Andersen - at it again!

And I cite.

I do not advocate touching sharks — and these days, I do my best to avoid it, regardless of how much those incredible moments fuel my drive.
Why? It’s simple: As divers, we assume a very important responsibility when we enter the water with sharks. We must always act with the utmost caution, to ensure no thoughtless risks are taken...

I also realize what I do influences others.
I’ve taken dozens of people into the water for the first time to dive with sharks. If they see me touching, I could be setting in motion a lifetime of shark petting. Or coral grabbing. Or turtle riding. It’s hard to know where to stop, and even harder not to get carried away when it comes to sharks. I don’t pass judgment on my peers, but I do silently wish some of those times I touched sharks had not been so widely publicized or shared...

As we collectively chase sharks to the brink of extinction, it's more important than ever to encourage people to gain an appreciation for their true character through safe diving. So, while contact feeds my conservationist soul, I’ll forgo touching to ensure just that, and hope that others will do the same.

And now, watch this.

Betcha that like always, the video and the proud FB post will be made private as soon as I call them out - but it hasn't yet happened, so enjoy or whatever.

I did call it back then.

And still, the hypocrisy and the narcissism really beggar belief.

Touching Sharks - Wildlife Harassment?

Source.

OK, first rant of the year.

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

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

Da che pulpito?

When it comes to Andersen, meh.

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

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

Could not agree more!

And how about David's comment.

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

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

This is what irks me.

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

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

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

Plus, there is this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what about those interactions.

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

So, which interactions are acceptable and which not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any questions? Source.

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

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

And how about this one from Bimini!

Are you deeply outraged as always?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what about the flipping of those Tigers?

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

Do I like it - certainly not!

Do I hate Eli because of it - certainly not!

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

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

There, now I've said it.

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

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

Operation Requiem - NOTHING huh!

Well well.

Talk about having ears on fire!

The pageviews of the Operation Requiem post have literally exploded, meaning that heaps upon heaps of people have chosen to click on the post instead of reading it on the blog, most likely in order to check out the comments.
Betcha that many of them are associated with those orgs, and betcha that this scribe has been the object of a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth?

And yet, there have been ZERO comments in support!

Not a single voice defending the oh-so-noble intentions and stellar achievements of those people, not a single attempt at justifying the project, let alone the stupendous expenditures, not a single answer in response to the following simple questions?

• Is the babemobile under its vociferous captain honoring the given assurances and patrolling the waters of Tonga, Kiribati and Vanuatu that gave such warm welcomes?


• Are the SSCS and/or the Shark Angels working collaboratively with those several South Pacific governments and NGOs as announced - and if so, where, and what are the results?


• And what of those LMMAs - what is the progress there?

Is that really it?

Is there really gonna be zero accountability for this monumental fiasco?

Really?

And if not - lemme cite myself.

It's all so fucking pathetic.

Under the executive direction of Andersen who would give an arm and a leg, or for the matter, any body part for being featured on national media, the Shark Angels have become the repository of all those hypocritical Shark media whores, starting from the great pornographer all the way down to all those desperate self promoting wannabees. No wonder they endorse Shark Week - they all desperately want to be in it and will certainly never bite the hand that could once propel them to perceived fame and riches!

And the others?

I'm frankly totally baffled.

Not the shameless self promoters. Not the Sea Shepherd drones. Not the media whores. Not the Shark pageant kids. Not the chicks with the moldy duck wings.

Those who really want to make a difference, who invest hours upon hours of their free time trying to educate the public or running campaigns, those who want to get the job done and don't appreciate and are frankly embarrassed by those relentless pathetic shenanigans by the narcissistic leadership and its cronies.

WTF are you still doing there - you are being tainted by association!

You know who you are.!

Operation Requiem - Anniversary!

Where's the  babemobile now? Source.

So there.

This brief exchange reminds me of unfinished business.

It is now one year since Julie Andersen and Co got their hands on Sea Shepherd's pointy babemobile and embarked on a junket across the South Pacific - and it is now high time for one last look at that shit.

But first.

Remember the bombastic announcement?

It still makes me puke whenever I watch it.

Like I said from the outset, the whole BS about kicking ass, stopping at nothing, putting one's life on the line and being willing to DIE had nothing to do with conservation but was instead Andersen's attempt at starring on some sharky Whale Wars clone on Animal Planet. But worry not, I'm not about to bore you with yer another repetitive rant. Should you really have missed the whole kerfuffle when it happened, you can check out what I've posted here when I awarded it the Shark Conservation Con of the Year.

Instead, I want to talk about this.

Sounds great doesn't it - were it not for the fact that like the whole campaign, it's just simply a big heap of BS! To wit, protected one of the world’s largest marine reserves, stopped illegal fishing = boarded legal purse seiners in the PIPA! Talk about a double con: the specific activity but also the fake protected area! 

Anyway.

