IGFA - lame lame lame!

The IGFA keeps defending unethical trophy fishing - not cool!

Remember David's paper about trophy fishing?

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

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

Well said - totally agree!

And here is the answer by the IGFA.

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

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

No I'm not gonna dwell.

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

Not gonna happen - and fuck the breathy mission statement.

Not impressed!

IGFA Records - great Paper!

Dead Goliath Groupers in 1957 - source.

Bravo!

Great to see a paper looking into this.

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

Please read this paper.

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

Well done!

And the IGFA?

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

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

Dunno if 100% accurate - but certainly plausible.

And incidentally. 

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

Marlin sinks Boat!

Source.

Story here!

New South Wales - Action, please!

Upset about the pic?
Here are several more!

From the website of the Game Fishing Association Australia, no less!

All line fishing methods that use hooks have the potential to harm grey nurse sharks.
Grey nurse sharks will take baited hooks and can also become hooked if they take a fish being played on line fishing gear regardless of whether bait or artificial lures have been used. However, the use of wire trace for bottom fishing and setlines has been identified as the most harmful fishing method to grey nurse sharks. Many sharks can be seen with fishing gear, such as hooks, caught in their jaws and line trailing from their mouth and gills. Autopsies of grey nurse sharks have found that hooks can become embedded in the throat and stomach, and can puncture the shark’s large liver. This can lead to bacterial infection, septicaemia (blood poisoning) and ultimately death.

From the paper.

Grey nurse sharks clearly interact with static baits deployed close to their aggregations.
All bait types were taken at all times of day, and grey nurse sharks were the only bait-takers after dusk. Even the least taken bait types resulted in frequent (10%) shark interactions, demonstrating that bottom-set baits pose a high interaction risk when deployed around grey nurse shark aggregations.

From the website of the NSW Government (!).

Areas that are known to be used for feeding and breeding are considered important for the survival of a threatened species. Some of these areas may be declared as critical habitat, such as the grey nurse shark areas along the NSW coast.

Hook and line fishing in areas important for survival has negative impacts on many threatened native species including Grey nurse shark (endangered).

Hook and line fishing can impact upon threatened species by causing damage to the mouth of fishes, which may impact on feeding behaviour and feeding success. The effects of fish hooks can be more serious over a longer time if retained in the mouth, throat and stomach of fishes and sharks, and ultimately can lead to death. Even though it is illegal to take a threatened species, these species are still being harmed by hook and line fishing, as evidenced by grey nurse sharks and black cod seen with hooks in their mouths.

While listing all hook and line fishing throughout NSW waters as a KTP is impractical and unwarranted, particular sites, such as known aggregation sites, spawning areas, important juvenile habitats and feeding areas, are of critical importance for the survival of threatened species. Some of these areas, but not all, are listed as critical habitat areas under NSW Fisheries legislation.
Any activity that could kill or adversely affect threatened fish species in these critical areas should be considered a threatening process and managed accordingly.

The new Fisheries Minister Katrina Hodgkinson could not care less.
In clear contravention of the precautionary principle and pending some re-assessment, or whatever, she is revoking the new fishing ban around Fish Rock and Green Island. I've blogged about it here, and here are more details on the Grey Nurse Blog.

Here is Ms Hodgkinson's e-mail along with that of her boss the PM.
If you live in NSW and are thus a member of their constituency, you may want to write and tell them what you think about this utter fiasco, or you can also sign up to this campaign by the Nature Conservation Council of NSW.

I know too little about Ozzie politics to give any advice to people from outside of NSW or Australia.
Best drop a line to Peter Hitchins and staff of the Southwest Rock Dive Center, or contact the FishRock Dive Center and ask them about the best way to proceed.

Vinaka Vakalevu!

Catch&Release fishing for Sharks?

Sorry for the prolonged silence.
Much to do, all of it real good, and not much Sharky happening out there.

Except for this timely post by David.
I'm not, and never will be a member, or whatever, of any of those Shark lists and once again, David's post amply illustrates why.
Really, what is there to discuss and get so incensed about?

