Chris Palmer on Nature Filmmaking - epic Video!

Randy is absolutely correct.

Chris Palmer is simply fantastic.

But of course we knew that already.

And whilst Katy Perry is, probably unwittingly, the latest accomplice in animal torture, and whilst the latest gang of scumbags have set sail for Guadalupe and are busy raping the biosphere for the latest, most reckless and stupidest installment of Shark porn (yes ABC4 I'm looking at you!) - I invite you to lean back and savor this remarkable document that is both an indictment of all those despicable shenanigans (and here!) and a powerful message for conservation and for the role nature filmmakers can play in spreading the message.

Love not Loss - remember?

Enjoy!

Con - servation!

Please re-read this.

The principal target of the outrage?

Of course none other than Discovery - and I won't bore you with links to my multiple rants but instead invite you to read this, and then this market analysis about cupcakery and meth magnates.

And Nat Geo with "one of the best policies there is"?

And I cite.

National Geographic have continued to brutalise their subjects, and to degrade themselves from a respected international organisation to one that is now recognised as sensational, exploitative and downright misleading. 

Indeed - and great opinion piece!

I've been wary of them ever since their idiotic pseudoconservation experiments - and very much as expected, Nat Geo WILD's shocking attempts at one-downing Discovery have continued unabated.

And the once stellar brand?

Who cares - pecunia non olet!

Richard Brock - well said!

Nat Geo - racing for the Bottom?

How cool is that - grinning fishermen dispatching endangered Bluefin Tuna.

Good to see that others are noticing.
This time it's not a nobody like me - this time it's Carl Safina, and if that link should not be sufficient, check him out here.

Yes Nat Geo is going down the drain.
To be fair, that would be Nat Geo WILD, the pathetic sister channel of the venerable National Geographic Channel. From what I understand, it is manned by ex Discovery Channel dudes and is now obviously frantically trying to one-up (actually: one-down!) Discovery.

The usual MO?
Stupid programs featuring stupid anchors showcasing stupid people doing stupid things, as last seen in this appalling stupidity that easily made it onto my infamous worst-of list for 2011 - or in this specific case Wicked Tuna, a show about killing endangered Atlantic Bluefins.
Ethical imperatives anybody?

Incidentally and now that it has aired - does any of the then commentators still assert that Nat Geo Shark Attack Experiment LIVE had anything to do with science and Shark conservation?
And, has it done anything to help conservation efforts on the ground?
Right...

Anyway, I'm digressing as usual.
Please read this stellar piece by Carl Safina.

David vs River Monsters

Wow.

I thought it would be bad when I ranted about it more than a year ago.
The despicable descriptions ares still online and now WhySharksMatter has watched the Bull Shark episode of Animal Planet's River Monsters and blogged about it. Some excerpts are online, more than enough for understanding what he's talking about - including using a gaff to drag in that shark, just great! The heartless bimbo: this one!
Looks like in terms of having reached an absolute low point in programming, we've got ourselves a winner: David is usually as mellow and level headed as they come and to see him this angry is truly remarkable.

Please read his post here.

Epic!

Time after time, Patric over there at Underwater Thrills comes up with some truly epic posts.

Like his analysis of this year's obscene programming for Shark Week.
Here's what Patric has to say

Discovery Networks - Reinventing Sea Monsters

This years Shark Week has revealed a bacchanalia of man made shark horror well beyond any concerns the shark conservation community and commercial shark diving community could have fathomed.

Without a doubt Discovery Networks have reinvented Sea Monsters, erroneously establishing the shark as the most feared predator on the planet.

34 years after JAWS, and 34 years of conservation science discoveries, pro-shark media, and conservation themed initiatives have been swept away by the 2009 Discovery Channel anti-shark juggernaut. This year broadcast in gory, blood soaked HD, to an estimated 30 million domestic viewers. Great for advertising revenues, lousy for the perception of sharks worldwide who have been thrown back to the stone age with last nights docu drama, "Blood in the water" and this weeks entire line up of gratuitous Shark Porn.

As a commercial shark diving operator I find over hyping one small facet of a sharks entire Raison d'etre to be patently dishonest and a disservice to animals that are suffering one of the highest rates of destruction on the planet.

Approximately 90 million sharks are killed each year. That's a stunning statistic.
And yet Discovery Networks feels compelled to bring back the 1970's shark mythos, blood and fear, with absolutely no Sympathy for the Devil.

At the same time Discovery Networks have rolled out a simply draconian and somewhat East Bloc ham fisted media campaign showing conservation for sharks. An afterthought pushed out by Discovery and it's hand selected group of "Shark Porn Programming Apologists" to mollify the growing push back from an appalled research, science, and commercial dive community.

To those who are supporting the very dark decision by Discovery Network executives to bring back, promote, and hype the fear of sharks, rethink your position.
At a critical time when sharks, as a measure of the health of our oceans, need as much support as we can give them, programming decisions that demonize these animals for ratings, ad sales, and corporate profits are wrong, dishonest, and bordering on fraudulent.