Even if one overlooks the details, the general gist of that page is that Andersen's junket has been a great Shark conservation success and that it has paved the way for greater and better things to come, see the reference to several partnerships with local governments and NGO’s and the laying of the groundwork for the establishment of locally protected marine areas in 3 countries.

And the reality one year later?

• Is the babemobile under its vociferous captain honoring the given assurances and patrolling the waters of Tonga, Kiribati and Vanuatu that gave such warm welcomes? 
• Are the SSCS and/or the Shark Angels working collaboratively with those several South Pacific governments and NGOs as announced - and if so, where, and what are the results? 
• And what of those LMMAs - what is the progress there?

Or may Operation Requiem STILL be nothing but a scam?

I'm asking because I am hearing and reading NOTHING - and I betcha it's because NOTHING is happening! From what I can discern, Andersen has been terminated, see below;  Fisk, meh; and the sly Ms Basset is back to being her radical shepherdette self in Hawaii. Initiatives from those quarters, let alone successes in protecting the Sharks in the South Pacific: a big fat zero.
On the contrary: Tonga under its Shepherd of the Sea has since opened its doors to unlimited Shark fishing and finning - and the PIPA has since been fittingly outed as a scam! 

Or not? Surprise me!

The Pacific Voyagers?
Having employed some of the voyagers, my impression was that this was nothing but yet another junket on other people's money, namely some wealthy and IMO hopelessly romantic and credulous German dude who came up with and financed the whole exercise - and observing the local leaders parade around in their big SUVs whilst preaching sustainability to others has certainly done nothing to dispel my reservations.
I believe that this pseudo-cultural retro movement does nothing in addressing the aspirations of the young generation of Pacific Islanders that are desperately looking for a vision of the future, foremost of which decent jobs and decent lives. For that, like anybody else, they will need to have a good education and then be willing to work hard - and I'm concerned to see zero reference to that in the Voyagers' messaging. But as always the proof is in the pudding, and it remains to be seen whether now that the voyage and with it, the indiscriminate funding have ended, there will be any lasting and tangible legacy.
But I'm obviously digressing - progress for Sharks, zero!

Sea Shepherd?

If my suspicion is accurate and NOTHING has happened in the past twelve months and that consequently, the overarching campaign is nothing but hot air - why, exactly, is this stuff still on their website? 

Whereas I will always remain opposed to the personality cult and its brand of radical activism, Sea Shepherd's largely overlooked Shark conservation activities in the Galapagos have been nothing short of stellar. And I must also say that as of late, I've been rather impressed with Gary Stokes' work at CITES and more recently, on the airline and shipping lines campaigns - the more since trusted friends think very highly of him. Plus, would that be a vintage BAD t-shirt? :)

So why tarnish the Shark conservation effort with this shit - the more as the Pacific is already so well served by the literally countless NGOs and especially, Pew?

Or again: surprise me!

And the breathy Director of Shark Campaigns?

According to this posting on SSCS France, she has been terminated because when questioned about her association with Scubapro that stands accused of supporting marine Mammal captivity, she has by no means put her life on the line, or whatever, but has instead chosen to continue taking Scubapro's money - and no I'm not at all surprised!

But fear not, she's obviously completely unfazed, still desperately kissing Discovery's arse and already working on her next Shark con - and talk about a revealing choice of name if ever there was one!

To be continued no doubt - alas!

Shark Savers and WildAid - Merger!

Boy oh boy.

I've been asked to write something constructive - but to be perfectly frank, I don't quite know where I stand on this.

So bear with me - it's gonna be what it's gonna be.

So there - the cat is finally out of the bag.

Shark Savers and WildAid have announced that they are merging pending ratification by the relevant authorities. This is the official announcement by Shark Savers, this is the official announcement by WildAid, and these are some further explanations and reflections by Michael Skoletsky.
The merged org will be called WildAid.

Prima vista, this is obviously a good thing.

There are way too many orgs in Shark conservation, and pooling one's resources is certainly the rational thing to do. Shark Savers and WildAid have a long and successful history of cooperation, latest of which the brilliant Manta Ray of Hope project and subsequent stellar advocacy at CITES - so judging by those metrics alone, the future looks bright indeed. I'm also really, really happy to learn that Michael, DaMary and Sam are joining the new org as they are all friends with a terrific track record.

And yet I am saddened.

Ever since the eviction of Andersen and all her crazy BS, I've been a staunch supporter of Shark Savers' agenda of pragmatic and science based conservation initiatives and messaging.

WildAid, not so much.

Check out this interview with Tod Bensen.

This is of course compelling stuff.

And there is certainly a need to curb demand.

Indeed, if you look at the 2000 numbers (click on the graph), finning accounts for 908 tons of the 1411 tons of caught Sharks that were not discarded, making it 64% or roughly 63 million Sharks of which we can state that they were caught for their fins alone. Then of course there is an additional albeit unknown number among the IUU and FAO number - and judging from what we learn about what is happening now in the W/C Pacific, those trends do not appear to have been much reversed.

So once again, judging by those metrics alone WA's principal focus is certainly legit.