Fishing for Sharks sucks, period.
As a Shark lover, I fervently wish that nobody would do that.
I also fervently wish that everybody could live in harmony and that there were no wars.
Did anybody say tough luck ?
Indeed!

And what about a global fishing ban for Sharks?
Read my lips: it ain't gonna happen - incidentally, as with all global fishing bans!
This is the real world where every day, millions of hooks are baited for Sharks in order to aliment the global Shark fin trade. As conservationists, we can continue to totally waste our energies trying to enact a total global ban - or we can pursue smarter strategies and advocate sustainability that will preserve those fishing jobs and revenues forever, or in the case of Shark fishing, fight for finning bans that eliminate a profoundly unethical harvesting technique and ensure that at least all the protein of those Sharks is being utilized.
And yes, as David correctly points out, Shark researchers can, and should take advantage of the existing commercial Shark fisheries to gather valuable data. Case in point, these fantastic insights into the life cycle of Porbeagles garnered by Steven Campana, for which he cooperated closely with the Canadian Shark fishermen - but I stand by this comment: like in the case of lethal sampling, actively advocating commercial fishing just for the sake of research, let alone publicly bemoan conservation successes is totally unacceptable!
Remember Mark Harding?

...the fact that a scientist supposedly promoting their conservation is damning that decision is somewhat concerning. Science provides valuable tools with which to carve out a conservation arguement, but, in some cases, science can go too far. Tag the last remaining specimen, harry it, disturb it, infiltrate its life so that it will not breed, so that it does become the last one on earth?
If there were ten dodos left alive, would we be better off studying them, watching them die, or putting a fence 30 miles around them and letting them get on with it, in the hope that they would breed?

And then, there's the game fishermen.
They number tens, if not hundreds of thousands and they are passionate, often financially well endowed and extremely well organized - trust me, not people we want to pick a fight with! I happen to be one of them but I just happen to believe that in terms of sportsmanship, fishing for Sharks sucks.

But others beg to differ as they want to catch large trophy fishes.
In the past, they would land the Shark, get the obligated trophy pictures and either cut out the jaws and throw away the carcass, or donate the contaminated meat to some food bank or the like, or have the Shark mounted. Now, they are being offered the alternative of catch & release and in a few particularly forward looking excellent tournaments, they are being invited to co-operate closely with reputable Shark researchers. That's exactly in line with what has previously happened with Billfishes where practically all game fishing is now catch, tag& release, and I cannot but strongly applaud and fully support these recent developments.

As to whether this harms the Sharks?
No, one does NOT need peer reviewed science to answer this: catch & release is certainly inferior to not fishing - or is anybody seriously disputing this? Many of our Bulls feature fishing hooks and a few now feature permanent disfigurements, like that Tiger in the above picture by Wolfgang, or even our iconic Scarface. Those disfigured Sharks will be at a disadvantage when catching prey - I know because those individuals are regularly incapable of properly grabbing the bait. Not nice by any stretch of the imagination and as a minimum, the fight those Sharks had to endure has unnecessarily expended energy, which is certainly reducing their fitness, at least temporarily - and as a maximum and depending on species, a few to many of the hooked Sharks will eventually die.

But again, this is about finding solutions in the real world, not about pursuing utopian visions.
I will never cease to repeat this: we must be ready to compromise. Catch & release is the pragmatic compromise between no fishing, and fishing to kill. As in every good compromise, both sides will not be perfectly happy - but like in all conservation initiatives, it is the only realistic way forward.

So, again, David thank you for your timely post.

This is way cool!

Especially the part about the angler foregoing a possible world record!
As to Guy, the man sure has guts!

Enjoy!

Shark Free Marinas – Takeoff!

Great news!
It really looks like the whole SFMI concept is coming together and having continued to heckle Luke about the apparent lack of proactive action in the USA, all I can say is finally and well done!

