Selective Removal of Problem Sharks - Paper!

Click for detail!

Hah!

Remember this paper?

Now Eric et al have doubled down with this further publication that specifies possible techniques for first, a) establishing a data base of potential perpetrators and then, b) identifying and removing individual problem Sharks after they have attacked a person.

Well what can I say.

Like I've already stated here, I am absolutely convinced that problem individuals do indeed exist, much like what has been shown with large terrestrial predators. And I'm equally of the opinion that removing them selectively (whatever that means) would ultimately be vastly preferable over indiscriminate broadcast culling - though having said that, there are obviously other solutions (like eg hazing, etc) that would need to be exhausted beforehand!

But that's the theory.

In general terms I remain unconvinced that individual profiling and selective removal is a practicable solution for large geographical areas featuring thousands of potentially dangerous Sharks, like, say, the USA or Australia. There methinks that one will need to continue trying to reduce the risk and mitigate the consequences - but by the same token, one will have to accept that the odd Shark bite is ultimately just simply inevitable and part and parcel of coastal living.

And in comparatively small areas?

Interesting to see Cocos and Reunion mentioned in the paper!

I've said what I wanted to say about both situations back then and really got nothing to add - maybe with the exception that Reunion looks like an ideal testing ground, the more as there is already an adequate scientific infrastructure allowing for the proposed broadcast DNA sampling and visual identification. So by all means, go for it - tho bon courage trying to establish a feeding station like suggested! :)

Anyway, all very interesting indeed!

Knowing Eric, something is likely brewing - and if so, godspeed, Fair Winds and Following Seas and all!

To be continued no doubt!

 

Individual Shark Profiling? Yes and No!

Click for detail!

We're stuck inside waiting for Mona to unleash.

So there - have you seen this paper?

In essence and if I understand it correctly, it hypothesizes that Shark strikes are not a function of Shark density but that they are instead caused by specific individuals that are so disposed, e.g. possibly particularly bold  - and that as a consequence, the adequate management response would not consist in broadcast culling but that instead, one should surgically remove such problematic animals, much like what is being done with terrestrial problem predators.

And yes that person mentioned at the end would be yours truly.

So let me clarify where I really stand on this.

I agree with the hypothesis, albeit with caveats.

Ages ago, I penned this post about Shark strikes which I believe is still valid. In brief, the causes for Shark strikes are manifold =  whereas some of the interactions are due to predation or happen out of aggression and/or competition and/or self defense,  others are purely retaliatory or not at all driven by intention but simple mistakes (= NOT mistaken identity which is completely something else and  controversial) - and for these latter two categories, Eric's considerations probably would not apply. 

And anyway, for the large majority of cases, determining the specific intention of specific bites is obviously impossible and possibly also ultimately irrelevant.

But of course we can always speculate, see here.

And as somebody who has named, personally knows and spends an inordinate amount of time diving and interacting with individual Sharks and can thus observe their behavior, I can unequivocally confirm that they display great individual behavioral variability - and this very much including the propensity to bite!

In fact, among our Bull Sharks there is e.g. one particularly haughty lady who does not like to be touched and will always retaliate by trying to bite us when we do so; or there is another one, a small male, who despite of many years of hand feeding, appears just simply too stupid to understand the proper etiquette and always comes in too low and too fast, and is thus a constant safety risk to the feeders. Same-same for a specific Gray Reefie who has repeatedly bitten the hands of our feeders - and thank you for bodyguards and especially, for steel gloves!

And then there is XYZ (name withheld).

This is a very large female Bull Shark who can only be described as being sinister and dangerous, this insofar as she is extremely assertive, will frequently approach us closely and not in what we perceive as a friendly way, and needs to be fended away and dominated.
And one day, and I believe because she was cranky for having lost a dominance confrontation with another big female, she has already bitten one of our staff who was incidentally not in the slightest inconveniencing her; this in what I personally interpret as Übersprungverhalten or displacement behavior, or maybe simply the venting of accumulated aggression. Again, we will obviously never really know - but she is certainly an animal of concern.