Discovery started Shark Week 20 years ago with programming that was fresh, alive and informative. Our company along with many others have been involved in some of that programming and happy with the results. Early Shark Week programming started with unflinching production companies striving to produce they best they could, fully engaging local operators to introduce them to the full range of shark behaviors.

Discovery has officially lost it's way.
It can come back, hopefully this is the final year of Shark Porn.
Hopefully those within the community who are currently in bed with Discovery Networks "will see the light". As both the alcohol and tobacco industries have discovered you cannot sell these toxic brands to minors and then ask them to "drink and smoke responsibly".
Discovery Networks cannot sell fear and loathing of sharks...and then push for conservation.

Cheers,
Patric Douglas CEO
www.sharkdiver.com
www.sharkdivers.com
www.sharkdivers.blogspot.com
www.guadalupefund.org
www.islandofthegreatwhiteshark.com
415.235.9410

Bravo my friend and of course I fully concur! As so often!
Which of course leads me straight over to the role we, the Shark Diving Industry have continued to play in this fiasco - and the role we must play in the future.

But that's the topic for another post.

Docu-Turd!

Sharky has done it again!

Shark Week has kicked off in the USA and since it is not being shown in Fiji, I got to fully relay on the comments by the other Shark bloggers. Blood in the Water is apparently so boringly stupid that neither Sharky nor Felix seem seriously outraged, just somewhat bemused.

Tomorrow is the turn of Deadly Waters.
I've been promised a video copy and can't wait to see the Fiji segment!

Did I commit the ultimate sin of unjustly berating an innocent member of the Shark diving community who on top of that happens to be -anathema!- a competitor - and will I thus have to extend a public apology to them, to Discovery, to the Fiji Peter Hughes, to Gurney Productions and to the fearless Les himself? And of course to you, our loyal readers?
Or will their tearful justifications be exposed as brazen lies on a public forum?
Boy-oh-boy: talk about having exposed myself!

Tomorrow, you'll know! Me, in about two weeks!
As a reminder, here's Aqua Trek's description of the Fiji shoot.

They came and filmed our dive as we run it everyday.
They conducted no experiments. The filming was about Les with a scientist swimming amongst large sharks. We only show sharks in a normal state of feeding, no chumsicle feeds. All very calm. Les explained that he would not be lending his name to any ludicrous productions as he is friends with people like Jean Michel Cousteau and Rob Stewart. I honestly felt that there was just a desire to swim amongst large Bull sharks and our site is well known for this. The movie is not about Fiji or Aquatrek, our dive company, so the name “deadly beaches” does not make sense. They remained on a live aboard the whole time. They paid our daily dive rate. There were regular dive guests on our boat as well and the dive was conducted normally.

Talk manana then - I'm sure I'll be receiving some comments!

Greenwashing!

What would you think of a child abuser who sponsored UNICEF - but then continued to abuse children?
Would one good deed make up for the other?

That's what comes to mind when observing Discovery's efforts at portraying themselves as Shark conservationists whilst celebrating an orgy of anti-Shark scaremongering.
Their Frenzied Waters campaign and website are horror pure and simple and their Shark Week and YouTube Channel pages are an obscene collage of teeth and gore, as are their promotion and actual programming. Yes I know, the horse was pretty much dead when I started beating it and has since been reduced to pulp - but it still pisses me off!

So, does stuff like this make up for their Shark porn?



Will anybody listen to, of all people, Deadly Waters' own Les Stroud after seeing him brave the various high fatality hot spots? Will they support protecting an animal that he has just demonized as a dangerous, treacherous killer?

Like in the case of the child abuser, it's just not a zero sum game: you can't just "compensate" for doing evil by doing something good.
As amply documented by Mr. Gasek and recently, Mr. Ford, Discovery just don't give a rat's ass about Shark conservation. Their much hailed joining of forces with John Kerry, their alliance with the Ocean Conservancy and their recruiting of National Aquarium's Andy Dehart as their "resident Shark expert" may look great - but in this specific context and against the backdrop of their unacceptable misrepresentation of Sharks, it is nothing but marketing bullshit aimed at greenwashing their tarnished brand.

Thankfully, Fiji seems to agree.
Following Discovery's reckless attempt at damaging Fiji's tourism industry, Tourism Fiji has just announced a lucrative deal with National Geographic, Discovery's direct competitor.
John: eat that!

Hat tip: The Dorsal Fin for their relentless beating of the same dead horse!

Obscene

Stories here and here.








Hat tip to The Chum Slick for having spotted the rope on this one!

Please sign the petition.
Thank you.

Thou shalt not...

..deceive the Audience!

This is one of the three main commandments famed BBC Natural History Unit producer Jeffery Boswall has postulated when shaping the approach to ethics in Natural History broadcasting.