You can read it all on the great, completely re-vamped website.
There a brand new logo and they have produced brand new brochures that feature beautiful artwork by Guy Harvey and that will be distributed to a whopping 1,500 marinas during the upcoming US membership drive.
All very impressive indeed!

Although, having said that…
If Tonga, population 100,000 can sign up 3 marinas (=one for every 33,300 Tongans) and Fiji, population 850,000 can sign up 24 (=one for every 35,400), what should we expect from the USA, population 310.5m?

So, Luke: there’ your challenge! :)

For real Men!

Wilson alerts me to this game.

For real men?
I'm obviously too old and technophobic for that kind of stuff - but then again, it quite remarkably appears to be completely devoid of any attacks, chomping and killing and all of those other pedagogically valuable attributes commonly associated with Shark toys and the like. So I guess that's progress and thus a good thing!

Which brings me straight over to the Are You Man enough Shark Challenge - remember?
Looks like after having been dragged there kicking and above all, screaming, Jack Donlon has seen the light: his tournament has become catch-and-release and a continuation of the excellent trend pioneered by the Guy Harvey Ultimate Shark Challenge.
And since it's popular and thus, good business, Jack plans to roll this out even further! Yes it's ultimately all about the money - but if it entertains the plebs and saves Sharks in the process, all I can say is well done, good on him and best of success with it!

Tho I still believe that those IGFA weight records must be abolished - and that, anyway, game fishing for Sharks is for wanquers !
Yes, please excuse my French!

Excellent!

Please read this press release by Mote.
It really looks like the Guy Harvey Ultimate Shark Challenge has been a total success.
Kudos!

From an e-mail by a friend.

On a positive note, I went to Sarasota this weekend to the Guy Harvey USC...

I was able to watch Bob Hueter SPOT tag a young female great hammerhead. She was about seven and a half feet, so not exactly a baby, but maybe not quite sexually mature yet (they mature at @ 92 inches). Anyway, the shark looked to be in good shape when she swam off. Overall I'm really, really happy that I went...

Anyway I guess you can see that I was impressed.
Hopefully I'm not being naive or overly optimistic, but I really do feel good about this. I'm glad I got to see the hammerhead release, because that is one of the biggest concerns. This was a relatively small one. I know they'd like to tag a big pregnant one, so they can find out where they go to pup, etc.
I am still nervous about that, but definitely less nervous than before.

What a remarkable change!
Like me, this particular gentleman was initially skeptical and to see him so totally converted is truly remarkable! Good on him for having conducted his personal due diligence, and for having kept an open mind about the issue!

Me, too, I'm really impressed - so far!
Due to my personal distaste of game fishing for Sharks, I shall never quite warm to the concept.
But having said this, my hope is that this will establish a trend and that the existing kill tournaments will gradually switch to the catch and release formula - hopefully, without any new Shark tournaments being established.
If on top of that, the IGFA could be convinced to stop certifying those disgraceful all-tackle records for Sharks, then this would really be huge progress over the current status quo!

Fingers crossed!

So Far so Good!

Guys, this ain't a circle hook - well spotted by Lawrence!

Some you win, some you loose!

Case in point: this recent post.
It contains a very oblique reference to the Guy Harvey Ultimate Shark Challenge - and now both sides are equally pissed off! The proponents believe that I'm criticizing it unfairly, the opponents criticize me for not having spoken out against it!
Guess it serves me right for not having been my usual abrasive self!

Thing is, I'm very much on the fence on this one.
In theory, I support it for being the better alternative to kill tournaments, at least in the short term; from the heart, I do not like it as I'm against trophy fishing for Sharks; and in this specific case, I still need to be convinced that this is genuine and not just some kind of business spin.
As always, time will tell!

But as the title implies, I'm rather impressed - so far!
You may first want to read the general outline here and then, the recap of the qualifying round here.

From what I can discern, this has been off to a great start!
This looks like a meticulously planned and flawlessly executed event and I must say: kudos to all those who came up with the initiative and invested what must have been a gargantuan amount of sweat equity into making this happen!
Technically speaking all I can say is job very well done!