I also understand the part about the need to be a niche player.

And still, for me, this is just too uni-dimensional. I won't bother you with the usual ranting about the fact that "Sharks" are not Rhinos and neither all endangered, nor apex predators nor keystone species, or about supply limited fisheries and sustainability, let alone certified Shark fins - just read the links if you care, or don't. The real world is way more nuanced, and so must be the different conservation strategies.

What I will however say is that Shark Savers has a broader scope and that I like that - so here's to WildAid becoming more broadly involved as a result of the merger!

And then, there's the messaging.

Shark Savers has it down to an art, both on their website that is easy to read and navigate, and brimming with excellent content, and on their stellar Facebook page where Sam is doing an excellent, commendable job. WildAid's website is frankly optically rather shocking, and their FB is a mish-mash of different causes that will not equally appeal to all the Shark people.

So here's to a better website and to a dedicated Shark FB page!

Long story short?

One will need to see where this is going.

The merger can result in a better, better funded, more broadly based and generally much improved organization and as long as it appears to be heading that way, it still has my full support and Godspeed to everybody involved.

And if not, not.

To be continued no doubt!

The Shark Angels on Shark Diving!

Bravo!

This is really as good as it gets.

Whilst I vehemently oppose the often hypocritical self promotion of its leadership, many of the Shark Angels are accomplished Shark divers all the way to being prominent commercial Shark diving operators, and it really shows in this brilliant collection of posts.

Required reading!

So THIS is Shark Conservation!

And I cite.

I was swimming through a pool of my own blood...

He (= the Shark) was tearing the hamstring out of my leg, and tearing my hand off...

Watch this.

Oh yes this would be once again Gurney Productions.

They are Discovery's el cheapo go-to house for Shark porn, and once again regale us with the usual diarrhea of Shark attacks, teeth, blood and gore, all the way to a re-enactment of those tired old idiotic experiments, or whatever. Yes, now we finally have PROOF that Sharks are now so desperate that they will eat people - and watermelons, because they look like fucking sea turtles! Sez this clown! 

Special mention: the sped-up close-up of one of those poor harmless Bimini Hammers, and the Mako Shark slo-mo - and where have I seen that one before?

And huge props for introducing mammal meat to a popular Shark diving site - great idea!

And ABC4 is their el cheapo go-to shooter for that shit!

THIS is what he really means when he assures us, so eloquently, that he loves Sharks. PERIOD and that he makes an honest effort to avoid films that involve shark attacks and negative portrayals of sharks - see the citation at the top! And his assertion that he's ultimately only the hired cameraman, with no control over the editing? Bollocks! Having worked with Gurney many times and even produced that Fiji shit,  he went into it eyes wide open -  pecunia non olet all over again!

Like I said - so far so bad!

It's all so fucking pathetic.

Under the executive direction of Andersen who would give an arm and a leg, or for the matter, any body part for being featured on national media, the Shark Angels have become the repository of all those hypocritical Shark media whores, starting from the great pornographer all the way down to all those desperate self promoting wannabees. No wonder they endorse Shark Week - they all desperately want to be in it and will certainly never bite the hand that could once propel them to perceived fame and riches!

And the others?

I'm frankly totally baffled.

Not the shameless self promoters. Not the Sea Shepherd drones. Not the media whores. Not the Shark pageant kids. Not the chicks with the moldy duck wings.

Those who really want to make a difference, who invest hours upon hours of their free time trying to educate the public or running campaigns, those who want to get the job done and don't appreciate and are frankly embarrassed by those relentless pathetic shenanigans by the narcissistic leadership and its cronies.

WTF are you still doing there - you are being tainted by association!

You know who you are.!

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!

Hat Tip - Paddle-out in SA!

Check this out.

This is how you do it.

It's about uniting the concerned community around a common conservation goal, i.e. the removal of the Sharks nets. The way I see it, this was about a moment of quiet reflection, about sending a quiet but unequivocal message to the authorities, and about documenting one's concern and respect for the Sharks that are being unnecessarily killed.

Compare that to the breathy, and misleading self promotion of some of those Shark Angels, and you can see why they never cease to irritate me.

Kudos!

DaMary!

DaMary, Lupodiver and the predators!

We've just said goodbye to Mary and Lupo.

We're honored, really.

Mary is of course none other than the same Mary O'Malley who pretty much single-handedly developed the Manta Ray of Hope project (of course, h/t to Shawn and to Paul Hilton!) and doggedly stayed the course  all the way to the epic decision of CITES to list them on Appendix 2 - and this also very much in the face of all that petty bickering by those Mobula fans, or whatever! And btw, now that she has shown everybody how to do it: have those EXPERTS learned the lessons, and will they come up with anything substantive for 2016?

We shall be watching!

Anyway.

Mary is my current Shark Conservationist of the Year and one of the very few people in Shark conservation I respect unreservedly and whose advice I will often seek and mostly heed.

This has really been rather epic.