One would think this is pretty much self evident and certainly laudable.
After all, according to this interesting paper

In developed countries, natural history documentaries are the most important source of information about animal life.
Although naturalistic tourism seems to be increasing, for the great majority of people in the affluent societies real-life interactions with animals are mostly limited to pets and to the species living in urbanized environments. Therefore, for lay people not trained in biological science, documentaries are likely to be the main source of knowledge about many species (such as animals living outside western countries or living inside these countries in the wild). From this fact, it can be argued that many humans have an interest in the production of natural history documentaries.

Generally speaking, viewers look at documentaries as a reliable source of information about animals. They trust documentaries to present true facts and they have a basic moral interest in not being deceived (and in some cases such interest is also protected by a right). Producers and film-makers have a responsibility not to deceive the viewer (Mittermeier & Relanzon 2008).

Even if natural history documentaries are perceived as depicting reality, in general it must be acknowledged that they do not show ‘plain facts’. It is very likely that what is depicted is not free of the film-makers’ opinions and values.
Therefore, the interest of viewers not to be deceived cannot be interpreted as the interest to see ‘plain facts’. Watching a natural history documentary (like a news reportage) entails the viewer accepting the facts as seen from the film-maker’s point of view.

When does this mediation threaten the viewers’ interest in not being deceived?
Generally speaking, it could be said that the viewers’ interest is protected if the information they get is in agreement with data produced by the scientific community (or, at least, if they are informed that the documentary disagrees with the currently accepted scientific point of view). When documentaries give explanations of animal behaviour in agreement with ethological research, then viewers have the chance to get the ‘state of the art’ of human knowledge about animal life. None the less, given the popular nature of documentaries, scientific explanations must be translated into terms understandable by lay people...

A more realistic goal would be to start a process of elaboration of international guidelines shared among the different professionals involved in the making of documentaries. To start this process, public debate and discussion of ideas are essential.

As I said: laudable!
But what happens in reality?

Chris Palmer has published a remarkable opinion piece which I invite everybody to read in its totality. His take on Ethical Issues is so important that I feel the need to cite it in its entirety, together with some excerpts from his thoughts about Presenter-Led Programs.
Please bear with me and continue reading - it is truly remarkable!

Issues about how animals are filmed in the wild have become increasingly controversial.
While many wildlife filmmakers behave responsibly, the industry has its share of producers, directors and camera operators who continue to put a great shot ahead of the welfare of the animals they are filming. Some filmmakers "stress" an animal by getting too close. Others stage phony scenes to make wildlife seem more dangerous than it really is. Networks and corporate sponsors may exert undue influence on film content as they try to "get their money's worth" from every scene.
Because of this, animals are being endangered and audiences are being deceived.

The proliferation of wildlife shows and the ubiquity of cameras have created a kind of "wildlife paparazzi" that harass and endanger animals to capture "money shots."
Amateur videographers, influenced by wildlife documentaries, venture too close to their subjects. The aggressive tactics filmmakers use to draw animals to a film site and capture dramatic, sometimes even unnatural scenes on tape - think man-made feeding frenzies - have created "wildlife pornography." Animals are exploited for viewers' pleasure.

Viewers often assume that everything in wildlife films is natural, which often isn't the case.
Sometimes scenes are contrived, animals are captive and stories are invented. Pressures are put on filmmakers by networks to obtain eye-popping footage, whatever the cost. This encourages them to "stage" behavior in order to obtain the breathtaking action scenes that viewers have come to expect.

Wildlife films feed a strong curiosity people have about the natural world, and audiences want the portrayals to be authentic.
They want to see wildlife and wilderness untainted by the hand of man. Audiences don't want filmmakers to do any harm to those beloved animals or their environment. When audiences discover that something they see in a natural history film is packaged, inauthentic or contrived, they feel cheated, misled and fooled. But the line between authenticity and artifact is thin and easily crossed. Filmmakers debate where the line is and where unethical behavior begins.

On location, there is often little time or inclination to focus on ethical issues, such as whether wild animals are being unfairly harassed.
Looming deadlines, bad weather, budget problems, equipment breakdowns, contract disputes and logistic crises often take precedence. Nevertheless, ethical issues are important and can be grouped into four categories:

• Getting too close
• Staging
• Misleading and lying to audiences
• Animal harassment.

Examples of irresponsible filmmaking in recent prime time wildlife films include television hosts taking hot spring baths with snow monkeys, scientists sticking their hands into snake holes and then bragging about their wounds, and a television host plunging around in dense brush along a river bank while attempting to get close to a grizzly bear.

These shots are a desperate attempt by networks and filmmakers to attract viewers and get good ratings. If a show receives a low rating, it will likely be cut from the schedule and the film producer's income will take a beating. The pressure for ratings explains the emphasis in wildlife films on predation, sex, aggression and violence; and the lack of airtime focusing on cooperative and nurturing behaviors, habitat preservation and conservation. To be heard above the noise and to win big audiences, networks feel they need to shock and surprise their audiences.