And there's more good news.
Firstly, the apparent sidelining of real man Jack Donlon - and if so I say, good riddance!
Secondly, the re-appearance of Bucky Dennis among the catch-and-release anglers! If this indicates a genuine change of heart, it would be a truly spectacular confirmation of the effectiveness of the tournament's new format!

And ethically, as a conservationist?
Still not convinced!
This has now morphed into an event where fishermen catch and tag specimen for the research of Mote, something the Shark researchers do anyway.
That in itself is a good thing as it furthers our insights into the animals' life history and since the need to release them in good health has mandated the deployment of circle hooks and tail snares, along with very heavy tackle in order to get them to the boats in a minimum of time - not very game as in game fishing but probably the least invasive way to go.

Still, this is the principal mating and birthing season and this means that this is once again directly targeting pregnant females, some of which will certainly perish despite of all the precautions - especially some of the highly endangered Great Hammerheads who are particularly prone to dying of exhaustion as they are known to fight til the end.
Could next year's dates be moved to a less sensitive time frame?

Long story short - I'm still undecided but at the same time, looking forward to more news about the tournament proper!

The immediate question now being: who did I piss off this time!

PS: this is very cool - thanks Underwater Thrills for posting it!

Left to die

Got the following two e-mail messages today.

I am sad to report that on Tuesday evening a pregnant Bull Shark was killed in the keys from beach shark fishing activities.
The fishermen were using two 16/0 "J" hooks to catch the animal. The animal was caught in the gills with the J hook and left to die on the beach. As you can see from the pictures, there were 12 pups ready to be born (6 male, 6 female). Very sad and wasteful.
This is a nightly occurrence!


Sadly we have a very similar report from Delray Beach today.
A pregnant Great Hammerhead washed up on shore in Delray a little before 2pm.

The Shark was hooked in the mouth with a large J Hook.
I don't know the specifics about the hook, but we have the hook and the line that was attached. A friend happened to be at the beach when this happened and called me. She said that the shark looked pregnant. Somebody asked me to bring a knife so that we could try to save the pups if they were still alive. There were 35 pups -- 21 male and 14 female -- all fully developed and ready to be born.

Unfortunately they were all dead already.

The measurements of the mother were 13 feet total length; 10 feet 4.5 inches fork length and 9 feet 8 inches pre-caudal.
This is another example of why female Sharks need to be protected in Florida, especially in Spring and Summer when the females come close to shore to give birth.
Sorry to have to share this sad news.

Are you as angry as me?

This may surprise you but I'm actually an avid game fisherman.
Being a Shark conservationist, I obviously don't target Sharks - but even as a "sportsman", or whatever, I personally believe that Shark fishing really sucks: they are way too easy to attract and catch, with the exception of Makos they put up a very poor fight, many end up being gut hooked and perish even when released - with land based fishing for Sharks being even worse since the big ones need to be completely subdued in order to be landed, meaning that many are likely to die of exhaustion.

But that's just my personal opinion which is certainly not shared by many game fishermen.
I must also acknowledge that there is a movement from within aimed at reforming Shark fishing by promoting less invasive methods like e.g. catch & release and circle hooks.
Pragmatically speaking, it's unfortunately the only way forward, at least in the short term - but I still don't like it and have thus refrained from promoting any Shark fishing and specifically, the new format of Shark tournaments, forward looking as they may be. Thing is, I'm still not convinced that they are not merely the brain child of some clever businessmen who want to establish, market and exploit a new business niche by pandering to the eco movement, as opposed to the genuine desire to reform the existing kill tournaments.
I would however be convinced if the net result would be a) existing kill tournaments being reformed, b) no new Shark fishing tournaments being established and c) less people game fishing for Sharks. Anybody taking bets?
Yes I'm digressing and as always, we will see!

