Ronda Rousey - Mental Midgetry?

Shark conservation messaging, or whatever, by fucking Shark GENIUS PdG - source.

And I cite,

It is a good, well constructed show with professional and scientific insight 

Right.

That was good old Riley who STILL desperately wants to be somebody in Sharks, or whatever, and STILL just does not get it and STILL publicly pals with human garbage.

Anyway, along with many reputable presenters, experts and shooters, we did obviously turn it down as we will categorically not host any shoot for Shark Week as long as they continue to air those horrible exploitative programs, and showcase those pathetic self promoting media whores and their pathetic feats.

Back then I called it mental midgetry. 

But I was wrong. It is so much worse than that.

Watch.

See what I mean?

No blame goes to poor naive Rousey and husband  who have been obviously conned into believing that any of that is in any way an accomplishment. 

But seeing how all that fabricated gratuitous and misleading hype by those fucking self important morons is portraying sweet old Blunt, Gillette, Crook and Granma as lethal killer machines really gets my blood boiling. How dare they!
And no you fucking hypocrite: it is not epic, it is fucking pathetic!

And the bloody operator?

Need I really point out the idiocy of publicly allowing a total beginner to feed your Sharks on your dive - and of allowing another total amateur and untrained ignoramus to pose as a feeding expert? 

Is this maybe the reason why Aqua Trek have shortly thereafter fired Brandon their fucking GENIUS Shark whisperer, and this apparently with cause? Hardly - but here's to that, and good riddance; and here's to the guys down the road using this as an opportunity for some fucking reflection, and to them and others (...) stopping to enable all those revolting Shark porn media that are ultimately harming Fiji's reputation as a Shark ecotourism destination!

Anyway.

Like an old broken record, let me repeat - over and over and over again.

Here are my own questions to fellow Shark diving operators and conservationists.

• Are we gonna continue to pretend this (read!) is not happening?

• Are we gonna continue to watch that shit?

• Are we the operators gonna continue to enable it?

• Are we gonna continue to give our business to operators who do?

• Are we gonna continue to admire and to associate with those people?

Questions questions!

PS - Comments: please post them here & not on Facebook. Thanks!

Not a Shark Cage?

Right - click for detail!

Read this.

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.

And these are the rules pertaining to fishing. 

And now watch, and read about this fucking fiasco. 

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?

Questions questions - you know who you are!

Totemic Sharks?

Hah - and I cite,

In a decade or two (~1995–2010), an unusual transformation occurred in the perception of sharks.
In the society, sharks went from being feared animals to protected and even totemic animals. In the shark-enthusiast community, the combination of interest or mild obsessions with sharks, the desire to do something and protect sharks, and mysticism, resulted in sharks becoming totemic animals. Even for some in the field of ichthyology, sharks ceased to be “fishes” and became totemic animals...

Shark Biology Becomes Shark Advocacy

When sharks ceased to be “fishes” and became “totemic animals,” much of shark biology evolved into advocacy.
Although there were sufficient scientific, ecological, and economic reasons to protect sharks, a totemic relationship requires that the totem be protected and be a protector of the clan. Thus, it was necessary, in the advocates’ view, to dispel “the myths created by Jaws,” or the idea that sharks are, or could be, man-eaters.
The notion of sharks as man-eaters was not compatible with the relation-ship desired with the totemic animal. Furthermore, if sharks were man- eaters, or potential man-eaters, they would not be tolerated and could not be protected in a society where most people are not aware of the differences among domesticated, tamed, and wild animals. So, in the advocates view, totemic sharks could not be man-eaters. Thus, a change in perception was needed, and sharks had to be portrayed as harmless to humans...

Shark Television

The movie Jaws also engendered a new television genre.
In 1988, the public fascination, or obsession, with sharks caused by the movie led the “Discovery Channel” to produce “Shark Week,” a week-long series of programs based on sharks. The shows were instantly successful. In time, “Shark Week ” would become the longest-running program on cable television, having lasted 28 years as of 2016.

In the early years, the shows were loosely based on natural history or conservation of sharks and were fairly realistic. Perhaps catering to what was attractive to the audience, programs soon became centered on white sharks or bull sharks, Carcharhinus leucas , and their attacks on people...