Television wildlife host and scientist, Brady Barr, from the National Geographic Society says scornfully that all audiences and networks seem to want today is a "highlight" reel. By that, he means a program with relentless and supercharged excitement. The intense competition for ratings pushes hosts and filmmakers to go to extremes in the quest for bigger audience shares.

Today television has become intensely ratings driven.
As a result, there has been an increase in sensationalism in wildlife television programs as producers feverishly compete for ratings. Many presenter-led programs have gotten out-of-hand as hosts will seemingly do anything to try to achieve high ratings with super-charged and constant excitement. They often goad dangerous animals into dangerous confrontations, which are extremely stressful for both parties, even if highly entertaining.

There is clearly a dark side to this kind of entertainment-cum-education.
Animals and presenters are put at risk while also provoking "copycat" harassment of animals by members of the public. Viewers watch charismatic personalities on television get close to wild animals and are tempted to try to do the same themselves.

We have reached a state in the wildlife filmmaking industry in which the very animals we mean to protect may be compromised or hurt in the process of capturing them on film.

When we look at the early years of the wildlife filmmaking industry, we can see there has always been temptation toward exploitation.
Yet, the modern explosion of reality television has only increased this temptation, making it more appealing for broadcasters to air reality shows with questionable and ill-advised content. Hosts today manhandle animals for the sake of ratings rather than education.

Just amazing: so true and so insightful!
Alongside Boswalls Thou shalt not deceive the Audience, Thou shalt not harm the Animals and Thou shalt be willing to disclose how the Film was made, Palmer postulates a further commandment: Thou shalt not meaninglessly sensationalize an Animal.

As Derek Bousé explains in his fascinating contribution Computer Generated Images: Wildlife and Natural History Films (please read it!), this is not a new phenomenon. Scientists and conservationists have always voiced their concerns and have often been regarded as interlopers seeking to enforce constraints on creativity, if not to drag down ratings and sales.

"We are in the entertainment business", the producers and distributors protested, "and must sell to the global market".

Still, there was something to the scientists' and conservationists' arguments that wildlife films are a special category of images and that they carry a heavier burden than most other forms of art or entertainment to be accurate and truthful.
In an age when so many people received most of their information about nature from television, there were legitimate concerns about nature television's influence on public attitudes, especially given that audiences, in their role as consumers and voters, might make decisions that could affect the fate of species and habitats...

Could the ratings-driven emphasis on scenes of predation, conflict and danger in wildlife films lead to trepidation, fear and loathing (at least toward some species) among viewers?
"How we treat others" film critic Richard Dyer (1993) has argued, "is based on how we see them".

Thus, if an animal were widely portrayed (and therefore seen) as a treacherous, dangerous killer, would there be popular support for its protection if it faced extinction?

Sound familiar?
The debate continues.
We've posted our opinion about the portrayal of Sharks and our role as gatekeepers time after time again. And together with others, we've even come up with what we think are equitable solutions.

At first glance, we've clamored in vain: this year's Shark Week is worse than ever before and what is even worse, some from within our community have willingly and knowingly aided and abetted that despicable anti-Shark rubbish.
And yet, I'm discerning a change of perception and I am optimistic about the future.

We're all in this together.
And as Patric says: we can, and have to do better!
And we will!

Horror and Terror

From Creativity Online.

Discovery Channel seeks to bring the fear back into Shark Week in a promotional game created by Campfire, along with N.Y. and Stockholm-based interactive shop Your Majesty...
Campfire Co-Founder/ECD Mike Monello says he and team returned to their horror roots in conceiving this game. "Discovery Channel had a great brief," he explains. "Shark Week is 22 years old, and a lot of people think of it as a known quantity. They wanted to tap into people's fear of Sharks and bring back the fear of Shark Week.

Just great isn't it.
I found the above link on The Dorsal Fin, an interesting "Shark conservation-minded blog that will deal with Shark news and promotion of Shark conservation".

Here's what they have to say about Discovery's idiotic Frenzied Waters.

Now, why would I give a free-pass to Campfire for creating a horror-based entertainment vehicle, but then turn-around and call out Discovery Channel over it?

It’s simple, I expect more/better from Discovery Channel, because it is the worldwide leader in non-fiction programming.
Discovery Channel is marketed as a learning/educational themed channel, while Campfire’s philosophy is quite a bit different. According to Discovery’s corporate site, “John Hendricks launched Discovery Channel in 1985 with a mission to satisfy curiosity and make a difference in people’s lives by providing the highest-quality, nonfiction content, services and products that entertain, engage and enlighten.”

Is creating an unnecessary sense of fear towards Sharks really “enlightening” the audience?
People who watch programs on Discovery Channel do so under the assumption that they are watching an educational work of non-fiction. Focusing a marketing campaign around Sharks attacking humans for programming that is expected to be educational is just plain irresponsible and seems to go against their Corporate Social Responsibility statement, in my opinion.