But wherever you're coming from - this cannot be tolerated anymore!
This has catapulted the reputation of land based Shark fishing back to the stone age and confirmed all of the anti-fishing stereotypes.
If those people ever want to rid themselves of the stigma of being nothing more than primitive murderous yahoos, their associations will have to do much, much better. Let us see the immediate and unequivocal public condemnation of these shameful events; let us see them issue regulations aimed at ensuring that despicable shit like this will never happen again, coupled with sanctions against any transgressors.

As to the targeting of pregnant Sharks - how can anybody possibly justify that?
Do I really need to spell out the ethical implications and the value of mature breeding females for endangered stocks?

And yet, by its very own regulations, the IGFA still promotes this abomination.
All-tackle record Sharks will always be pregnant females and as long as those shameful records are being certified, game fishermen will continue to specifically target those animals. Can you imagine the reaction of the public and even, the hunting community if similar "feats" had been perpetrated by hunters?

All very sad, really.
My only hope is that those 49 dead Sharks will serve as ambassadors, like other dead Sharks have done in the past: for credible reform among the fishermen and their associations and failing that, for better legislation aiming at protecting those valuable animals when they are most vulnerable.

PS: also posted by Neil Hammerschlag here - read the shocking testimony of a beach cleaner in the comments section and yes, Shark fishing is illegal in Delray Beach.

Sun Sentinel article here.

PS2: great blog post by Mary here.

PS3 toothy comments on SDI's new blog!

Case in Point!

Sorry for the silence!

Thing is, we're currently hosting Royalty and also, incredibly busy cooking up some real cool projects (watch this space!) and it's just very difficult to find the time!

But I saw this and just wanted to make the point.

This would have been a Fijian all-tackle record and yet, they let the Shark go.

They of course being Bite Me, Fiji's top game fishing operator and together with Matava, the coordinator of the Fiji roll-out of the Shark Free Marinas Initiative. 22 supporters later, Fiji is by far the most active region and well on its way to becoming the first Shark Free country.

I just discovered that the SFMI website has been completely re-vamped and is now even more user friendly.

And yet, when you check out the Registered Marinas, nothing much has changed: a paltry 7 in the USA, a measly 3 in the Bahamas where Shark diving is a mainstay of tourism - not a single one in Australia,  New Zealand, Africa, Asia, Europe, South America: entire continents featuring less supporters than the tiny Kingdom of Tonga!

How pathetic is that!

I've said it before, this is without a doubt one of the most efficient and effective Shark conservation initiatives around. The concept could not be simpler, it costs absolutely zero and it immediately saves Sharks that would otherwise get killed - and yet, nobody seems to care.

Let me cite from another post.

Having searched for "names" and having looked at the websites of the plethora of self-professed Shark lovers, savers, warriors and protectors out there, I'm starting to wonder: where are they?

Where are, to name but a few, the Funds, Allies & Alliances, Societies, Foundations, Initiatives, Conservancies, Institutes, Projects and Trusts, the Backbiters, Savers, Preservers, Spotters, Angels, Shepherds, Aiders, Stewards, Researchers and all of those other orgs that solicit donations from the public for safeguarding Sharks?
Where are all those prominent photographers and cameramen that draw their sustenance from taking images of Sharks?
Have the Shark diving operators and the Travel agents that book them bothered to mobilize their clients?

Questions questions - and I spare you the answers! 

Well, gee, Congrats!

From the Paxton Brothers' Fishing gone Wild website.

The original Abomination (hint: you may wanna change the URL...) has been re-branded into The Ultimate Shark Challenge and honored by the County's commissioners. The tournament is now 100% catch-and-release and that's certainly an improvement (tho far from being "good") and a notable achievement for the Shark Free Marinas Initiative.

I understand the need for this sort of harmonic mythology and mutual back-slapping - but let's not forget to honor the contribution of the people who got the ball rolling in the first place! And of these guys! And others!
Fair is fair - OK?

Yes, I know, others will disagree!

Hawaii

Different Ocean, same controversy - and same perpetrators!