And when it comes to those predatory strikes.
They are fundamentally different from the examples above as IMO predation = feeding got nothing to do with aggression and/or boldness, and why would it.
But I absolutely believe that some Sharks will sometimes target and consume a human; and I also absolutely believe that given what we know about their learning capabilities, ontogenetic dietary shifts and their individual behavioral variability, we can also absolutely not exclude that this or that individual may develop an individual propensity (or reduced aversion) for targeting humans, which is what Eric appears to postulate.
Yes this is obviously speculative and so far unproven (and likely untestable) - but it is I believe at least plausible - and as long as it is, and as long as it not actually disproven, it is also not false! 

And remember this shit? 

It mentions, and even depicts that ominous OWT who has been alleged to have bitten no less than three people - and this by so-called Shark experts in a so-called peer-reviewed scientific paper !

Anyway, back to Eric's paper.

Yes in theory, there could absolutely be individual Sharks with as propensity to bite humans; and yes in theory, selectively eliminating those would absolutely be preferable to indiscriminate culling!

So I absolutely support it as a theoretical approach to mitigating Shark strikes! 

And in practice?

Unfortunately, there prospects for success look totally unrealistic.
In terrestrial habitats, identifying, monitoring and managing individual animals is comparatively easy - but doing so in the ocean is obviously a completely different matter as the territory is immense, there are thousands of Sharks leading a life that is essentially cryptic as for human observers, everything happens "out of sight" - and thus, identifying, monitoring and then eliminating the individual perpetrators as suggested would generally speaking be extremely expensive and logistically extremely onerous if not outright impossible.
With that in mind, the suggested list of measures aimed at identifying problem individuals, albeit certainly erudite, is more pie in the sky than a viable recipe for success. Or should we e.g. really try and catch, tag and tissue sample every single large predatory Shark in Australia - and then try and catch a single individual perpetrator after a strike?

And, when, exactly, would one effect the removal.
After a first bite? After two or even more? Lethal bites or not? Or would one remove the Shark preemptively already upon identifying a problem in behavior, or e.g. undesired levels of testosterone or cortisol?
And before the removal, whatever the latter means, one should obviously first try other approaches akin to e.g.the hazing and/or other deterrents and/or protections and barriers one would be using in terrestrial situations - correct?

Detail detail!

But of course there could be exceptions.

Specific circumstances obviously vary, and there could be individual, albeit probably rare conditions favoring Eric's approach.

Examples?

The situation with our above-mentioned XYZ could e.g. escalate to the point whereby despite of our best efforts in trying to deter and/or train her, we would have to come to the conclusion that she is becoming too much of a safety hazard. 

Then, we could be forced to choose between either closing down our Shark viewing operation or selectively removing her.

Or take e.g. Cocos.

Remember that Tiger and then, this subsequent event?

Yes this is completely speculative - but considering how well the good people of GSD member Undersea Hunter Group know their Sharks: what if they were able to determine that it was the same, individually known individual? 

If so and considering the risk of further attacks vs the tourism income: could this maybe escalate to the point where the park authority would have to make a decision?

And finally, Reunion Island.

There, the comparatively small territory and likely comparatively small number of potentially dangerous Sharks that could thus be potentially identified individually may well warrant trialing Eric's approach - this particularly in view of the ever-persistent calls for more Shark culls!

Or not?

But again, these are rare exceptions.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, Eric's suggestions, albeit intellectually interesting, are just not sufficiently practicable for them to constitute a viable alternative strategy.
Alas!

And finally, what about this beauty?

I can only note that Neff the token Shark attack apologist remains as predictably irritating as always, the more as his arguments are little more than straw men.

• Yes the hypothesis by Victor Coppleson of there being "Rogue Sharks" has not been proven - but a) as per above, the fact that something has not been proven does not necessarily mean it is false, either and b) Eric expressly differentiates his hypothesis from it. 


• Yes as per above Eric's hypothesis does not apply to all Shark bites - but that does not invalidate it a priori!


• Yes often when asked, the public does not support Shark culls - but a) they continue to happen and b) more importantly, Eric does not at all advocate them but on the contrary, he very clearly and unequivocally sees his approach as an alternative to them!

Anyway, all very interesting indeed.

And in the meantime, Mona has come and gone. And we are doing just fine thank you.

Let's go Shark diving!

PS - Bingo...
PPS - Michael here - thanks!
 

Shark feeding in Bora Bora - Paper!

Oh well.

Eric keeps cranking therm out, and I am irritated.