As satellite tags were developed and became widely used, filmmakers turned to shark tagging to replace the superannuated shark attack programs.
The tagging of a large shark is always an exciting event and could produce the action footage that the networks loved. Because of the high cost of satellite tags, film producers could always find a willing researcher lacking funds or seeking publicity, although most of the time the “researchers” were usually unknown to those actually studying sharks. The “researcher” could assume heroic poses in the tagging film, which could be finished with the perennial “high fives” of such films.
The networks loved it!

And then, there's this.

Like any passionate shark lover, I once adored shark flicks. 
The brave scientist pressing into the unknown, the cool gadgets, the thrashing of a hippo-sized toothy fish from the deep that quickly returns from whence it came – this is the stuff of obsession for any nerdy 11-year-old kid.

But today, most of these movies make me want to wretch.
It’s not just the puffy-chest posing and the gravely-voiced narrators, it’s the whole vibe. Sharks on Shark Week aren’t really animals anymore, they’re props. And increasingly the stars aren’t scientists, they’re stuntmen like Dickie Chivell, who gets on surfboard-like things to see if he can tempt a white shark to bite him or Micheal Phelps, who … I honestly don’t know what the hell that guy has to do with sharks.

This isn’t David Attenborough, this is Jackass. Danger porn. 

Proponents of Shark Week claim that the program helps bring awareness to sharks and promotes conservation. But let’s get real, no one walks away from Shark Week saying, “Wow, I really want to donate to conservation efforts.”
Twenty-nine million people tune in to Shark Week with an average of 2 million per episode and yet no conservation NGO I know of sees a bump in donations. If anything, shark populations have plummeted during the 27 years Shark Week has been on the air.

Bingo.

Before watching Shark Week, you should really read this splendid tour de force about bullshit Shark science and researchers, bullshit Shark conservation and bullshit Shark movies by the venerable José Castro; and check out this little pearl by Eric Vance.
And then, by all means, feel free to go ahead and watch that shit as it is utterly irrelevant anyway.

Enjoy.

The articles and the stupid Shark shows!
 

Discovery Channel - Reorientation?

Is Shark Porn on its way out? Source.

We shall see will we not!

Read this!

Sounds good - but of course the proof is in the pudding!

Mike Sorensen remains in charge of of Shark Week so the question is, what will be the instructions by  John and Rich!

But I'm hearing that whatever the content, the programs obviously still need to be entertaining - so don't bother approaching them with the usual old tired eco clap trap featuring plenty of mutilated Shark corpses and the like!

To be continued!

Nat Geo Wild - being Truthful?

Source.

Interesting interview!

Like if I were to put the Megalodon show on air, honestly Nat Geo Wild would get crickets, like I couldn't… my audience doesn't expect that from us...
So right now, what we're doing with Shark Fest – I'm shamelessly letting Discovery do all the work for me. They've chummed the waters. They've brought in a huge number of people, by the way, most of whom don't give a hoot about natural history at all, or about animals in that sense. But they're pulling a big group of people and look, I'm running right under them with a very sort of tongue in cheek marketing campaign that is actually taking a poke at them...
And when people come and they go oh, it's a shark, and then they stick on our network… we're starting to see people who are really appreciative of the difference [between Shark Fest and Shark Week] and are noticing that difference more and more. And they're saying "oh wow, they're not megalodon-ing me, they're actually giving me the real story behind those amazing animals in a way that just feels different to me."...

But the most important thing, sort of bringing it full circle, is we have to be true.
And I think that that takes a lot of courage, it takes a lot of vision and leadership to be willing to have the courage of your convictions and to stand in there while everybody is running one way to say, "this may not be the quickest path to success, but I'm certain that if we stay there that we will create this loyal core of viewers and online followers that will start to evangelize for the network and start to tell their friends and start to tell their families, and that over time will grow."

And so I actually think that the path to positive activism is through emotional engagement. And I think that you can't do that by putting on heavy hitting, dire, guilt-ridden awfulness, because people see that every night on the news.
For me, the mission is about making people fall in love, to fall in love with that animal, to fall in love with that place. And then giving them the outlets and the opportunity to then, in their own way and in their own time, come into the tent and be inspired, to engage on deeper and deeper levels, whatever that level is. Because at the end of the day, I don't need everybody to become fire breathing activists. 