The opponents of Hawaii's "Shark dives" (they're actually totally harmless and educative snorkeling tours) try to make the case that baiting for Sharks three miles offshore may induce the Sharks to follow the boats back to shore where they then pose a hazard to the beach goers and aquatic recreationists.

Absolute Humbug!, says this study by Meyer and others of the UH Mānoa Hawai'i Institute of Marine Biology:

The public safety implications of shark cage diving operations are arguably the most contentious aspect of these activities.
A recent study of the white shark cage diving industry in South Africa concluded that specific conditioning associated with these activities makes them unlikely to increase the risk of shark attacks on recreational ocean users in adjacent areas (Johnson & Kock 2006).
This is despite the fact that white sharks are the species most frequently implicated in shark attacks on people (430 attacks worldwide; G. Burgess, International Shark Attack File, personal communication 2007).

Our study indicates that current Hawaii shark diving operations also pose little risk to public safety.
The shark assemblage associated with these activities was numerically dominated (> 98%) by Galapagos and sandbar sharks, which rarely bite people. Worldwide, there have only been five confirmed unprovoked attacks attributed to sandbar sharks and only one attack attributed to a Galapagos shark (G. Burgess, International Shark Attack File, personal communication 2009). Other potentially dangerous species (tiger shark, hammerhead spp. or white shark), occasionally visit Hawaii shark cage diving sites, but there is no evidence that the rate of shark attacks along the adjacent coast has increased significantly since the advent of shark cage diving operations in 2001. There were five confirmed shark attacks along the north coast of Oahu (38 km stretch of coastline between Kaena Point and Kahuku Point) during the 1990s (Global Shark Attack File [GSAF] 2009) and five confirmed shark bites in this area between 2000 and 2008 (GSAF 2009, Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources 2009).

Negligible impact on public safety is also supported by:
(1) the remoteness of the sites,
(2) the fact that the shark tours mimic activities of crab fishing vessels which have been operating in the same area for over 40 years and
(3) inshore recreational stimuli (such as a surfer paddling on a 3msurfboard) substantially differ from the conditioning stimuli associated with tour operations (c. 10 m diesel powered vessels operating several km offshore), and hence are unlikely to stimulate a conditioned feeding response (Johnson & Kock 2006).

Seriously, does anybody really think this is anything but good, safe and harmless fun?



Incidentally, I was just sent the following by "somebody" very prominent who lives in Hawaii and is intimately acquainted with local circumstances. I can categorically state that he's generally as pragmatic, impartial and well reasoned as they come and not at all an exponent of the tree-hugging activist faction of Shark Conservation.

Did you catch Jim Rizzuto's column in West Hawaii Today on Monday?
It seems that a charter sportfishing boat was on its way into Honokohau Harbor and decided to try for some fun near the harbor entrance. They hooked up a Whitetip, which was then bitten in half by a Tiger Shark. When a fisherman feeds a Shark (even one that belongs to a species that has declined drastically in population over the last decade) to another Shark, it's GOOD FUN!
If you go out to look at a Shark to appreciate it and learn about it, it's a statewide threat.

A diver was circled by two Tiger Sharks for 20 minutes recently at the entrance to Honokohau Harbor.
Every knows why the Sharks are there: because the sportfishing boats dump their carcasses there on their way back into the harbor (or in many cases, dump the carcasses in the harbor, with the smell and sometimes the carcasses themselves going back out with the tide). When fishermen pollute the harbor and attract the only dangerous species of Shark we have here into an area that is one of the island's most popular spots for snorkeling, diving, and surfing, and home to endangered Sea Turtles, Dolphins, and (seasonally) Humpback Whales with calves, it's NO PROBLEM.

If divers maintain a population of small Sharks, never implicated in attacks on humans here, at a location over 3 miles offshore and far from any other recreational water activities, it's a CRISIS! Of course, when that same population of Sharks was being maintained in that same area by fishermen it was NO PROBLEM.
Hmm - must be a simple rule in here somewhere that could explain this logic....

Indeed!