This time it's about those Lemon Shark feeds in Bora Bora, and several Shark bites that ensued, which is incidentally much like what happened with those Lemons in Moorea. 

The description of the events is probably correct and like I said back here, much if not all is a direct consequence of those being multi-user sites with poor and/or not commonly observed feeding protocols, and with competitive pressure and bravado leading to unsustainable practices.
Once again it's same old same old and as such, really quite boring - the more as barring a miracle, those French Polynesian dives are very likely a thing of the past anyway!

But I remain irritated.

This is because Table 1 appears to want to expand those species-, location- and context-specific observations to Shark diving in general, and appears to suggest that especially hand feeding will inevitably lead to bites as per the annoying depiction at the top - click for detail.

No don't worry I'm not going to unleash.

In their generalization, those assertions are simply not correct - and I will gladly leave it at that as we Shark divers know better, and as the naysayers cannot been swayed anyway.

Just this.

Despite of all the breathy punditry, ranging from frankly idiotic to simply frustrating, Shark diving remains orders of magnitude safer than SCUBA - and from a human safety perspective, that is really all one has to know. Choose a responsible operator with good safety protocols both in the water and especially also when it comes to managing potential accidents (= first aid gear and training? Evacuation procedure? Ask!!!), and you should be just fine.

And when it comes to the other real and perceived potential effects of Shark diving, you may want to re-read e.g. this or any other post I've written on the topic.

And anyway.

Let's go Shark diving!

Social Interactions of Sicklefin Lemon Sharks - Paper!

Click for detail!

Very nice!

Check this out.

It describes the behavior of Sicklefin Lemons at two provisioning sites in French Polynesia.

And assuming I understand the paper correctly, the observations coincide to a large degree with what we observe here with our Bulls, i.e. that these largely solitary animals develop a rudimentary etiquette when they aggregate at a provisioning site (and possibly equally at some communal feeding event like a Whale carcass) whereby a) dominance is not necessarily determined only by size and sex but rather, also by individual boldness; b) when there are many Sharks, some particularly dominant individuals react to the  increased competition by monopolizing the food source i.e. the bait cage and in our case, the suspended bin; c) as time goes by, "regular" Sharks appear to become more tolerant vis-a-vis other "regular" individuals of the same species whom they appear to recognize and d) the Sharks appear to tolerate conspecifics with equal ranking but tend to avoid more dominant individuals.

French synopsis here!

I really like it,  and the way they did collect the evidence.

We actually had a masters student do something similar a few years back with the Reefies - but it would be really cool if we were able to replicate this with our Bull Sharks that are our real focal species! The problem is the suspended vertical video camera as per the image at the top, as the rig would be unsightly for the tourists and above all, it would likely be eaten in no time - but I'm sure that we'll figure something out!

With that in mind, keep watching this space!

Enjoy the paper!

Breathless!

Remember this paper?

Here it is again in its entirety.

And here's the video from back then in 2002 featuring mon pote Eric. 

Crazy stuff - the event and the man.

Enjoy!

Ils sont fous ces Gaulois!
 

Fakarava - Inverted Trophic Pyramid?

Bingo!

Remember Michael Domeier's comment to this post?

Turns out that the man was prescient - and this literally: being one of the authors, he undoubtedly knew that this was coming!

Watch.

The paper is here - read it!

And here and here are some synopses - and since I find them partially misleading, here's what I understand.

• Fakarava Atoll has two main passes, Garuae in the North and Tetamanu, where this research happened, in the South.
  Like in other atolls in the Tuamotu archipelago like e.g. the spectacular trou au requins in the pass of Apataki, they are home to aggregations of resident (and semi-resident) Grey Reefie comprising, if memory serves me right, adult females and numerous juveniles/subadults of both sexes. The passes are great Reef Shark habitat because the Sharks can remain quasi-stationary by lazily riding the currents whilst engaging in ram ventilation, and because especially Tetamanu with its comparatively mild currents supports a good numbers of resident Fishes and acts as a migratory corridor for other prey species that regularly enter and leave the lagoon in line with the tides and the seasons.


• Yet, the researchers postulate that since the pyramid of productivity inside of Tetamanu is inverted, the available prey biomass would not be sufficient to sustain even only the local population of highly resident Sharks. This means that in order for the Sharks to be able to reside there without having to forage farther afield, their food/energy requirements would somehow need to be subsidized.