Well said - but is this for real?

Time will tell. At this stage, this all very much smells like a thinly veiled marketing exercise that capitalizes on the fact that Discovery appears to have totally lost the plot. Granted the Nat Geo Wild programs, whilst still utilizing plenty of sensationalist language and fake drama are thankfully not quite as totally moronic as some of the latest shit by DC - but they're still light years away from, say, the BBC, and the breathy claim of being committed to telling the truth is only valid in comparative, and certainly not in absolute terms.

Case in point - and it's by far not the only questionable program!
Re-read this!

And Discovery?

Word on the street is that Eileen has been sacked and that everything is on hold as they all figure out what's next. I'm not at all hopeful that this may be an indication of serious soul searching and re-orientation - but who knows.

We shall be watching!

Shark Porn in New Zealand!

Watch the video - nothing has changed! Source.

And I cite.

Discovery's angle seems to hinge on the fear people have of the unknown, and especially the unknown in the water where they swim. Shark Week has been so good at tweaking and magnifying this fear, that generations of viewers who grew up watching the show are afraid to go in the water...

The problem is not only that there is a fatal prejudice against sharks, but that it is not even recognized.
In the case of other animals, such as snakes, everyone knows that there is a deep bias against them, but in the case of sharks, the stark contrast between sharks as they are portrayed, and sharks as they really are is unseen.

The public actually believes that sharks behave the way they are shown on Shark Week.

Indeed, and bravo Ila!
 

Watch what these people do to New Zealand's GWS.

Think that those Sharks are behaving naturally around boats, or have they been amped up intentionally in order to create all that idiotic drama - and how does this disrespectful rubbish adequately illustrate those past 10 years of stellar research by NIWA and DOC?

Yes it's same old same old, pure Shark Porn.

Have you read this comments thread?

Pitchforks and Flaming Brands is obviously an insider, and she knows what she is talking about. Shark Week is not some amorphous entity, it is people - and together with Sorensen's small team who defines the overall direction (= ever more exploitative garbage), those folks she calls out are definitely some of the worst serial perpetrators.
 

And like an old broken record, let me repeat.

Here are my own questions to fellow Shark diving operators and conservationists.

• Are we gonna continue pretending this aint happening?

• Are we gonna continue watching that shit?

• Are we the operators gonna continue enabling it?

• Are we gonna continue giving our business to operators that do?

• Are we gonna continue associating with those people?

Is anybody, ever, gonna learn the obvious lessons?

The good news?

From a conservation point of view -and here I differ with Ila- it thankfully matters not!

Does Shark Week harm Conservation Efforts?

Maybe!

But IMO it's more of an ethical than a practical issue.

This new article in Scientific American echoes the known reservations by Chris Palmer and many others about the widespread fakery in wildlife films that has just reached a new ignominious peak in the Megalodon fabrication. I've already blogged about this topic years ago and invite you to go and read it here - and here is one of several posts about the best way to go about when producing advocacy films, that is to showcase the positive and fascinating aspects instead of trying to shock the audience, especially if we wish to reach out beyond our own circles and not continue to preach to the choir. Love not Loss!

That's the theory, and the arguments are I believe impeccable.

But what about the practical implications?

Will people who love the film vote in a positive way for senators and congressmen who will vote in a more sustainable manner like Palmer asserts? Yes, maybe - but if so, that would be a tiny interested minority, the more as I don't recall one single political campaign focusing on marine conservation, let alone on the conservation of Sharks?

Like I said, it's more of an ethical debate.

And in that sense, those programs are a total abomination!

para_sight is of course absolutely correct in his observation that as long as the ratings remain so stellar, Discovery couldn't give a shit and will continue laughing all the way to the bank. But what about those fake conservationists who enable and endorse that shit - think they are equally impervious to criticism?

We shall see - and I may add, so far so bad!

And in the big scheme of things?

There, I would surmise that this conversation is totally irrelevant!

I can promise you that the thousands of fishermen in Indonesia, India, Spain, Taiwan, Argentina, Mexico, United States of America, Malaysia, Pakistan, Brazil, Japan, France, New Zealand, Thailand, Portugal, Nigeria, Islamic Republic of Iran, Sri Lanka, Republic of Korea and Yemen do not kill those Sharks because they hate them owing to having watched Jaws or for the matter, the Shark porn on Discovery! And by the same token, I can equally promise you that they will not stop killing them because of the latest inane video clip of the token bimbette swimming loops around a perplexed OWT!

