because of it - certainly not!

But I'm digressing as always - long story short?

It's great that a lot of people are passionate about Sharks and love to talk about them. And although I often gnash my teeth in utter frustration, I can also live with all the nonsense that is proffered by all those bloviating enthusiasts, the more as most of them don't claim to know it all but are merely voicing their opinions.
But I'm really tired tired tired of the rampant ultracrepidarianism (google it! :)) of all those self-professed whisperers and sharxperts that are making it their mission to educate the plebs!
Can we do better this year?

There, now I've said it.

So, friends, bring it on - may the public crucifixion begin!

PS - David's response here.
Disagree with some of it - fully agree with the part about the  riding and aggressive handling for fun!
PPS - Eli here!

Ila vs David - big Kerfuffle!

Totally uncool - monster tournaments. Source.

Oh my.

Whilst I was away, the shit has hit the fan.

And yes, having been asked and after much deliberation, I'm gonna wade right in - and I may add, with much trepidation! :)

But first.

Please read David and Neil's paper about recreational Shark fishing in Florida. At the time, I did applaud it as the way I read it then, it aims at promoting catch-and-release as a more benign alternative to (lethal) trophy fishing.

After having re-read it, I stand by that judgment.

But of course, there is a big BUT - and here's where Ila comes in!

You must now read her op-ed - not this censored edited version but the original that includes the contentious assertions about the paper and its authors.

You can find it (after a toothy intro) right here.

The reaction was of course immediate.

David did post this and his interventions with Live Science did lead to the abovementioned editing - and totally unsurprisingly, things have since escalated. The usual tribalism is king and there is now a David camp vociferating against the Ila camp and vice versa, and what could have been an interesting discussion has long become irrational and personalized and is really benefiting no-one anymore.

My take?

From what I can discern, the question about whether Fish in general and Sharks in particular feel pain remains largely unresolved, with both camps being able to cite scientific literature in support of their viewpoint - but do those minutiae really matter in the present case?

Whether it is "pain" like we perceive it (from what I can observe, probably not) or another sense of acute discomfort, it is pretty much evident that being hooked is certainly a traumatic event that will always have negative consequences for the Sharks. Even if the animals are being released, some of the consequences will be transient and some will be more permanent and possibly debilitating - but a considerable percentage of the Sharks will die, and this depending on a whole array of variables ranging from the fishing technique to the length of the fight to the handling of the animal to the Sharks' species-specific resilience, etc etc. 

With that in mind, the topic of catch-and-release fishing for Sharks touches on animal welfare all the way to Shark conservation and on that, I'm 100% with Ila in stating that it is certainly never "good".

But here's where I differ - reluctantly!

I am a recreational fisherman. Although I strictly fish for food, and this only for non-threatened species, I'm not gonna try to deflect and obfuscate and state clearly that I certainly do so principally for the thrill and the challenge. I understand that this will disappoint some purists, but this is how it is. I could also add that for obvious reasons (= I love Sharks and yes, they are not Trout!) and because technically, Shark fishing sucks, I'm totally against targeting Sharks - but that's not the point.

The point is that there is thousands upon thousands of people like me. The point is that in this real world we live in as opposed to some idealistic but equally unrealistic utopia, they constitute an economically important, powerful and well organized force whereby if we really want to further the cause of Shark conservation among the recreational fishermen, we must learn to work with and not against them - re-read this.

Again: reluctantly - but that's the only viable strategy!

David and Neil know that.

I've now followed them for many a year and there has been considerable evolution - incidentally, like with yours truly, read these posts bottom-to-top! The net result of their efforts and those of many other equally evolving Shark conservation advocates has been, among others, the reforming of several kill tournaments, the establishment of the Shark Free Marinas Initiative (again, read bottom-to-top), the adoption of length- instead of weight records by the land-based Shark fishermen, etc - by no means perfect but still a notable step in the right direction. 

With that in mind and like their recent paper against weight records, the chastised article is not proof of their affiliation to nefarious fishing interests like asserted but rather, a testament to David and Neil's advocacy of positive, albeit (only) gradual and organic reform!

And one last thought if I may.

Whereas the Hammerschlag labs are simply brilliant in their outreach, they continue to fail quite miserably in handling critique, be it ever so benign. Guys, in the softest possible way: if you publicly circulate your research in the mass- and social media, you must a) develop a better strategy for dealing with the inevitable, equally public and possibly unsubstantiated criticism and b) develop a thicker skin - and I can certainly spare myself the examples as I'm sure you understand!

Or not? :)

End of wading!

Comments policy: read this! :)

PS - Martin here!
PPS - David's final comments here!
 

IGFA Weight Records - Rebuttal!

This stuff is just not cool - source.

The debate continues.

Remember David's paper, an the lame reply by the IGFA?
Here is his response, and I cite,

We are grateful for the productive discussion...

Hahahahahahaha!

PS - published version here!

 

Recreational Shark Fishing in Florida - Paper!

Watch.

Nice.

I like research with immediate implications for conservation!:)

Good to see that most operators care and practice catch-and-release - now they only need to be educated to keep off those Hammers!