• That subsidy happens over several months during the Austral Winter.
  Then, huge numbers of several species of bony Fish successively aggregate in the passes in order to spawn = in essence, as the prey representing the productivity of the adjacent lagoon travels to the Sharks, the Sharks don't have to travel to the prey.
  This opportunity attracts the majority of transient Reefies (= likely the adult males) along with the less resident ones, meaning that the Grey Reef concentration in Tetamanu nearly triples. Still, during that time, the biomass of prey is vastly larger than that of the Sharks and all Sharks have ample opportunities to feed.


• Once the spawning season is over and water temperatures, and consequently, the Sharks' metabolic requirements increase, the Reefies gradually disperse again, and residency at Tetamanu decreases as even the highly resident individuals are forced to sometimes roam in search of prey.

My takeaway?

• There is no inverted trophic pyramid in Fakarava Atoll.
  Yes in the passes there are local Shark aggregations and because of that, the trophic pyramid is locally skewed -  but just like in the case of Sala's remote islands, there are external subsidies and the Sharks also roam, meaning that the relevant area one has to consider is far, far larger than the mere area of the passes. And over that whole area that comprises the lagoons but also the outer slopes, the pyramid is clearly normal as the biomass of Sharks is orders of magnitude smaller than that of lower trophic levels.
  Incidentally, that's not that dissimilar from our feed on Shark Reef where the astounding temporary predator biomass is in no way representative for the trophic pyramid of Beqa Lagoon let alone the whole of Fiji!


• For me, these latest findings mean that until somebody comes up with solid evidence in line with the data collected by Johann et al, I will continue to call BS on Sala's hypothesis of there being inverted trophic pyramids on pristine reefs!

• And yes, we need to protect the prey and not only the predators!
  And the prey of the prey, and the prey of the prey of the prey, etc! And the habitat they reside in!
  In brief, Shark conservation needs to migrate away from a focus on species towards a more holistic approach = yes healthy reefs may need Sharks, tho the evidence is scarce and increasingly contested;
  But Reef Sharks definitely need healthy reefs!

Enjoy Johann's paper!
 

Shark Bites in Moorea - Paper!

Pretty grim - and these bites are merely superficial! Click for detail.

Bingo!

From the Abstract.

• Introduction: Shark-based ecotourism is significantly developing around the world, often without appropriate management of risk. This activity involves a risk of accidental bites on divers that can be quite severe or even fatal.
• Objectives: To determine if ecotourism companies’ liability can be engaged in the context of bites on scuba divers in presence of hand-feeding practices, supporting the legitimacy of financial compensation for the victims.
• Methods: We analyzed the development from the mid-eighties to 2010 of shark-based ecotourism through artificial provisioning practices in Moorea Island (French Polynesia) and more specifically the features and motivation of two bites on divers by Sicklefin Lemon sharks.
• Results: The specific practice of hand-feeding can be considered as a facilitating factor for accidental bites on divers, potentially involving the diving operator’s responsibility.
• Conclusions: Our findings should support the technical work of experts that might be called in such cases.

Didn't I tell you that the last paper had an agenda!

This one, titled Determining the Role of Hand Feeding Practices in Accidental Shark Bites on Scuba Divers is by one of the previous authors, my pal Eric Clua, and by, I believe, anthropologist Frédéric Torrente. It describes the history of the chaotic and now largely defunct Shark diving industry in Moorea along with two of the numerous non-predatory strikes by provisioned Sicklefin Lemons, see pic at top. It comes to the general conclusion that in certain cases, Shark diving operators may bear some responsibility and may even be liable should a client be injured.

Totally agree!

Like I've stated for many, many years, baited commercial Shark diving is not SCUBA diving, and the clients have a reasonable expectation that we operators keep them safe. Yes, we make them sign liability waivers which should hopefully exclude the most frivolous complaints - but when operators are clearly negligent, it is only fair that they be held accountable!

Case in point!

Seriously, WTF? 

But having said that, Elke obviously likes to get real close and undoubtedly bears her share for the fiasco. Having been at the receiving end many a time, I can attest to the pressure those eager image hunters will bring to bear - not easy to handle in an industry where client satisfaction and word-of-mouth recommendations are critical to one's financial survival!