Mary and Lupo are both accomplished and highly experienced Shark divers and also photographers, the Bull Shark action was off the charts, and we managed to stage some memorable (...!) encounters - not to mention the conversations on and off the boat!

And the bikini?

Yes she wears one!

Because she can, in spades - but under the wetsuit!

In fact, whilst being equally pretty, she is everything those bikini bimbettes are not: smart, determined, result-oriented, diplomatic - but above all, frustratingly humble all the way to outright self-effacing. 

In fact, where everything the bimbos do is geared towards shameless self promotion (yes Julie Andersen, I'm looking at you!), Mary would rather totally fade into the background, and her many accomplishments would go completely unnoticed were it not for the accolades by her friends and admirers - as it should be!

But I'm digressing as always.

This has been a really memorable, productive and highly rewarding week, and good things will come from it. There are great developments within Shark Savers where Mary sits on the board, and our already proven cooperation is about to be expanded to new projects.

Keep watching this space!

Aliwal Shoal - partial Success!

Source.

Read this.

Not quite done but nearly - at least when it comes to Rocky Bay!

Remember?

This time, I didn't find any breathy self-congratulatory posts by the Shark Angels who are incidentally not even being mentioned, let alone thanked. Having witnessed the last unappealing public catfight, I would put it down to the usual SA tribalism as I'm quite certain that Mark Addison & Co have contributed their part to this success.

So, kudos to everybody involved!

Aliwal Shoal - too good to be true?

Undoubtedly the Rosa Parks moment of SA Shark Conservation - or maybe not! Source.

Check out this surprising post!

A Victory for the Remove the Nets Campaign
On November 7th 2012, we claimed a great victory for sharks and a testament to the power of the local grassroots activism Shark Angels inspires.
Thanks in part to the hard work from several shark angels for almost four years, KZN Sharks Board has buckled under the pressure and has recommended the removal of four gill nets in the Aliwal Shoal Marine Protected Area within the next year.
This includes nets at both Scottburgh and Park Rynie and is a monumental step towards the abandonment of shark nets throughout the country – and hopefully at some point, the globe. The announcement, which came at the quarterly meeting of the Aliwal Shoal Forum in KwaZulu Natal, was made quietly and without fanfare - because it signals the weakening of the Sharks Board and constitutes an incredible triumph for those working hard to protect sharks, who have been struggling to achieve the removal of the nets since 2008.

Really?

If so, this would indeed be a great accomplishment by the South African Shark Angels, and huge kudos to everybody involved.

And yet...

Maybe it's just me with my visceral suspicion of anything associated with Julie Andersen for whom I have zero respect. Can't quite put a finger on it - but I got a big nose, and this breathy self congratulatory victory lap before anything has been confirmed by facts on the ground just doesn't smell quite right...

Recommending does not mean deciding or promising, and within the next year (2014?) appears awfully vague, too!

Happy to be proven wrong though - seriously!

As always, we shall see - and being me, I've prophylactically copy/pasted the whole announcement lest there be latter editorial changes like so often! :)

Anybody in SA who can independently verify this?

PS: Patric - OMG!!!
PS2: Lesley Rochat here.
PS3: And here comes the latter editorial change - much as anticipated!
        NOW, the post reads

Progress for the Remove the Nets Campaign
On November 7th 2012, great progress was made in the campaign to remove South Africa’s shark nets, marking a huge step forward for shark conservation and standing as a testament to the power of grassroots activism.
At the quarterly meeting of the Aliwal Shoal Forum in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa, Shark Angel Mark Addison witnessed the KZN Sharks Board recommend the removal of the gill nets at Park Rynie to the local municipality. If this recommendation is acted upon (as every other Sharks Board suggestion has been) it will constitute the first step towards the abandonment of shark nets throughout the province. The Sharks Board also recommended the replacement of the two nets at Scottburgh with drumlines. The Park Rynie and Scottburgh nets are both located within the boundaries of the Aliwal Shoal Marine Protected Area. This recommendation by the Sharks Board signifies a positive shift in their attitude to shark conservation and an incredible triumph for sharks, the Shark Angels, and all who protect sharks and have been struggling to achieve the removal of the nets since 2008. 

An incredible triumph for the Shark Angels huh.
And this original statement (yes I really did copy/paste it!) that boasted that

The Angels creatively organized a display of support of such huge proportions it gained worldwide attention.

On May 6th 2012, members of all water user groups gathered on the beach at Scottburgh to demonstrate their disgust with the Sharks Board, and their support for the sharks. The “paddle out” protest led by the Shark Angels was inspired by Hawaiian surfing tradition to honouring dead surfers. The fact that the local community was so moved by the deaths of the tiger sharks is a huge testament not only to the work of the Shark Angels in the area, but to the compassion and understanding that is possible between humans and sharks thanks to education, media and the encouragement of ambassadors

has been changed to

However, the local community nevertheless perceived it as a massacre of such horrific proportions, one that impacted a community financially and ethically to its core, that it triggered a mass demonstration a week later. 
On May 6th 2012, members of all water user groups gathered on the beach at Scottburgh to demonstrate their disgust with the Sharks Board, and their support for the sharks. The protest, organised by African Diver magazine co-founder Cormac McCreesh, was inspired by Hawaii ‘an surfing tradition for honouring dead surfers, and took the form of a paddle out to the backline and the laying of flowers on the sea’s surface. The fact that the local community was so moved by the deaths of the tigers is a huge testament not only to the work of the Shark Angels in the area, but to the compassion and understanding that is possible between humans and sharks.  