While I won’t be see ignorant as to not understand the fascination of people with the predatory aspect of Sharks, I still do not understand why Discovery Channel feels the need to perpetuate fear rather than respect of this aspect of Sharks.

At the end of the day, I guess the marketing experts at the Discovery Channel concluded that tapping into fear could earn them more advertising dollars than educating viewers would. At the rate that worldwide shark populations are decreasing, I would think that Discovery Channel would see that their “cash cow” is at risk of running dry.

Perhaps, it might be a good idea to focus on conservation rather than fear.
Apparently, that wasn’t in the marketing plan for Shark Week this year.

Whoever you are, well said!

Weasel weasel....

Remember our question to Discovery Channel?

A shame that WhySharksMatter did not find it worthy of being asked but digressed into Whale wars instead. But no worries mate: no harm done. Thanks for the effort.

It's pretty obvious that Gasek never meant to truly engage with the Shark community anyway.
Like any good politician, he managed to deftly dodge the issues and obfuscate, befuddle and bedazzle whilst promoting the Corporation he works for.
That's what he's paid to do and he did a good job at it.

But whatever the exercise in smoke&mirrors, Discovery remains profoundly anti-Shark.
Their own description of this year's Shark Week Program is a case study in sensationalism, scaremongering and evil demonizing of a group of animals. Just like Animal Planet.

"We pride ourselves on telling compelling and accurate stories. Shark Week is no different. Two of our shows this year are based on actual historical events" - right, Sharkbite Summer and Blood in the Water are all about historical education!

Paul: yeah, whatever...

Keep signing the petition please.
Yes after what I've just read, Discovery won't likely give a rat's behind - but still, it demonstrates that we have a voice. And somebody please tell Sonja Fordham to stop lending her authority to this travesty - especially not via an obviouly fake blog where the last entry dates back nearly one year. That's called greenwashing and is unbecoming of the Ocean Conservancy.
Yes I'm repeating myself!

Enough said

In Norwegian!

Did you notice?

Suddenly, there's plenty of Norwegian signatures on the petition!

The reason:
Årets programmer i Shark Week inneholder derimot titler som "Deadly Waters" og "Sharkbite Summer", som blant annet dramatiserer og "normaliserer" blodige angrep på mennesker. Programmene i Shark Week bidrar dermed til fortsatt å skape frykt, slik som Haisommer-filmene begynte med, og skremte vettet av en hel generasjon - for 34 år siden. Forskjellen er bare at mens Haisommer-filmene ble markedsført som en fiksjon/skrekkfilm, presenterer Discovery sitt "skrekkshow" som vitenskapelig sannhet.

Well, I don't understand it, either - but I love the unusual letters!
Anyway, this is from a piece about Discovery's Shark Porn that Lill has published in Dykking (which I believe means "Diving"), Norway's dive magazine.

Thank you, Lill (again!) - you may keep your place in the pit!

Brazen!

I’m honestly of two minds about this.

It concerns how we should react to this post by Fijigirl on Wetpixel concerning the recent Discovery shoot in Fiji. I was really gonna follow the advice of a friend to just let it go and wait until Deadly Waters would air, after which the truth would be known anyway.
But our staff are very angry indeed and have asked me not to let this go unanswered.

So there:

The way I read that document, it basically claims that Brandon did this and that, loves Sharks, was unaware of the contents of the show, did nothing untoward and finally got "tricked" by us who just wanted to rubbish him.

Cleverly worded, it however contains a lot of factual "errors".
Some are well within the scope of the usual Aqua-Trek "mythology" but surprisingly, some is pretty brazen - actually, very unlike the Fijigirl who is Aqua-Treks consummate spinmaster!
Which begs the question, is she been lied to - too?

Anyway, the facts are this – and I’ll keep is as short as I can.

“Aqua-Trek” is a conglomerate of dive shops in Fiji with varying histories and shareholders.

Brandon worked for Aqua-Trek Beqa (ATB), did set up a Shark feed on Shark Reef in 1999 and resigned from ATB in 2002 to go and work for Aqua-Trek Management (ATM) in Garden Island Resort on the island of Taveuni. As is customary, a reef fee was paid to a village but the site was not protected and fishing continued there until 2004.

Shark Reef was formally protected on 8.4.2004.
A lot of people spent considerable time, money and effort to achieve this – but it had nothing whatsoever to do with either Brandon or Aqua-Trek who never assisted in that effort.

Beqa Adventure Divers (the “other Shark dive company”) was created by James Beazeley and ATBs senior staff in order to manage the reserve as ATB had breached some of its obligations and the villages wanted them out. The protocols for the Shark dive within Shark Reef Marine Reserve were developed by BAD in collaboration with scientists and Industry professionals and are very different from what Brandon was doing back then in ’99.