Long story short?

Good one Eric - and for you out there who STILL don't understand what it means to conduct Shark tourism dives, re-read a) these 90-odd posts about our industry and then, b) these 80-odd posts about the need for proper procedures!

Enjoy! :)

Feeding Sharks and Rays - Paper!

One of the many stupidities found here!

Johann alerts me to this new paper.

It comes to the conclusion that ecologically, provisioning can have effects at the individual, group and population level, and that those effects are generally neutral to negative.

Well what can I say - probably that's true!

It just so happens that every single one of the authors is a pal of mine - and because I know them, I also suspect that on top of the science that is probably pretty much irrefutable, the paper also has a political agenda, and that is, to obliquely address the mess that is Shark diving in French Polynesia, see the link at the top.

Now don't get me wrong here.

Shark diving in French Polynesia is nothing short of stellar.

But when it comes to the feeding dives, most local moniteurs appear to believe that they're god's gift to Shark diving, meaning that they are entirely impervious to accepting even the most common-sense advice (steel mesh gloves anybody?) - and as a consequence, bites are rife. So far, most of the accidents did involve the comparatively harmless reefies - but now that everybody and his dog is flocking to the new, completely unregulated and multi-user Tiger Shark dive just outside of Papeete, the risk profile has risen astronomically and once again, it's really only a matter of time til things will end up in tears. Same-same for the stupid idea of having snorkeling tourists hand feed the small reefies - seriously, WTF?

It's same old same old, so I'm really not gonna dwell, the more as having been there, the discourse is way too ego-driven and frankly leads to nowhere, meaning that the situation appears pretty much hopeless unless the regulator decides to finally regulate.

Hint hint! :)

But I'm digressing.

I can't really say that I love the paper because its conclusions are pretty much obvious, and because it does not really address the principal cause of most of the enumerated problems = bad procedures. As an example, the much-cited disaster at Stringray City is entirely the consequence of piss-poor management and regulations!

Anyway - worth reading!

My take-away: better procedures and more research into those possibly negative effects - pretty much done on the former (tho always learning and always adapting!), and very much working on the latter, so keep watching this space!

And one last thought if I may.

The problem is not Shark diving - not for the animals and not for the people.

Compared to the overfishing and the habitat degradation, the inconvenience caused by the industry is nothing. And yes there have been many, mostly accidental bites - but as far as I know, during literally innumerable provisioned Shark dives, there has been a grand total of ONE documented fatality. Compare that to the same time spent engaging in ordinary SCUBA and ask yourself the question, which is by far the safer activity? 

Just sayin'!

So, lets please keep things in perspective - and let's also never forget to always mention the industry's enormous contribution to both conservation and research that outweighs any of those possible minor deleterious effects by far!

 

Tiger Sharks vs Blue Whale - Paper!

Source.

Very interesting!

Read this paper.

A (likely already weakened) Blue Whale was killed by Bull Sharks in New Caledonia and then later devoured by Tiger Sharks. The observations by Eric Clua and Jonathan Werry reveal a whole array of behavioral patters both when feeding but above all, when interacting among each other that range from the usual displays of dominance and agonism, to totally unexpected and amazing stuff - or did you know that they tail slap each other? 

Very useful, especially for those lovers of TB and Aliwal!

Love it, well done!

Moorea Lemons - one more Piece of the Puzzle!

 (A) Map of the study location. (B) The genetic network of adult lemon sharks. Each individual is indicated by a node labelled by shark ID. Circles and squares indicate females and males respectively and symbol size is indicative of the body length of the shark. Node colour corresponds to the three defined residency groups. Dyads sharing a first-order genetic relationship are connected by a line, with line thickness indicating the strength of the genetic relationship (proportional to R values). (C) Genetic degree (number of first-order genetic relationships an individual has) distribution within the population - click for detail!

Very nice!

Remember the Lemon feeding paper?

I was somewhat underwhelmed, and said so - which led to a personal visit by the very charming Eric Clua, and to a real interesting ongoing dialogue with Johann Mourier. And despite of a toothy (!) public debate between Juerg and Jon and the authors, everybody remains on best terms and is eager to share and discuss. That's how science advances and as Eric stated, everybody agrees that nous jouons dans la même équipe and that everybody profits by sharing ideas and engaging in spirited discussions.