Busted!
And I've again copy/pasted this version lest there be another editorial change!

Enforcement of Shark Sanctuaries!

Check this out.

So much for those assumed SINOs.

Yes it may not appear to be much and is distinctly different from Ms Andersen's wet dreams of playing pirate on the high seas - but especially when flanked by solid prosecution and draconian fines, it does send around the message and trust me, would-be poachers hear it loud & clear!

More information here.

PS and one more successful bust here, with 1,200 to 1,500 Sharks presumed killed.
PS2 breathy post huh! :)

2012 - The Bad and the Ugly: new Nominations!

And on a completely different note - but then again, maybe not so far off topic!

 

2. New Nominations

• Biggest Shark Conservation Fail - Fiji Shark Sanctuary Campaign
  
  What can I say - literally!
  As a foreigner on a visa - only so much!
  Anyway, the Sanctuary is toast and the Authorities have decided to instead manage Shark fishing via a NPoA Sharks. I've seen one of the many drafts and it talks about having it ratified by Parliament, meaning that any such measures will be implemented, if at all, after the elections in 2014.
  Meanwhile, this is continuing unabated.
  
  And the reasons for this debacle?
  One is certainly the campaign itself.
  Instead of quietly concentrating on assisting government in drafting the actual legislation, the campaign managers decided to roll out a premature national awareness campaign. The frothy activism and associated NOISE were increasingly been viewed as an irritant by the the powers that be, and the media announcements finally managed to activate the Shark fishing industry that mounted a vigorous opposition, much along the lines of this shit.
  And when Sea Shepherd announced that they were coming to Fiji to kick ass, it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back - see below!
  
  And what about this.
  There must always be a cohesive medium between the various factions and a complete ban on longline fishing (while it would solve all conservation problems) is just not realistic as it wouldn't address the inherently important issues like food and economic security. We must always remember that we are talking about the livelihoods of many Fijians, many Pacific islanders for that matter Joel Evans therefore we must take all the variables into consideration and try to achieve that essential yet elusive balance.
  
  Sorry Art - love you, but this is just idle clap trap!
  We're talking about 130+ METRIC TONS of Shark fins that get exported annually, principally brought in by the Taiwanese long distance fleets (likely now from Tonga, too) that pay no taxes, create no jobs and sail away with the profits whilst a handful of Asian traders are lining their own pockets - and those are merely the OFFICIAL figures! Essentially, Fiji is acting as a turntable for the produce of IUU and very possibly also finning that is being perpetrated by foreign interests on the high seas, and this much to the DETRIMENT of the SoPac that is being stripped of its marine resources!
  
  And then there's the massive increase in coastal fishing for Sharks that is already effecting the dive sites and impinging on a totally sustainable and non-extractive industry worth approx. FJD 80  millions to the country, and on countless jobs in the tourism industry - and we're not even talking about the ecosystem services that so far remain unquantified!
  
  This is all about making fast profits and got nothing whatsoever to do with Pacific Islander livelihoods, food security and jobs, the more as the Sanctuary decree had an exemption for Canacana fisheries!
  
  And the National Plan of Action Sharks?
  Compared to sanctuaries, traditional management measures are complicated and extremely costly to implement. Does Fiji dispose of the necessary resources and if not, who is going to provide them - and with that in mind, what are the chances of this being a successful undertaking?
  
  Solutions?
  None I am at liberty to discuss in public - but clever minds are working on stuff!
  QUIETLY!

• Shark Conservation Con of the Year - Operation Requiem
  
  I've said it before, like others,  I'm of two minds about Fat Paul.
  He has managed to alert the public to several issues he holds dear - but he's also a total bullshitter and now it turns out, a total coward! And the SSCS - read these posts by Patric who obviously cares much more than I ever could!
  
  And the track record after those 30+ years of NOISE and simply stupendous expenditures?
  ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - the Canadians continue to bash those Seals to death, the Japanese continue to hunt those Whales, the Faroe Islanders continue to hold their grinds, and the guys in the Cove continue to butcher away and don't give a rat's ass about Hollywood, end even less about the krazy new age shepherdettes!
  Those are the FACTS - but who cares, right?
  
  A shame really, because the frothy bullshit and NOISE drown out the few remarkable legitimate initiatives, like the Society's involvement in the Galapagos or e.g. what the fiery and irreducible Gary has achieved by relentlessly chipping away at CITES - and buddy, it sure looks like it's gonna be a win for you and zero for me! :(
  
  And this?
  SPOT ON - re-posted specially for YOU Megalobomb! :)
  
  
  
  Full video here!
  