Paper here, synopsis here.

IGFA - lame lame lame!

The IGFA keeps defending unethical trophy fishing - not cool!

Remember David's paper about trophy fishing?

As a reminder, here's a nice synopsis, and I cite

“To us, ‘don’t kill IUCN Red List Threatened species for fun’ should be a part of any ethical angling policy, and many IGFA member anglers that we’ve spoken to agree,” Shiffman said. “We can only hope that the IGFA leadership decides to take the simple step that we propose.” 

Well said - totally agree!

And here is the answer by the IGFA.

Well, nobody really expected that they would fully endorse the paper's recommendations - but this?

This is unprofessional demagoguery at its very worst, to the point that one really has to ask the question whether the Conservation Director (no less!) is just simply hopelessly out of his depth? Nobody disputes that the principal cause for those collapsing fish stocks is not the recreational anglers but commercial (and subsistence!) fishing, at least when it comes to the marine species - but this is in no way an excuse for continuing to promote policies that are ethically reprehensible and hopelessly antiquated!

No I'm not gonna dwell.

The proposed solutions are compelling and easy to implement, and they would instantly affirm the IGFA as a responsible and forward looking organization - AND help preserve the Fish stocks the IGFA relies upon for its existence.

Not gonna happen - and fuck the breathy mission statement.

Not impressed!

IGFA Records - great Paper!

Dead Goliath Groupers in 1957 - source.

Bravo!

Great to see a paper looking into this.

Those all-tackle weight records have been a personal gripe of mine for years (and here and here). In brief, the IGFA is sanctioning and certifying the deliberate targeting of the biggest individuals = inevitably, the oldest and possibly pregnant females that are the most prolific breeders and thus the most valuable individuals. This is especially true for Sharks where their life history compounds the problem - but in general terms, this generally applies to all Fishes.

Please read this paper.

Doesn't get much clearer than that - but should you still have any open questions, here are more answers by David.

Well done!

And the IGFA?

Why do they continue to hang on to those hopelessly archaic and unethical practices?

Hearsay has it that there was a movement from within the IGFA to gradually switch from weight- to length records that would not have automatically implied killing the Fish. Apparently, some Southern Hemisphere chapters threatened that if so, they would leave and thus break up the Association, at which the proposal was quietly shelved.

Dunno if 100% accurate - but certainly plausible.

And incidentally. 

I just realized that I never followed up on the trailer posted in one of the above links. This is the finished product - not 100% directly related but certainly worth watching.

A Revolution in Shark Control?

Shark cull in Reunion - source.

Hmmm...

Have you seen this?

I must say that I'm irritated - intellectually that is.

So, the cull in Hawaii did not reduce the incidence of shark bites. Indeed, because those are highly migratory Tiger Sharks, and new Sharks moved in and took the place of those individuals that were removed by culling - correct?

The target species of the WA Shark cull are those highly migratory GWS.

So if lethal removing of migratory Sharks has been shown not to work in Hawaii - what leads us to boldly state that non-lethal removing of migratory Sharks in Western Australia will?

Can't have it both ways!

And why did the relocating work in Recife?

Because those were Bull Sharks = a not highly migratory species! The Sharks were dragged offshore and released, after which they likely settled somewhere else on the coast and/or may have learned to avoid the region were they had been subjected to such a traumatic experience.

Which begs the question, would this strategy work in Reunion?

Alas, methinks not - because the island is so small that it likely does not feature any "unproblematic" coastlines for the Sharks to relocate to, and because it is too isolated for the Sharks to swim somewhere else! By the same token, in Reunion, culling is likely to reduce the incidence of Shark strikes as it will gradually whittle down a discrete resident population of Sharks.

Not nice - but people are working on alternative solutions!

The good news?

The data from Western Australia's Shark Bay are much more ambiguous, meaning that a good portion of those WA Tiger Sharks are likely not highly migratory - remember this post? Tiger Shark migration appears to be mediated by the geographical location insofar as closer to the equator, temperatures vary less, prey migrates less and thus evolution has not selected for Tiger Sharks to go walkabout.

And if so, relocating those WA Tiger Sharks may well work!

Detail detail!

Or am I missing something here?

FUN FUN FUN - two!

Titled THE_FAMILY_and_HAMMERHEAD - great education! Source.

Worry not!
This time, I'm not gonna utter the dreaded B-word! :)

So, that horrible woman is coming back.
And she is, obviously, totally unrepentant - as in, you are the company you keep!
Op-ed by David here!

PS - Christie Wilcox (much too politely and intellectually) here!
PPS - David on SFS here!

Shark Molesting - Article!

Source.

Nice job David!

This is a real nice piece of Shark journalism.

My quotes are excerpts from the following short interview, and regular readers will be shocked to notice that I'm being exceedingly civil - but worry not, this is by no means a change of attitude but merely the reflection of the fact that after much soul searching, I've ended up acquiescing to the request that the responses be kept PG-13. :)
Should you have missed what I really think - read this!

So there - enjoy!