And here is strike two - read it!

The feeding paper did raise the concern that the observed increased residency of some Lemons might lead to increased inbreeding - and from what I understand, this paper comes to the conclusion that it probably does not.

Whereas there are only about two dozen resident adult Lemons in Moorea, the species has evolved patterns to mitigate the according risk of inbreeding insofar as the Sharks will travel to both mate and pup (= migration), and that some individuals will travel to take residence in other islands (= dispersal), all of which is conducive to gene flow. Having said that, the degree of inbreeding of the Lemons in French Polynesia remains never the less relatively high, this likely due to small overall numbers and the relatively high isolation between islands and between archipelagos.

And the take away message after this rather epic 5y investigation?

I believe it boils down to this - and I trust that Johann will correct me if not.

• Like Juerg's Fiji paper, it once again confirms that provisioned Sharks appear to disperse normally, or as Juerg puts it, that
  Chumming and food provisioning are unlikely to fundamentally change movement patterns at large spatial and temporal scales, and seem to only have a minor impact on the behaviour of large predatory sharks; hence, the creation of behavioural effects at the ecosystem level seems unlikely.
  Obviously, this is the one aspect I'm most concerned about - and I sure hope that Johann will agree with this conclusion!

• That said, Lemons are not Bulls and French Polynesia is not Fiji.
  There remain some local effects that are a possible cause for concern, foremost of which the observed increased residency that could eventually result in lower numbers of Lemons dispersing which in this generally small population might have a significant negative effect on gene flow and thus the fitness of that local population.

• The second possibly negative effect is the observed increased aggression.
  I continue to question whether the observed increased brawling among male Lemons is really relevant in view of the animals' quasi magical healing powers. But what is certainly worrisome are the reports of increased strikes on humans, see the testimony by  Moorea Natural Diver Lover in the comments section here.
  To me, they are the direct result of poor procedures, foremost of which the surface feeding mentioned here. However Johann tells me that there's only one remaining operator that feeds the Sharks, so maybe that problem has been resolved - that is, provided that the operator is taking the necessary precautions which is not necessarily a given and certainly worth keeping an eye on!

All-in-all, a really brilliant job, and big kudos to everybody involved!

Reef Sharks - new Papers!

Grey Reef aggregation - likely in Apataki's Trou aux Requins - stellar pic by Chip!

Great stuff!

This first paper is about Grey Reefies.

It's by the authors of the Fiji Shark tourism paper and really a nice piece of research - and kudos to Gabe on the first authorship!

Rather surprisingly, it caused quite a kerfuffle on Patric's blog - but as I said there, Patric's comments are a tad harsh, the more as that particular species is not a frequent target of the long liners. 

But the general gist, i.e. that publishing data about philopatry carries some inherent risks is of course correct. I did blog about it here and came to the conclusion that such data should be used for conservation and management purposes and only be shared widely if there is robust and above all, fully enforced local protection - something that certainly pertains to Palau, especially for the popular and highly visited stretch between Siae's and New Dropoff!

Nice re-cap here

And yes Patric - Palau lays east of the Philippines (not north, south or west)! 

And... ? :)

This paper is about Blacktip Reef Sharks.

Inter alia, this one is by the authors of that Lemon Shark paper who continue their observations and in-depth analysis of the Shark Population of French Polynesia as part of the ORP and CRIOBE.

It investigates the genetic makeup of the Blacktip population in several of those islands and describes that it is highly fragmented, meaning that gene flow (= Sharks traveling between populations) is low. The conclusion it draws is that in order to protect Sharks, it is better to establish Shark Sanctuaries rather than to try and protect them via MPAs.

Well, yes, that is certainly true in general - the bigger the better!

On the other hand, as a staunch lumper, I cringe at the recent trend of splitting everything. There are several ignominious examples from Avian, Amphibian and freshwater Fish taxonomy where the designation of many sub-species hast resulted in a plethora of tiny local populations, and subsequently, in the squandering of scarce public resources in the quest of preserving every single one of them - and this fatally reminds me of those occurrences. 

With Shark conservation being as difficult as it is, I'd be quite happy to see progress at the species-complex level - the more as otherwise, most of those tiny populations would succumb to the requirement of prioritizing one's resources by applying conservation triage!