  But I'm digressing as always.
  What I really wanted to talk about is Julie Andersen's junket where she, boyfriend Wildman and a couple of sea shepherdettes paid themselves a pleasure cruise throughout the Pacific on donor money.
  
  This was the bombastic announcement.
  Chances are that after I post it, they will make it private like the version on Vimeo. WTF - I thought they would be PROUD of it and wish a maximum of people to see it???
  Take special note of the usual SSCS bullshit of putting one's lives on the line and being ready to DIE for one's clients - incidentally, just like Fat Paul!
  
  
  
  Just remarkable ain't it.
  
  The truth?
  This is nothing more than Andersen's narcissistic attempt at finally getting her own television show, specifically some kind of Shark Wars on Animal Planet. Compare the above to this trailer for Seal Wars where Andersen made a cameo appearance and contributed NOTHING as always, and you can discern how this shit was concocted.
  
  And how about this
  On Andersen's and his webpage, Wildman describes his work in 2012 as follows
  Sea Shepherd Conservation Society - "Operation Requiem" - Underwater and Topside Cinematographer, Producer, Director, Editor - Solomon Islands, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Kiribati, Vanuatu, 2012.
  Think this is anything but a commercial venture? And, did they obtain the required shooting permits, and state that this was a shoot for Sea Shepherd?
  With Discovery having halted all projects following the defection of Brooke Runette, we can only hope that nothing will come of it - but who knows, the more since Andersen is certainly crafty in the game of smoke and mirrors!
  
  Anyway.
  Should you be interested in details, do peruse their News from the Field - and LO, you will discover a long succession of inane (and I note, poshumously embellished) posts about... NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE!  
  Our South Pacific shark campaign under the direction of Julie Andersen has just completed an awesomely successful campaign in Fiji, Tonga, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Kiribati - MY ASS!
  Collaborative relationship with Tonga huh - SHOW ME!
  
  But that's the SSCS for you!
  It has long morphed into a cult - and if the disheeples want to continue ignoring the evidence and pay for that fraud, too bad for them! My only grievance: that pseudo-conservation hydra is very good at vacuuming up resources that could do so much GOOD if they were donated to legitimate orgs instead!
  
  But Fiji is of course unforgivable.
  I was frankly astonished to find a pretty accurate description of what happened here - and no I don't know who that blogger is.
  The perpetrators who weaseled in posing as Shark Angels: squeaky SSCS Director of Shark Campaigns Andersen, boyfriend and illegal commercial shooter Wildman and rabid shepherdette Basset who then had the audacity to publicly sport a SSCS shirt in a Fijian village! All aided and abetted by, inter alia, Sarah Fisk, another shepherdette and PHD on a visitor's visa - talk about a total lack of RESPECT for the wishes of her host country!
  You can see them clowning around in Fiji here - whilst pretending to be somehow involved in a conservation success they had NOTHING to do with, ZERO!
  
  So, were those disrespectful fools the principal cause for the Sanctuary's demise?
  NO they were NOT - but having personally been at the Fisheries offices when it all went down, I can attest first-hand that it is THEM, and the idiots helping them, who have tipped it over the edge!
  And this after Andersen and Fisk were told by both Coral and Pew not to come!
  
  I say, WHAT A FUCKING DISGRACE!
  All to satisfy the sick personal ambitions of one person - not to mention the pecuniary agenda! And from what I hear, it may not even be over as they are STILL trying to weasel in!

• Shark Troll of the Year: Sean Van Sommeran
  
  Check out the word's definition here.
  Then compare it to SVS's Hyena wails here - merely one example of literally hundreds of similar ones he finds the time to post each year!
  Like I said during the Junior controversy, I have a grudging admiration for the man as he is passionate and DOES things - but boy-oh-boy, talk about a dude with a paranoiac hatred of what he appears to consider the conspiracy by the authorities and the academic establishment!
  And then, there are his rants against Shark provisioning - as legendary as they are completely misguided!
  And this? Still in no way resolved - or is it?

• Shark Fruitcake of the Year: still and unequivocally Erik Brush!
  
  But this year, we got ourselves an runner-up!
  
  
  
  Behold the self promoting Scott Cassell (52 miles non-stop huh - THAT ALONE would be fodder for another post...) who has single-handedly revolutionized everything we know about the GWS in the Northeast Pacific by claiming that he befriended a female named Spots in the Farallones only to later be reunited with her in Lupe, a migration hundreds of tags have been unsuccessful in documenting!
  Having then discovered images of her de-finned and de-jawed carcass from Baja and wanting to bring Spots' fins home, he then took a junket to Asia on sponsor money where he proceeded to EDUCATE the masses about the risk of an imminent invasion of Humbold Squid - yes, in ASIA!
  And, on his off days, he travels to Tiger Beach, again on sponsor money, to play fetch with Emma! AND, he teaches us that when you eat sharks and tunas, you are responsible for grizzly bears attacking people in Alaska! Ring a bell? It's all about Collier's dreaded DOMINO EFFECT and got certainly nothing to do with this!
  