The “Ultimate Shark Encounter” on Lake Reef was established by the then manager of ATB, Petero Niurou, who negotiated with the village who controlled that reef, and who set up the dive with the other staff of ATB. Brandon was not there.
Brandon only returned to Pacific Harbour in 2006 when ATM acquired ATB.

Thus, ATB and Brandon can rightfully claim to be the pioneers of Shark diving in Pacific Harbour and ATB also developed a Shark dive and set up a marine reserve on Lake Reef.

That's all pretty awesome and very honorable - and way more than what most other operators in the Shark Diving Industry have done.
No need to re-write history and to claim credit for other people’s hard work!

But back to the matter at hand, Deadly Waters.
As I've mentioned in a previous post, I was away and upon coming back to Fiji, I've been busy doing the post mortem on this unfortunate matter. As Drew suggests, we’ll all see it when the episode airs – or better, hopefully not!
The show is currently being edited so let’s not pre-empt anything, shall we.

But Fiji is very small indeed and people always talk.
When it comes to Fijigirl’s fairy tale, what I can say with absolute certainty is this.

• Brandon knew of the contents and intents of the show.
• He willingly and knowingly completely surrendered his site and its Sharks to the crew of Gurney, to the point that his own staff was relegated to the role of mere spectators.
• ATB delivered chum and bait to the Fiji Peter Hughes vessel that the production company were using as their base and that vessel remained on site for several days during which the film crew conducted multiple dives with and without ATB.
• A chumsicle was deployed in total breach of established procedures.
• They conducted night dives in baited conditions, again a total breach of protocol.
• Clients were taken to Lake Reef to witness the film crew flailing around bait in the attempt to excite the Sharks – in total breach of protocol and the most basic safety procedures (one guest witness was so upset by what he saw that he demanded a refund and was given a free dive on the next day).

You be the judge of whether "They came and filmed our dive as we run it everyday. They conducted no experiments. The filming was about Les with a scientist swimming amongst large sharks. We only show sharks in a normal state of feeding, no chumsicle feeds. All very calm" is an adequate description of the above.
As I said, pretty brazen!

As to our despicable role in this fiasco... we did indeed not call ATB directly.
Brandon and his bosses have historically made it abundantly clear that they do not seek dialogue and co-operation with BAD and it would have been an exercise in futility. As it turns out, he knew everything anyway.

Plus, before Les Stroud turned up in our dive shop, Aqua-Trek was simply not on our radar.
We were working on keeping Gurney out of the country and were completely focused on talking to the relevant authorities and to the folks of Peter Hughes in Fiji and the USA. But as soon as Les left our office, we called and informed the Dive Commission which is the competent authority in such matters. They are part of Fiji Island Hotel and Tourism Association (of which we and ATB are members) and FIHTA did inform Brandon (who already knew) - precisely as per what I wrote in my original post.

We and many others are now trying to sort out Brandon's mess, as it's not about Brandon or Aqua-Trek. In the big scheme of things, they are frankly of no importance - and nor are we!
To us, this is about the Sharks, the reputation of Fiji and how the Shark Diving Industry needs to handle the media.

Please wish us luck in making this "go away".

Discovery's Shame

Sorry, once again this will have to be short.

The reason is that having moved to Fiji, I'm currently swamped by trying to establish a new home, kicking off some new research and Shark conservation initiatives, attending conservation workshops and all sorts of menial stuff you really don't want to know about.

Plus, as promised, I'm doing the post mortem on the Discovery fiasco - and lemme tell you, with astonishing results! As Tafa said in one comment, the more one tries to hide things under the mat, the more people will go digging, especially in Fiji!
Keep watching this space!

In the meantime, I invite you to explore Ila's blog Discovery's Shame.
Talk about a lady with a passion!

The petition has just broken 1,000 which is great - but still, we must do better!
Where are all those guys?

Not good enough!

Yes, I'm talking about the Discovery Petition!

It was ticking along nicely, with about 100 new signatures a day. Then, it went mysteriously offline - and ever since, the daily signatures have slowed significantly, to not more than 20-30. Last time I looked, the total was 854: respectable but a far cry from the goal of 10,000.
In order to achieve that, the whole thing needs to go viral with "everybody" pitching in and above all, with the "big guns" signing on and then mobilizing their followers.

Having searched for "names" and having looked at the websites of the plethora of self-professed Shark lovers, savers and protectors out there, I'm starting to wonder: where are they? Why is it that I've failed to find a single major website posting a link to the petition?

Where are, to name but a few, the Funds, Allies & Alliances, Societies, Foundations, Initiatives, Conservancies, Institutes, Projects and Trusts, the Backbiters, Savers, Preservers, Spotters, Angels, Shepherds, Aiders, Stewards, Researchers and all of those other orgs that solicit donations from the public for safeguarding Sharks - and that incidentally, each run their very own, undoubtedly unique and original petition to stop Shark finning?
Where are all those prominent photographers and cameramen that draw their sustenance from taking images of Sharks?
Have the Shark diving operators and the Travel agents that book them bothered to mobilize their clients?
Where is the scientific community, especially those guys that always profess that their imput and research are being abused?