I mean, seriously - that argument is so stupid, it is frankly embarrassing!

I'm not saying that good wildlife programming is not beneficial.

It is very much so, especially in the long term. It may indeed sway voters and possibly change the political discourse - tho considering that An Inconvenient Truth failed to spark any substantive policy despite of an Oscar, plus a Nobel Prize for Gore and the IPCC I'm alas rather skeptical. 

But those excellent productions will undoubtedly again arouse a new generation of advocates, conservationists and researchers, and those will hopefully make a contribution for the better. As an example, I'm convinced that we would be still condoning the killing of the big cats for trophies and fur coats, and that we would still be purchasing ivory trinkets and tortoise eyeglass frames were it not for those past stellar wildlife documentaries!

So by all means, keep at it!

But can we please stop those stupidities.

All those pathetic shark videos by those desperate self promoters with big cameras and small talents that are being pushed around the film festival circuit, to be acclaimed by the vegan organic cotton and Birkenstock mob. All those atrocious Shark conservation edits on YouTube that are an insult to one's intelligence. 

And especially all those media featuring those Shark-molesting scantily clad bimbos who are doubly pathetic once one realizes that they are merely being pimped, for profit, by those very same producers and camera-toting dudes! Seriously, conservation is literally awash in incredibly smart, committed, hard working and emancipated women who are quietly doing terrific work for Shark conservation, largely away from the public eye - and not a single one would demean and embarrass herself in that way, ever! 

Any names come to mind?

And if so, why are we tolerating all that bullshit?

And Shark Weeek?

Meh. Up to you. 

Watch it, or don't - it doesn't really matter one way or the other.

The Megalodon Fabrication - more Fallout!

Source - and bravo PBS for ridiculing that shit!

Bingo.

There's even more outrage.

First and foremost, read this post by who else but the Megalobomb showing that this kind of crap has real repercussions. And then, there's this, this and this, and here's a list of posts about real Shark topics - and here's a stellar one by Ila, written before this latest disaster!
And I'm sure that there's plenty more I haven't found!

Discovery is trying to justify the fiasco, and I did like David's reaction.

Discovery Channel defends it's decision to air Megalodon nonsense: 

 "We wanted to explore the possibilities of Megalodon,” Michael Sorensen, executive producer of Shark Week, told FOX411 in a statement. “It’s one of the most debated shark discussions of all time, can Megalodon exist today? It’s Ultimate Shark Week fantasy. The stories have been out there for years and with 95% of the ocean unexplored, who really knows?” 

Scientists really know, you irresponsible moron. 
You know, too, or else you wouldn't have had to hire actors to play the scientists in the show, and you wouldn't have had to doctor photos and videos to make it seem like megaladon was around.

Indeed!

But, people are talking and therefore, it's all good - right? 

And I repeat.

And here are my own questions to fellow Shark diving operators and conservationists.

• Are we gonna continue pretending this aint happening?

• Are we gonna continue watching that shit?

• Are we the operators gonna continue enabling it?

• Are we gonna continue giving our business to operators that do?

• Are we gonna continue associating with those people?

And what about those Shark "conservation" orgs and individuals who actively endorse and partake in it - are we gonna continue pretending it ain't happening, either?

To be continued no doubt!

PS more fallout here.
We stand behind all of our content and are proud of it.

Just great isn't it.

Amish Sharks?

How come I'm not surprised.

I've reiterated what we think about Discovery here.

Read the links!

The Shark Angels, on the other hand, endorse that shit.

The pro-Discovery marketing comes from none other than serial el cheapo Shark pornographer ABC4 who earns his living from filming and producing that crap  - and very much looking forward to being eventually regaled with the results of this year's round of shenanigans in Bimini!

And from the serial Shark molesting Executive Director!

Now that she has apparently repented, or whatever, she dances - not because she is a narcissistic self promoter but because THAT is gonna convince the Indonesian, Indian and Mexican fishermen to stop killing those Sharks! Ain't REAL conservation just a wonderful, wonderful thing - and so much fun on top of that!