But yes those Sanctuaries are great - at least for as long as Shark fishing remains so poorly managed!

And what about the implications for us here in Fiji?

The first one is that with such high residency levels, the Shark Corridor offers a substantial degree of protection much like in the case of our Bulls.

Other than that, we don't know - yet!

In Juerg's research, we've so far concentrated almost exclusively on the Bulls. But we have also recorded many observations about the other species, and our data base undoubtedly contains the answers to several of the same questions - that is, if somebody had the time to analyze them! But fear not, Juerg's next paper is already in the works, and it will contain much more info about the other species!

Of interest and contrary to all other Grey Reef aggregation sites I have visited, the SRMR harbors more males than females who however also appear more transient much like the Bulls and also leave for what we believe is the mating season in mid year. 

The Blacktips on the other hand appear to be very much resident, and it will be interesting to explore whether the females go walkabout to some nursery area like those in Moorea - which is highly likely as contrary to the Whitetips that appear to give birth in situ, we see zero small juveniles!

Anyway, I'm digressing as always.

Read the papers - it's great stuff, and kudos to the authors on a job well done!

Eric Clua on Shark Feeding!

Bull Shark traffic in the Arena at 30m - click for detail!

Don't worry - no rant this time!

Actually, it's quite the contrary!
I must say, I'm increasingly impressed by the quality of people who have decided to come pay us a visit as of late. Maybe it's the incessant ranting on this blog or maybe it's even the disclaimer at the bottom of our home page - but the trend is unequivocal: the activists and adrenaline hunters are thankfully going somewhere else and being replaced by truly remarkable personalities who combine a passion for Sharks with solid knowledge and a refreshingly pragmatic and solution-oriented approach to Shark conservation.

Case in point, Erich Clua.
He popped in the other day and what ensued, apart from the inevitable bonding of Shark aficionados and some stellar pictures, see on top, was a remarkable discussion about the pros and cons of baited Shark diving. Eric is of course none other than the lead author of the Lemon feeding paper and French on top of that, and I was bracing myself for an explosion of Gallic outrage about the irreverence of my comments. But I must really say, Eric was nothing but constructive and genuinely interested in feedback - and yes, it may have helped that I know French Polynesian Shark diving politics in general and the Moorea Lemon Shark dive in particular, and that I was able to converse in passable French! :)

But I'm digressing as usual.
The fact is that Eric is a passionate Shark diver with a big heart for Shark conservation, and that he conducts fantastic Shark research in New Caledonia and in French Polynesia - in brief, the exact opposite of those bloviating Sesselfurzer! Despite being professionally active in another field, he is also a big honcho at the SPC and thus in an ideal position for furthering and disseminating desperately needed modern Shark conservation concepts (= forget the quotas: don't kill them at all!) across the SOPAC.

This is one of the many reasons for why I like his article.
It's included in the SPC's Fisheries Newsletter and has thus been read by policymakers across the Pacific. In case anybody should have forgotten, it is them and not the clamoring conservationists who will ultimately draft, or not draft any legislation protecting the marine resources we are so passionate about, and it is thus them we need to convince!
My personal wish: that it may finally spawn some reflection within the arcane halls of the SPTO and of SPREP whose representatives have so far displayed an equally irritating and ignorant aversion for our industry, this despite of the obvious benefits for both tourism and marine conservation.

Any caveats? Most certainly! :)
They center around the assertion that feeding quickly leads to dependence when food is easily available, as well as to sharks’ becoming accustomed to the presence of humans. Humans are soon associated with food and otherwise wary, distant sharks no longer hesitate in approaching humans and even entering into close contact with them. This significantly heightens the risk of accidental biting (e.g. a shark biting a diver’s limb that it mistakes for food) or intentional biting out of domination or territorial instincts.
Re-read this and you will know where I'm coming from on this topic: there is ZERO evidence that Sharks become dependent on handouts; and whereas I fully concur that the risk of bites (mind you: during the feed!) does indeed increase, I miss the unequivocal statement that the remedy is to implement better procedures, not to prohibit or demonize the feeding per se.