Does this mean that the majority of us Shark people agree with the way Discovery is depicting the animals we profess to love?
Or is this a reflection of how hopelessly unorganized, inefficient and fragmented we are, and of how our notorious infighting is ultimately condemning us to be pathetically irrelevant as a group?

Questions questions...

My very personal position is this.
I'm actually not a lover of "activism" and of petitions and I'm also rather skeptical about their ultimate effectiveness. Had I been asked, my call would have been to try and embark on a less confrontational route (and yes, I know this has been tried before with little success) that would have shown alternatives on top of condemning the status quo. And quite frankly, I cringe when I read some of the emotional tree-hugging posts on that website.

But this petition is a fact and because of that, I'm willing to support it, if only because I believe that one must show solidarity.
Also, it has been started by a group of people who have the important ethical advantage of doing it for one reason only, because they truly love Sharks - and not because of any other hidden agenda, commercial or otherwise.

To me, the petition is but one, albeit important element in how we should try and tackle the problem of Shark-related media. Some of the others are already on the table: dialogue, educating and holding the operators accountable, alternative media productions - and the list is by no means exhaustive.
Suggestions welcome!

But having said this: guys, c'mon, show the support!

Our Question to Discovery Channel

From today's dive - bravo Lill!

WhySharksMatter has landed quite a coup.

He has managed to convince Mr. Paul Gasek, an Executive of Discovery Channel, to answer 10 questions relating to Discovery's Shark Week. Here is the background to that serendipitous opportunity.

So there - here's our question.
David, my heartfelt thanks for the chance of hearing it directly from the horse's mouth!

Dear Mr. Gasek

As you may know, one of your forthcoming programs, “Deadly Waters” has caused quite a controversy here in Fiji.

We are one of Fiji's pre-eminent Shark diving operators and were contacted by Joshua Puga of Gurney Productions who wanted to come and film our Bull Sharks for the aforementioned show.
After having seen the program's "Experiment List", we declined their request, this based on the following aspects of the planned show.

• The depiction of Sharks as man-killing monsters
• The untrue allegation that Fiji is a hot spot for Shark Attacks
• Above all, the damage such an allegation would cause to the fragile tourism industry of a small island country

Gurney then tried coming back via the "back door", by having a local live-aboard vessel contact us asking whether we would host them and a video team shooting for Discovery's Shark Week.
Having asked for further clarifications, we were told that the show "hadn't yet been named" - but we soon noticed that the producer and the host, Les Stroud, were the same as in January . Once again, we declined to cooperate and informed the vessel about the production team's true intentions.

The shoot was finally hosted by our local competitors who however claim that they had no idea about its true nature as they were told by Gurney that it was a scientific program for Animal Planet.

If true, this would mean that after having unsuccessfully tried to mislead us, Gurney Productions only succeeded in filming the show's Fiji segment by deceiving the Shark diving operator who would have otherwise opposed the production like we did.

I assume Discovery Channel care about their reputation for being factually and scientifically accurate and thus credible. I also assume they they pride themselves in following impeccable ethical standards.

With that in mind - and assuming that your own independent verification would lead you to conclude

• That the allegation that Fiji is a "high-fatality hot spot" is a complete fabrication and that there are no data whatsoever supporting it
• That such an allegation would cause substantial damage to Fiji's tourism industry
• That Gurney Productions used deceit in order to film the Fiji segment of "Deadly Waters"

Would you then be willing to completely scrap "Deadly Waters", or at least remove the segment that was filmed in Fiji?

We look forward to your reply and would be happy to provide you with copies of all correspondence and corroborating evidence if so wished. You can reach the dive shop's manager, Andrew Cumming at Beqa Adventure Divers.

Thank you very much for your kind consideration.

Lots of Stuff going on!

Still trying to settle in, so once again, this will have to be short.

A lot has happened in the last two days and I invite you to go exploring the following links.

Oceanic Dreams have posted the 2009 Shark Week program - including Deadly Waters (not Bio Recon - I'll come back to that later) with the following synopsis.

SURVIVORMAN’s Les Stroud is back for more shark action — this time venturing to five of the most notorious shark infested waters in the world to find out which is the most dangerous. Les will initiate a series of immersive tests in these high-fatality “hot spots” to determine what makes these waters so deadly.

So, Fiji is now officially a "high-fatality hotspot"! Great!
So much anti-Shark evil in such a small announcement. Just remarkable!

In that respect, Underwater Thrills have re-posted a two-part series from January when Les Stroud and Gurney first got in contact with their anti-Shark garbage and which contains the infamous "experiment list". The Fiji experiments have been slightly modified - but more about that later. As the title of that post says, this is just for the record.