A HERO no less - watch this space!

“But at the end of the day, Shark Week gets people talking about sharks – isn’t that what it is all about?”

No it is not -  but that's of course what Andersen is all about: talk!

And moldy duck wings!

Others are not amused.

See here, here, here, here, here; here, here and here - and there's undoubtedly more to come once Kurr's idiotic serial killer Shark goes on air!
And here's the take by the Shark Defenders!

Just appalling.

Wolfgang and Ila are absolutely correct - it's same old same old, and if this analysis is correct, the pressure to keep up with their abominable peers is likely to lead to even worse, not better programming!

And so it goes!

Bull Shark Tacos?

Talk about a case in point!
So much for the educational impact of Shark Week!

Craig Ferguson and Shark Week

Craig Ferguson is totally, and I mean TOTALLY funny!





He is also a genuinely great guy.
This is not acting. The man has obviously had a wonderful, mind changing experience and has also got the talent for communicating it in simple and moving words.
Check it out – it very much reflects the reaction of many of our clients which is certainly one of the most gratifying aspects of our job.



See what I mean?

Just a couple of thoughts.

This is not what “Sharks” are.
In fact, this is not even what Caribbean Reef Sharks are!
Shark feeding dives got nothing to do with a natural situation. This is very obviously a highly conditioned group of animals that despite of all the pushing and wrangling for position are extremely docile because they are comfy with the presence of humans and intimately acquainted with the routine.

And yet, the feeders are fully garbed in steel mesh and wear protective helmets, and for good reason!
They do this because that’s the only long term sustainable way of doing this safely. Caribbean Reefs and their Indo-Pacific cousins, the Grey Reefs are the poster children for Shark feeding frenzies and consequently, feeding them is extremely risky. Yes they are strictly piscivorous and will not, ever, attack anybody with the intent of devouring him: but they are highly competitive and when presented with the scent of Fish, they can just simply go berserk and snap at anything they may take for food and possibly, for a competitor. I’ve seen this happen many times, mostly with non conditioned and totally wild animals – not nice!
Do not try this at home - Seriously!

And then, there’s this.
This it how you do it. Forget the romantic drama, the stupid pseudoscience, the gory scenes of finning, the ever raised index finger, the soap box and the pontificating. This is how you reach out to millions by portraying a famous but apart from that, completely ordinary dude doing something special and understanding something important in the process. So much like those stellar BBC clips I posted a while ago. And yes, I’m repeating myself!
Think about it.

Finally, and grudgingly! kudos to Discovery Channel.
I fully agree with Patric, this is great pro-Shark programming.
Let’s just hope this is the start of a learning curve about re-gaining the trust and the respect of their audience and elevating the brand to where I ought to be positioned.

Discovery Shark Week - same old same old!

Well, I guess the cat is out of the bag.

I just had a look at this year's Shark Week lineup and nothing has changed.
Underwater Thrills and Oceanic Dreams are uncharacteristically mellow. Like me, they're probably tired of wasting time on the subject, as despite of hopeful signs like the management re-shuffle, etc, Discovery appears hell-bent on once again focusing on attacks and thus, reducing the animals to dangerous man-hunting monsters.

As to whether this may be educational?
What education??? What can anybody possibly learn from this rubbish?

Oh well, as I said, I'm tired of this shit.
Cris Palmer and Peter Kimball over at the Huffington Post basically say it all. Great post and kudos for having brought this to the mainstream media.
Excerpts below, links and italics are mine, not theirs.

"Teeth of death," "Shark feeding frenzy," "The Worst Shark Attack Ever." It is that time of year again, when the Discovery Channel brings out shows like these as part of its annual "Shark Week" programming. This week of bloody feeding frenzies and vicious shark attacks is part of a larger trend in nature programming. Instead of seeking to educate or to promote environmental conservation, these shows focus only on presenting graphic, sensationalized animal violence.
Programs like those in Shark Week -- while they might garner high ratings and attract advertiser dollars -- all too often mislead the audience, exploit animals, and fail to promote conservation.

We applaud Discovery Channel's partnership with Senator John Kerry to help end shark finning, but the general effect of the graphic Shark Week programming is not to promote conservation but to instill fear, terror, and hatred in the viewer.