Examples?
The food is then released, and a hectic swirl ensues equals dumping which can result in feeding frenzies. We advocate always keeping control of the bait (e.g. by hand feeding) or only releasing the bait once the clients have left. Equally, we advocate single user sites where the animals are being conditioned to an always uniform and thus predictable routine. French Polynesian Shark feeding sites are however generally free-for-alls where different operators try to one-up their competitors in macho showmanship, which is a notorious problem in Moorea where the Lemons have even been lured to the surface by snorkeling boats.
In brief: if Moorea wants to continue enjoying the benefits of a thriving Shark tourism industry, somebody there has to put a stop to the shenanigans. Eric being a client of those dive ops cannot quite say it that openly - but I am quite certain that he concurs!

And what about the increased dependency and aggression?
We do not at all have the same experience. Our data clearly show that there is no increased residency in our Bulls, as despite of the ever increasing numbers, single individual animals only pop by for short periods of time, weeks at best, but spend the majority of their life elsewhere, likely roaming for food; also, they leave during the mating season and we are thus not witnessing their possibly heightened aggression like what is happening with those male Lemons.
But as always, granted, those are completely different Sharks, at a completely different site, with completely different procedures!

Long story short?
I really have to commend Eric. The article is interesting, very much in favor of Shark conservation and the Shark diving industry and refreshingly nuanced where it touches upon the more controversial aspects.
Very well done indeed!

As he writes in a recent message: Nous jouons dans la même équipe!

Lemons in Moorea - two!

This is a Sicklefin Lemon - forget the fins: notice the black dot on the nose? That's how you identify them!

Check this out.

This is another real interesting interview by WhySharksMatter .
David: well done & keep ‘em coming – so far, yer getting 10 out of 10!

Very cool!
Monsieur Clua is of course non other that the co-author of the Moorea Lemon Shark feeding paper and consequently, I continue to sense the same anti-feeding bias.
But at the same time, we learn that there are three dive ops feeding on that site, meaning that as expected, it is a multi-user site with all the resulting problems, and Johann Mourier’s answer on our Facebook stating that The feeding practices implemented by some diving center(for example feeding sharks from the surface) have led to a change in shark's behaviour, with bottom living lemons starting to come on the surface further leads me to believe that the real problem (if there is one) may well be procedures-related as I assumed in my post – and if so: everybody is herewith invited to come see what we do here, FOC, and discuss the possible implications for French Polynesia!

I actually tried to have that conversation there and although we are friends and everybody seemed interested, it was equally clear that nobody believed that the different interests would ever come around a table and agree on anything – I may add, very much like here in Fiji!

Anyway, the info about the value of Sharks was really interesting!
I remember seeing a direct value of approx USD 20,000 per shark per year from the Maldives, one operator in SA reports a value of approx USD 15,000 and the value of Shark tourism to the Bahamas is apparently USD 78m per year. Now, Clua postulates USD 50,000 per Shark per year for Moorea’s Lemons which is great – and also an indication of the price level of that particular corner of paradise!

Here’s the back-of-the-envelope calculation for Fiji.
We turn over FJD 1m with two boats, and it’s fair to assume that the guys down the road turn around half of that with one boat. Let’s also assume that all of it gets re-invested in Fiji, which is what we do.
Add the ancillary revenues as in flights, hospitality, restaurants, cabs, excursions, souvenirs etc and assume that the ratio may well be 2:1 (it is probably higher) – makes FJD 4.5m in total which two small dive ops earn with approx 100 regular Sharks.
Thus, the direct value of one of those Sharks to the Fiji economy is FJD 45,000 or USD 23,000 for every year it lives – as opposed to 300 bucks for its fins, once!
Pretty darn impressive, huh!

Clua also mentions the indirect value of Sharks to the Country citing improved fisheries etc.
Absolutely!

In my conversations with Government, I say this.
Some Sharks (not all: some are clearly mesopredators that would wreak havoc on the lower throphic levels if their population were not held in check), notably the larger predatory ones are probably keystone species that have a profound effect on the health of the reefs, meaning that if they were removed, the reef ecosystems could well collapse.

With Fiji being an island state, it is fair to assume that the principal, if not the only reason why tourists come and visit are its pristine reefs and waters, meaning that if the reefs were to be degraded, Fiji (and French Polynesia, and the Bahamas, and the Maldives, and Palau!) could kiss their tourism industry goodbye!
That’s millions upon millions of dollars, often the country’s principal sector of GDP and source of foreign exchange!

Keep this in mind next time you talk about Sharks, OK?