Underwater Thrills have proposed a media Contract for Sharks and Sharky has given it an eloquent and intelligent endorsement.
So do we. It's work in progress and we have proposed to add some further guidelines which you can see in the comments section of that post. Let's hope this will quickly progress into something tangible where many operators will sign up.

The Discovery petition is progressing well but still needs to explode into viral mode, so please make the effort to contact and motivate all your friends! Ila France Porcher of the International Year of the Shark has created a blog devoted to this topic and Gary has written an op ed about it on the Shark Safe Project blog.

Much to read!
Talk soon.

The Stick

This is the first time I sign a petition, ever.

Quite frankly, I've been caught completely unawares and only found out about it when browsing Underwater Thrills during my morning coffee, as I do every day. I'm kinda between homes and countries so I'll have to keep this short.

This is important, but it is only one part of the equation - the other part being that as an Industry, we got to provide for alternatives by working with serious producers and cinematographers in order to come up with better programs.

And we the operators need to finally shoulder our responsibility and stop shooting ourselves in the foot, by agreeing that the Deadly Waters fiasco must be the last time where this kind of despicable rubbish has been allowed to happen on our watch. We are the stewards of our sites and without our consent and logistical support, nothing goes - and yes, I'm repeating myself!
Always remember - our customers have a choice and there are always alternatives!

So, let's start with the stick - but let's also work on the carrot!
Please sign the petition and tell your friends.

Drew: Kudos!

Pic by Daniel Botelho

I just stumbled upon this old thread on Wetpixel.

Same topic, same perpetrators, same rubbish, same conclusions - and great moderation!
Required reading!

Drew, whoever you are, kudos for doing an excellent job!
This time, we'll try & do better in the follow-up!

Back on Message

Another 1 of Sasha's unbelievable images! Click on it!

Thank you Underwater Thrills!

The discussion about what was intended as a post about Shark diving media, how we, the operators must act as stewards and gate keepers and how we miserably failed to do so in Fiji got derailed and quickly morphed into a petty mud slinging contest.

Not that I'm surprised: the Shark universe is populated by uniquely abrasive and strong personalities and in the present case, it was all too easy to interpret it as the attempt by one operator to rubbish his direct competitor.
Like in many other locations, there is a long history in which they are the "pioneers" and we, the "wannabees and interlopers" who "mooched" from them. The whole story is of course much more nuanced (and ugly) but the end result is that we often behave like squabbling children despite of our resolve not to debase ourselves by engaging in petty brawls in the gutter. Not something anybody wants to get embroiled in, not something anybody can be proud of and something I've sworn to try and avoid. Yes, the learning curve has been pretty flat - but there has been progress and this, too, will blow over as always.

Alas, it is the pure mechanics of the present event that have led to this unfortunate situation.
Our focus had been to prevent Gurney from ever entering the country and we had concentrated on talking to the relevant authorities and associations and then, to the liveaboard they had contacted. We were actually very confident that they would heed our warning and agree that we had to put a stop to the shenanigans and were thus completely unprepared and quite frankly shocked when it then ended up playing out as it did. And angry!

In that context, I'm particularly thankful to Patric for having reverted the discussion to its core message: the despicable anti-Shark rubbish producers like Gurney pitch and Discovery fund and then air, and the role we the operators, other enablers and the filming industry can, and need to play in order to prevent it from happening in the future.

I was happy to hear that several well-meaning, intelligent and passionate people out there are already working on various tangible initiatives aimed at reaching that goal.
I cannot really talk about it, the more as I don't know the details - but my hunch is that it involves coming up with better programs but also, coaching and empowering the operators.

Regardless of the end result (it won't be easy, it never is), that in itself is progress.
And if our rants have made a useful contribution to that discussion, we are quite happy to weather any resulting backlash - as there undoubtedly will be.

Shark diving is evolving at a staggering pace and this is but one small step in that process.
Yes there have been quite a few setbacks but overall, the direction is clear: as an Industry, we need to assume responsibility for protecting the Oceans we love and from which we derive our sustenance.

The big Gorilla in the room is of course the seemingly insatiable appetite for Shark fins and the resulting slaughter of Sharks. I've blogged about it before, the likely solution will have to be some sort of a compromise.

But we're just to small for tackling the Gorilla.
Our personal contribution to finding solutions consists in trying to help change perceptions - and trying to have the media depict a more positive image of Sharks is part of that effort.
We also believe in promoting small-scale Conservation that will help preserve and regenerate stocks until bigger and better funded NGOs and Governments agree to put in place better, comprehensive and Conservation-oriented legislation. Luckily for us, Fiji has already firmly embarked on that route.
Thirdly, we believe in sponsoring research that will provide the data required for that process.
And finally, we believe that we need to involve the local stakeholders and the Country that hosts us as this is the only way we will be able to achieve sustainable and enduring results.

This would be us - others have different priorities and aims.
Good to be back on message.