Networks, studios, and filmmakers need to improve the quality of their work and invest in nature shows that encourage conservation and entertain without misleading.
However, viewers must also take responsibility for the programs they watch. We cannot expect to see more ethical, responsible filmmaking as long as we continue to support those shows that sensationalize and exploit animals.

Shark Week - Prologue

Quite a coup by Discovery!

Craig Ferguson is one of my favorite comedians.
He must be one of the most pleasantly witty people out there and I was happy, and surprised to discover that has signed up to be this year's host for Shark Week.



I must also agree with George that so far, the promo we get to see is admirably neutral and like the South African clip, hinting at some genuine nature programming as opposed to the usual Shark attack garbage.



And yes, I did also like the idea of the video contest and look forward to the submissions. Shark NGOs: make us proud, here's the chance at getting out some great pro-Shark media!

Still, the whispers about Shark Porn are not going away.
Will it thus be a bag of mixed programming?
As always, we shall see!

So, what's it gonna be?

I was pleasantly surprised by this.



So, what's it gonna be?
Another Discovery Shark Week filled with gore, attacks and asinine presenters, or a look at Sharks by a channel who makes a living by educating people about the wonders of our fragile planet - and this, without deceiving their audience?

This time, I'm moderately optimistic.
We were contacted about two productions for Shark Week and although both didn't eventuate (we simply had no space on short notice), both looked fun, entertaining and respectful of Sharks. I also hear that there has been some re-shuffling within Discovery and that the worst pornographers have been removed - but then again, there are whispers about Shark Porn being filmed in SA, and that everybody has been ordered to be very very quiet about what is being planned.

So I guess that as always, we shall see!
But as a gesture of good will, we've removed the petition from our website - at least temporarily!

PS: As chance would have it, more information has just been published here. Having obtained the seal of approval from Oceana is great news - now let's see if they deliver!

Anatomy of an Obscenity

Lemme tell you, it has been an ordeal.

I've slaved myself and watched Deadly Waters, most of it in fast forward as it is so incredibly boring and badly edited on top of being so disrespectful, exploitative, deceiving and stupid. No wonder that the blue bloggers' reaction to it has been so moderate: it's so bad, it defies description!

Felix of Oceanic Dreams and Drew of Wetpixel have posted their take on the overall program so I need not dwell on its entirety, the more as I just cannot stomach having to watch every stupid and obscene detail.

Just this.

The "experiment" with the trailing and stationary chumsicles? Absolute rubbish!
Caribbean Reefs are strictly piscivorous and do not feed on humans - ever! The proof: did they attack the idiot driving along on his scooter? If Gurney had wanted to create a correct analogy to humans, they should not have dragged along the Sharks' favorite food but, say, a bale of hay instead! But hey, it never was about facts, it always was only and exclusively about showing those Sharks in a state of frenzy.
Shame on Stuart for having been the token prostitute!

The "experiment" with the hand and the fish?
Remember the post about not deceiving the audience? When the Lemon predictably ignored the hand, they dipped it in fish blood!

And finally, please note down those operators who aided and abetted the exploitation of Sharks!
As a customer, you have a choice!

Which leads me straight over to the issue at hand, the Fiji shoot.

First and foremost: mission accomplished - mostly!
Please believe me if I tell you that I've been called many things, but "naive and utterly stupid" is just not one of them. When I exploded in a post about Aqua Trek, I was certainly painfully aware of the potential loss of goodwill this would inflict to our business. This post will undoubtedly trigger more of the same condemnation from the same quarters. So be it.
Apparently, exposing perpetrators is good - but when they happen to be your competitors, the very same action becomes "disappointing". Go wonder!

No, this has not been a "food fight" by any stretch of the imagination.
Far from it: after the debacle of having dropped the ball and allowed Gurney to sneak into the country, we decided to disregard our commercial interests and publicly embarrass the perpetrators because we wanted them to use their influence to prevent the airing or at least tone down the sequence. We also went very deep and very high within the Government of Fiji and the country's tourism stakeholders, again with the same aim. As a result, the location has been changed to "Oceania" and after the Fijigirl went out on a limb, the footage of the chumsicle and the night diving sequences have been scrapped.