  Red flags anybody?
  Whatever - right? It's all FOR THE SHARKS ergo totally legit!
  Simply too weird to be true? If you DARE because it's painful (WARNING!), watch THIS !
  Wow!

• Idiotic Shark Conservation Meme of the Year: The Oxygen Myth
  
  No, not THAT ONE!
  After last year's treatment, only a total fruitcake would dare spout those idiocies in public - oh, and of course JESSICA, now freshly re-named!
  Case in point - now it's about Global Warming, too!
  
  
  
  
  No I'm talking about the following!
  
  And I cite.
  Studies show that over 70% of the planet’s oxygen is generated from the ocean. Plankton are at the greatest risk of ocean acidification, and it is the plankton that creates that oxygen - which is being fully seconded by the OCEAN GODDESS herself who teaches us that Our living ocean generates 70% of the oxygen in our atmosphere and sequesters carbon emissions that have risen over the last century.
  
  Or to quote Chris Hartzell the pompous bloviating fireman.
  The debate over whether the ocean or the forests has been strong.In the 80's scientists who studied the ocean and the forests doing field work discovered approximately 60% of oxygen came from diatoms in the ocean (plankton) and 20% from the forests. However, today scientists say it is almost 50/50. However, it should be noted that the scientists in the 80's did actual field work for 100% of their sampling while today's scientists attribute their results to roughly 50% field data and 50% computer modeling. Either way, if diatoms were to take a big hit in the ocean, the global oxygen supply would be catastrophically hit and it is estimated that between 1/3rd to half of the human population would die off.
  Wow! Truly the man is a CORNUCOPIA of erudition - and not only about Sharks!
  
  And guess what: it HAS taken a big hit!!
  Look no further than this paper by Boyce et al  that comes to the conclusion that we have lost 40% of the Phytoplankton since 1950 - which is being fully confirmed by our very own rocket scientist, Tony Marr!
  
  And the consequences?
  Let my try and illustrate this with one of Jessica's sillygisms that goes thusly
  Major premise: 70% of the atmosphere's oxygen is generated by the Phytoplankton in our living ocean
  Minor premise: 40% of that Phytoplankton is toast
  ERGO: we've just lost ourselves 28% of the planet's oxygen!
  
  Bingo - and it's all SCIENCE ergo TRUE!
  We haven't caught on to it quite yet - but we're ACTUALLY all writhing on the ground gasping for air, just like the truly unequaled Chris has announced!
  
  Wow - again!
  But wait a minute: how come when I calibrated my O2 analyzer before yesterday's dive, it did not show 15.12% but 21% as usual? Read this drivel and you will discover that the ocean's oxygen production trope is at best a misconception and at worst, bunk science and disinformation.
  Tu quoque Sylvia?!?
  
  And then, read this - seriously, DO!
  Straight from the frothy Piranha tank, it documents how the Phytoplankton paper was the result of sloppy research coupled with a sloppy peer review process coupled with a sloppy journal that failed its due diligence as it wanted to stand out by publishing a BIG story. It is bad science, published prematurely - in brief, TOTAL BS!
  Tu quoque Boris?!?
  
  Back to the Sillygism!
  Major premise: not so fast!
  Minor Premise: HELL, no!
  ERGO: Phewww!

• Least impressive Shark Conservation Initiative - Listing the NE Pacific Great White Sharks under CESA and ESA
  
  Short story here.
  
  First, to the easy part.
  This matters because, as apex predators, sharks protect other fish populations by keeping seal and sea lion populations in balance. Sharks also play a crucial role in protecting barrier reefs. In short, if we lose our sharks, we lose our ocean's nurseries.
  
  Our Pacific coast needs great whites.
  As some of the oceans' top predators, they keep the food web in balance.
  As much as we may fear them for their bad rap, we need great white sharks to keep our oceans healthy. Just as wolves keep deer populations under control, great white sharks play a critical top-down role in structuring the marine ecosystem by keeping prey populations in check, such as sea lions and elephant seals, benefiting our fisheries and abundant wildlife.
  
  Sharks and barrier reefs huh.
  Apart from attributing to GWS faculties that apply, if at all, to completely different species, these statements suggest that apex predators are automatically keystone species. The FACT is that GWS are clearly NOT - and this especially if the postulated number of 350 were correct!
  Seriously, to suggest that a few hundred Sharks could control the Pinniped populations (estimates here) from the tip of Baja all the way to Alaska and over to Hawaii is just simply LUDICROUS - especially considering that GWS do not prey on Pinnipeds until they are large sub-adults, and even then only during a very short season before moving offshore!
  And the hint that the exploding Pinniped populations may endanger fisheries - may we be painting the specter of predator overpopulation, and this at the expense of species that have barely recuperated from decades of human exploitation?
  