1) Please state your name and affiliation/title as you'd like it to appear in the article (and a link to your business website) 

I am Mike Neumann, a shareholder of Beqa Adventure Divers. 

We are a dive operator specializing in baited shark dives with several sharks, among which our flagship species bull sharks. We are also heavily invested in shark research and shark conservation, the latter both directly and through advocacy. 

2) In general, is shark diving good for sharks? Why or why not?

In general terms, yes. 

Shark diving showcases some of the most charismatic marine species and has a proven track record of furthering shark conservation by enabling the public to acquire a better understanding and appreciation of these magnificent animals. Many reputable shark diving operators are also actively engaged in conservation and research, the latter often in cooperation with the research community to whom they provide access to the animals but also invaluable long-term data, etc. 

The above however with a big caveat. 

Like any other organized wildlife tours, shark diving can also be highly detrimental if conducted incorrectly. E.g. whale shark tourism had to be regulated in order to avoid issues of operator overcrowding and harassment. Baited dives with large predatory sharks carry inherent risks that need to be properly managed in order to avoid accidents that would ultimately reflect negatively on the sharks. 

3) Have you observed (or heard of) customers change their minds about sharks after interacting with them up close? 

Countless times! 

We service clients of all experience levels and it is always inspiring to observe the awe and exhilaration especially of the newbies once they realize that the sharks are nothing like the negative stereotypes but instead simply awesome and beautiful – and badass! 

4) What do you think of recent "daredevil" behavior, ie riding sharks and filming it? Are these divers in danger, even if they have experience around sharks? 

As you know, I hate it and have publicly criticized that practice for many years. 

My main grievance is this: I hope that everybody agrees that riding harmless species like turtles, manatees, nurse sharks, manta rays or whale sharks is totally disrespectful and moronic – so why would riding those predatory sharks be anything else? 

Being in the presence of those wonderful animals is a privilege. We need to admire and respect them – not molest them! 

The risk aspect plays a secondary role – but yes, these close interactions with large predators are always dangerous. Highly experienced people may possibly limit those risks through adequate behavior and safety protocols – but the increasing number of inexperienced copycats makes me fear that somebody will end up having a bad accident. 

5) If someone gets hurt while riding a shark, what will the consequences be for your industry? For sharks in general? 

As long as those remain private undertakings, common sense will likely prevail as the overwhelming majority of people will state the obvious, i.e. that the perpetrator was a fool who got what he was asking for.

What however concerns me are trends in the industry whereby some commercial operators enable ever closer direct interactions between their clients and those large predatory sharks, and this in baited conditions. I am convinced that it’s only a matter of time before this will precipitate a major accident – and if so, it will reflect very negatively on the industry in general and reinforce the already widespread reservations against our activities. This can also not be good for the sharks. 

Having said that, I am equally convinced that the consequences for those operators that are on record for not approving of those developments and for observing stringent safety protocols will be minimal.

6) People say that they are riding sharks to help show others that sharks aren't dangerous. What do you think of this? 

First things first: those large predatory sharks are dangerous and asserting otherwise is both disingenuous and stupid.

It is also a stupid conservation strategy.
Nobody asserts that e.g. the big cats, bears and large and/or venomous reptiles are harmless – and yet we preserve them because we appreciate their beauty and ecological role, and because we believe in preserving biodiversity. Predators have every right to be predators and we need to respect and admire them as such. The best conservation strategy is to concentrate on awareness and education whilst advocating legislative change - not those misleading stunts. 

By the same token, it is at best naive to assert that Sharks are imperiled because the public does not like them. 

Like with all other endangered large predators, the principal risks for sharks are commercial overexploitation coupled with habitat destruction and human encroachment leading to conflicts. Shark fishermen kill sharks because they are trying to make a living, not because they hate them – and I can equally assure you that no fisherman in say, Indonesia will stop fishing because of some scantily clad peroxide piranha swimming loops around a perplexed Oceanic Whitetip! 

And finally allow me one last observation: upon closer inspection, the main motivation of those people appears to be personal gain - be it perceived fame, revenue from selling those images or marketing for their corporate sponsors. Far from being admirable, this is highly hypocritical.

7) Have you observed changes in your industry in recent years? 

Yes I have. 

On the positive side, many operators have become more active in shark conservation because they have witnessed the decline of sharks first hand and decided that something needed to be done. Others have been driven into it by competitive pressure. It is also great to see an increase in the number of shark divers and shark conservationists. 

On the negative side, like I said, I observe the trend towards ever closer encounters with great apprehension. 

And when it comes to shark conservation, I deplore what I call the dolphinization of the shark movement whereby predatory sharks are being depicted as puppy dogs and the media are increasingly being driven by shameless self promoters, cheats and charlatans. 

8) Is there anything else you'd like to share about your business, the broader industry, or your thoughts on this daredevil behavior? 

I wish that the industry were more cohesive, and that we could all agree that we carry a collective obligation to act as stewards of the animals we showcase. That very much includes desisting from enabling those horrible productions by Discovery, Animal Planet and Nat Geo Wild.

Thanks! 

Thank you for this opportunity!