What remains is a misleading, sensationalistic and stupid prime example of Shark exploitation. What did Stroud apparently say? 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?
Indeed: hilarious!

Take for instance the Shark attack they re-enacted.
The one that happened not far from this very spot.... in an area that's a known Bull Shark feeding zone? It took me a while to find it, but it is this one.
The location? Check out the map (click on it for detail): yellow is Lake Reef where the show was filmed, red is Turtle Island - 200 miles away, on the other side of the island, far off the coast in a completely different habitat!


The activity: spearfishing - and I'll leave it at that!

And talking about deceiving the audience.
How about the blond bimbo with 12 years' experience diving with the deadliest animals in the South Pacific, that squeaks away on the back deck of the Fiji Peter Hughes? That would be Teresa Carrette, associate producer with Gurney. And the deadly animals? Carukia barnesi (which earned a scientist a honorable mention in the Darwin awards) and Chironex fleckeri, box jellyfish!
Could anybody please tell me how that would make her a Shark expert worthy of being showcased to a global audience?

No wonder her comments are so utterly stupid!
Bull Sharks may, or may not (neither I nor Juerg know of any relevant papers) have a high level of testosterone. But the link to aggression is tenuous at best and has certainly never be researched in Sharks.
What however appears unequivocal is that testosterone promotes the growth of muscle mass and bone density. That, and its effect on virility are why some men in general and bodybuilders in particular resort to anabolic steroids, among which Bull Shark testosterone.
Ever seen a Bull Shark? There you have it!
PS the testosterone assertion has since been debunked: it is utter baloney!

Ever dived with one?
If so, you will know that despite of their impressive size, they are very hard to approach and positively timid - much unlike the Reefs and especially, the Silvertips!
"Aggressive" my derrière - and certainly not "territorial"!
So much for Teresa's credentials - and hopefully, for her scientific career!

Other than that, there is Stroud, a diving neophyte, hand feeding massive predatory Sharks without even the protection of steel mesh gloves; there's Teresa flailing around her pasty white hands in murky water saturated with Fish juices; there are signs of impending feeding frenzy; there are cameramen out there in no-man's land bumping, or being bumped by the animals - in brief, there's an operator completely surrendering his dive site to a bunch of yahoos in breach of the most basic safety protocols.
How does that dovetail, exactly, with 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?
As I said, pretty brazen!

Plus, there's Stroud's hysterical commentary (dontya just love it how he shakes his head pretending to talk through his mask?) about "deadly waters," Shark attacks and aggression and trying to amp up the action by suggesting that he got bumped and chased out of the water - only to then languidly linger at the dive platform chatting away with the bimbette!
In brief, this is exploitative Shark porn at its very worst and a slap in the face of local conservation efforts and the local tradition and reverence of Sharks.

Did somebody really dare to mention the cause?

As to why Discovery chose to air this shit, what can I say.
As a reminder, check out their Corporate Social Responsibility statement.

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; and he chose the globe to represent Discovery's brand as a symbol of the company's commitment to protecting and celebrating planet Earth.
In keeping with this mission, Discovery Communications is committed to being a thoughtful and responsible corporate citizen, supporting the extension of science, environmental and other educational programs in the U.S. and abroad, and promoting the value of nonfiction content and documentary filmmaking across all genres.

That is the vision.
The reality: idiotic shows that pander to the basest emotions of idiotic audiences and are presented by idiotic hosts.

The network has clearly lost its way.
Despite of all the pathetic last-minute greenwashing, it is obvious that this year's disastrous Shark Week has severely damaged the brand and eroded its credibility not only with us Shark people, be it divers, operators or scientists, but with the public at large as well.
The resulting damage to its reputation and its goodwill will only be mended by bold managerial action. Pornographers like Gasek have clearly run their course and must be replaced by fresh and untainted talent that better embody Discovery's aim to be perceived as socially and ecologically responsible. Production companies like Gurney need to be dismissed and idiotic hosts like Stroud ought to be sent back to some remote wilderness to continue doing what they do best, i.e. munch on grubs in splendid isolation.

When people like Stephen Colbert catch on to your hypocrisy, it's high time to act decisively.
Will somebody have the vision to enact the necessary reforms?

And on this happy note... enjoy!

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Human Week
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Protests

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!

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!