  But that's just the usual stupid hyperbole.
  Same-same for this stupidity (yes there are TWO petitions!) - upon reading that for example, on the eastern seaboard of the United States, a decrease in Great White Sharks resulted in higher populations of mesopredators like the cownose ray and decreased populations of bivalves like scallops (Myers et al. 2007 at 1849) I've simply stopped bothering!
  FYI Myers et al. 2007 at 1849 states that The remaining four elasmobranch-consuming great sharks were caught too rarely to detect trends from this survey. Two of those, great white (Carcharodon carcharias) and sand tiger (Carcharias taurus) sharks, were each caught only once and early in the UNC survey (in 1974 and 1978, respectively).
  Graph here - see any GWS?
  
  The REAL problem here is that the 350 number is just bullshit!
  Yes it may be the best available science but then again, does a deeply flawed population estimate even qualify as such? Expect vigorous rebuttal from the jugular-slicing ninjas shortly - and if so, will that then become the best available science and thus completely invalidate the petition?
  
  And the petition proper?
  Certainly voluminous and erudite - but once again, fraught with obvious shortcomings, the principal other being that there is no evidence whatsoever that the population is declining, let alone that the US West Coast population is at serious risk of extinction!
  In fact, there is evidence that the population may be INCREASING which would also account for the increase of incidental bycatch of juveniles!
  
  “These majestic predators are vital for the health and balance of our ocean ecosystems,” said David McGuire, Director of SharkStewards. “Even the removal of one sexually mature individual from a population this small can have serious impacts on the population as a whole. They need stronger protection immediately.”
  Yeah, right David - whatever!
  
  Leaves the consequences of the listings.
  Probably overly harsh - especially at the federal level where an ESA listing would imply sweeping management measures throughout their immense habitat that would likely unnecessarily impact even the remotest commercial fisheries regardless of their actual GWS bycatch statistics - and thus likely lead to both unnecessary loss of income and unnecessary investment of resources for monitoring and enforcement. That can't be good can it.
  Considering what we know about the philopatry of this specific GWS population, wouldn't it have been much more credible and thus less controversial, and also more efficient (= cheaper) to concentrate on the known hot spots (= essentially, the nurseries) and regulate the specific fisheries that lead to the bycatch - this always assuming that the associated mortality is really impinging on the recovery of the population, something that is very much debatable?
  
  Anyway.
  This being CALIFORNIA, chances are that CESA listing will be granted regardless of the shortcomings - and if so, like the fin ban, it will be nice but certainly not good!
  
  Like I said here
  This is never happening in a vacuum - this is being used to advocate legislation that will deprive fishermen of income and quite possibly, of their livelihoods. With that in mind, we owe it to them, but also, to ourselves not to cheat and to use misleading perceived "marketing", or whatever, but to be truthful and fact based instead.
  
  And we got ourselves a runner-up!
  This is actually really good - so why the misleading Petition?
  The problem for Sharks is OVERFISHING and specifically in the Gulf, the problem is POACHING - not finning which as far as I understand it is illegal in all US state and federal waters anyway! And the tens of millions - we simply do not know whether they are being killed for their fins alone!
  The depletion rates? That would be Baum and Myers 2004 that is however controversial - and since then, there has been Baum and Blanchard 2010 that comes to different conclusions, albeit for a different time frame and a larger area. So what is the best available science, the more as from the first document, I learn that Texas has enacted vigorous management measures that may well have led to improvements?
  Is the hyperbole really necessary and above all, does it add to the credibility of this project?

• Irritant of the Year - Shark Wunderkinder
  
  I must confess, after the disappointment with Madi Pip I may be a wee touchy.
  But then again, check this out.
  
  I am DISGUSTED with our kind! THE OCEAN IS THEIR HOME! Our home is on land! WHEN YOU ENTER THE OCEANS, YOU ARE A GUEST ENTERING THEIR HOME! YOU (WE) ARE THE ONES INVADING THEIR HOME!! OUR HOME IS LAND! THEIRS IS THE OCEAN!!! THEY WERE THERE BEFORE US!! IT'S THEIR RESIDENCE. IF YOU ENTER THE OCEAN, IT'S A RISK YOU ARE TAKING AS THE INVADER!!! Are we seriously going to start a cull to kill sharks so people can safely swim in the waters!?! Are you crazy!?!? That's not going to work. Sharks are going to continue coming around. Sharks are going to end up being killed off. Many species are critically endangered, now including the Great White Sharks....
  
  And-so-on-and-so-forth!
  This particular specimen is Shark Girl Hannah, a Floridian like the whispering BooBoo that is equally somehow associated with Shark Savers. They are but two of a long list of young Shark advocates that come across as being very ENTHUSED! Can't quite put my finger on it - but to me, it's all a bit LOUD and a bit MUCH!
  But then again, maybe it's an age thing - theirs and mine!
  
  As always, we shall see!

And here endeth the ominous list - believe it or not!

All FOR THE SHARKS - what else!

PS: Check out Part One, Part Two and Part Three!